musikone
-
Posts
294 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by musikone
-
-
On March 11 at 12:30 AM will be the movie Mister Scoutmaster, with a running time of 87 minutes, meaning that it is scheduled to end at 1:57 AM. The next movie, Sitting Pretty, is scheduled to start at 3:15 AM.
Thus there is an *unscheduled gap* on March 11 from 1:57 AM to 3:15 AM. This is a very sizable chunk of "mystery" time. Would anyone care to guess what is going to happen here? Maybe TCM will just shut down for a rest, since nothing is scheduled -- either in Now Playing or at the website!
musikone
-
bundie wrote:That might be him! Do you know about what point this is said in the movie? Amazing I miss it every time!
BLU
I would be BLU- too if I were you. Why don't you just record this thing, once and for all, so that you don't have to be amazed by missing it *every time*? Which is a whole, whole lot of times........
musikone
(just trying to be helpful)
-
lubovics wrote:The music that is played throughout the day in between progrrams.
This is exactly where I heard the Brahms First Piano Concerto that I mentioned in response to your post! Unfortunately, the music played througout the day in-between programs is highly variable in nature. Thus your statement is not sufficiently precise for the identification of just one of many varied types of music.
As I remember from your first post on this issue, you mentioned classical music, which seemed to indicate that the Brahms concerto, which *is* played between movies, was what you were looking for. Now you have narrowed down the search to what we refer to as "pop" music with a Latino beat, not so-called "classical" music. Again, this latest attempt is probably insufficient for its identification.
There are, of course, sophisticated music programs for presenting the "mystery" piece here *in such a form* that it can be identified by one who possesses the knowledge of the musical repertoire of this genre. However, it appears that you neither have access to these programs nor the musical know-how to use them. Chances are that, if you possessed this know-how, you would also probably know the identity of the particular piece of music that you are hearing in-between the movies.
For these reasons, I cannot see any practical solution to identifying the piece of music that you are interested in--unless you somehow or another happen to stumble upon the answer.
musikone
-
lubovics wrote:Would you please tell me the name of the orchestra thaat plays Brahms First Piano Concerto, I love this song and would like to buy it. Thank You
This is a much-loved and consequently much-recorded composition for piano and orchestra. Brahms wrote two piano concertos. I think that you will like them both, and there are many excellent recordings of these concertos, either singly or in combination.
As the simplest procedure for you to use, I suggest that you go to the Amazon website and purchase the 2-CD collection containing both concertos, along with a Brahms Fantasia. The orchestra is the highly regarded Berlin Philharmonic conducted by Eugen Jochum; the pianist is the great (this word is practically owned by TCM's Robert Osborne) Russian pianist Emil Gilels.
Of course, you will find numerous references to many other recordings of these same concertos by doing a Google search (assuming that you know how to do this).
And finally, I have no connection to any sellers of this or any other recording.
musikone
(as the name implies)
Edited by: musikone on Mar 10, 2012 12:32 PM
-
FredCDobbs wrote:Oh... never mind. It was on last night. Glad I didn't see it.
Edited by: FredCDobbs on Mar 9, 2012 8:40 PM
You should have said that you are glad that you didn't *hear* it!
musikone
-
lubovics wrote:Would someone post the title of the song that is played on this program throughout the day.
Thank You
Perhaps you are referring to the rousing orchestral introduction of the Brahms First Piano Concerto in Dm.
musikone
-
The so-called "music" score to this movie is horrendous. The background sound effects cannot in any way be conceived as music; rather, there is a little genuine music with a lot of indescribable (but not accidental) background noise -- clicks, knocks, shrieks, or whatever. When the volume level is correct for dialogue, in the absence of background noise, this noise blasts your eardrums without any warning at a high decibel level! The only relief to this frequent intrusion throughout the movie is to have your finger on the mute button--ready to go at a moment's notice. You will need to mute the noise when there is no apparent dialogue and restore the sound when new dialogue is apparent. This is a tortuous imposition upon the viewer.
Apart from driving one to distraction with odd noises, the acting in this movie is superb. It is an excellent example of late-classic horror/suspense movie-making. In summary, the horror of the movie is matched only by the horror of the intentional background noises.
musikone
Edited by: musikone on Mar 9, 2012 10:16 PM
-
InFlynn wrote:
TCM repeating a film within a week or a month after showing really doesn't bother me. It's nice to be able to record a film that I missed, or redo one that was messed up by an emergency broadcast network test, weather warning, thunder storm or just poor picture quality. I do agree that the times for subsequent showings of the same film should be varied. Also my DVD recorder gets a break when some of the "usual suspects" are shown ad infinitum.
You "forgot" to mention one little (to the majority of those who are engaged here) thing. Missing from your list is a disaster which *COX COMMUNICATIONS,* my (monopoly) cable provider, refers to as "switched digital video". This arrogant cable "service" may, at the very least (under the circumstances described below), add a large one-minute warning message on your TV screen if you remain tuned via your cable box to one channel (such as TCM) for more than six hours.
This message tells the viewer to press a key on the remote in order to ensure that the reception of this channel will continue without interruption! If this message is ignored, the picture may then freeze until the channel is changed. It is difficult to imagine how the viewer can press this button on the remote *while asleep* and the recorder is operating under a preset program. This only occurs to a viewer who is using his/her own DVD recorder. As might be expected, since very few users choose to use their own recorders, this warning and a possible subsequent channel dropout does not occur *if the viewer is renting a (tivo-type) recorder from Cox*. In other words, Cox is not worried about a miniscule reaction from its subscriber base to this unacceptable type of TV service disruption.
The icing on Cox's cake is the fact that, under current FCC rules, cable company regulation is ceded to the Local Franchising Authority (LFA). The LFA in my area of the country chooses to look the other way and (for whatever reason, real or imagined) permit Cox to do what it pleases without interference from any governmental authority. Do you suppose that Cox is being assured of this freedom from governmental interference comes for free?
Those of you who use their own DVD recorders for recording TCM movies and are pondering whether or not to subscribe to Cox Communications' so-called cable TV "service" might have some second thoughts about making such a decision. One thing is certain; Cox is not going to disclose to them what I have described above, either before or after (too late) it is discovered. TCM fans deserve better than Cox's switched digital video nightmare!
musikone
-
JamesinArlington wrote:
I loved SansFin's schedule and all the mini-themes. More Miazaki! The "Mad Doctors" day is probably my favorite, but I do have to ask - how could you not include "The Abomanible Dr. Phibes"?
Now that you have to ask, could it be that "The Abomanible Dr. Phibes" was not included because there is no such movie? :-)
Hint: try using the spell-checker.
musikone
(putting one over on that spell checker)
-
This is a movie intended to glorify the famous showman/entertainer who, incidentally, happened to play the piano. I would certainly not insult musicians by referring to Liberace as one of them! This movie is simultaneously entertaining, comical, nonsensical, bombastic and nauseating -- a truly delightful combination.
I highly recommend it for all of these five solid reasons, notwithstanding the fact that *I* am a musician without any financial interest in music. That is, I have studied music practically all of my life for the love of it and all of the benefits that this love has provided, rather than for money. Note that Liberace in the 1950s was the multi-multi-millionare of today.
There is an excellent and exquisitely detailed article about this person at the website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberace
Take a look back at a much different view of so-called "classical" music in the American culture of that time.
musikone
-
FredCDobbs wrote, in response to musikone's "Throttle Pusher's complaint, which listed three early (from the 1930s) non-descript movies:
Films like this were usually the 2nd feature of a double-feature program.
Many of the top character actors made them.
Lewis Stone made several. I have 4 on one DVD disk and they are great.
I enjoy seeing these old films, even if they aren't big-time award winners.
I *enthusiastically agree* with Fred's comments here; I try never to miss any movies of this type, although my recording method sometimes causes a miss or a corruption, such as led to my complaint. Incidentally, the three movies that I listed were recorded directly onto a single DVD, as is often possible with these older, relatively short movies without exceeding a 4-hour recording time.
musikone
-
musicalnovelty wrote:
willbefree25 wrote:
The films noted were so unwatchable, many probably did not notice your complaint.
What do you mean "unwatchable"?
They all looked fine to me.
Let me clear up the confusion about the meaning of "unwatchable". This word can have two meanings, depending upon whether the context is technical or aesthetic. The context in which I posted my complaint is technical. That is, it relates to the movie's running time being increased by an inappropriate last-minute, unanounced schedule ateration. This will of course never be explained here by the responsible party, who is certainly no stranger to these message boards. In this regard, the movie which was "throttled" out of its scheduled position was perfectly (technically) watchable -- for as long as it could be viewed.
On the other hand, those who don't believe that these movies which I listed in my complaint were aesthetically watchable are obecting to this type of classic movie that contains actors and scenarios etc. which are not to their liking. My post was not addressing these valid concerns. I, on the other hand, understand these movies for what they are and appreciate them on that (aesthetic) basis.
I will leave it up to others to elaborate upon their enjoyment of these movies, which I *always* find interesting and will routinely add to my archive of TCM classic movies, to be watched later, when I have the time. I just want to be able to archive such movies routinely, which becomes difficult when they are casually/flippantly cutoff or interrupted by the type of unwarranted schedule manipulation performed by this particular individual.
musikone
-
Here is the current TCM schedule for March 6, which is also listed this way in the March monthly schedule (EST):
4:15 PM Big Hearted Herbert
5:30 PM Harold Teen
6:45 PM The Merry Wives of Reno
This schedule notwithstanding, an eight minute short with the title of Throttle Pushers (about race cars -- what else?) was *wedged* (apparently at the last minute) between Harold Teen and The Merry Wives of Reno. It did not fit properly, which caused The Merry Wives of Reno to end late. Those of us who believe in schedules that are not arbitrarily corrupted are once again left holding the bag.
No mention anywhere by anybody has been made about this sneaky, unappreciated, and impromptu performance by an unnamed individual. It is not difficult to imagine who this person may be; he believes that schedules are for *others* to follow. The sorry part of this story is that such announced capers are par for the TCM course.
musikone
(the Pusher deserves to be Throttled!)
-
TheCid wrote:TCM has an On Demand feature on Charter Cable featuring Shorts and Trailers. This would be a great place to show Traveltalk. Also, be good if TCM showed more shorts on the On Demand site. Right now, they show one or two for a couple of weeks and then maybe none for a while.
Why not use On Demand to show several Traveltalks?
Even better, why not show Traveltalks in HD? :-) :-) :-)
Since the quality of Traveltalks is currently *unacceptable* (they are made on 16mm film and show every bit of this in the horrible resolution!), perhaps some TCM wizard could wave that magic wand.
Then those few of us who happen to know (and appreciate) the meaning of *unacceptable* quality won't have to continue using it when the subject of Traveltalks again rears its head :-(.
Apart from its *unacceptable* quality, Traveltalk content is generally excellent and informative. This is very unfortunate, but there *IS* a limit, folks.
musikone
-
ValentineXavier wrote:Musikone, you should be seeing on your TV what Filmlover posted. The fact that you aren't, indicates to me that your cable box is set to output to a 4x3 TV, not a 16x9 TV. This adjustment is usually in the service menu, and should have been set up properly by the installer.
I have a 56" Samsung. It has several Zoom modes. As Clore mentioned, "Zoom 1" is used to make a LB SD picture fill the screen. However, that Zoom function is not available when viewing from a HDMI input, or a progressive scan source over the component input. Zoom will only work from the SD inputs, or a 480i source over component.
Thanks for the information. I am having a Cox Cable service technician come here tomorrow to install a newer model of direct-to-disc DVD recorder, which I have kept on hand as a backup when my much-used recorder would go to recorder heaven. I bought this backup recorder about two years ago; the handwriting was on the wall for the disappearance of such recorders from the market as manufacturers vacillate on the timing to plunge ahead with Blu-Ray recorders. In my opinion, Blu-Ray is not yet viable, unless price is no object, for making a large number of recordings.
As I expected, one of my older recorders finally gave up after serving faithfully for archiving a very large number of TCM movies. I am doggedly sticking with this type of recorder, which I prefer for a number of reasons, although admittedly it requires somewhat more attention to detail and determination to use. I will have the technician check the cable box (Cisco/Scientific Atlanta) to see if there is a setting that can improve upon image size adjustment. However, I am not too hopeful, considering the number of variables that come into play here when combining a cable box with a particular television model.
I have a 32" Samsung about three years old. It seems that every new Samsung model has a new set of adjustments; they are still trying to get it right. Unfortunately, it does not appear that my particular model has a satisfactory set of image size adjustments.
musikone
-
kriegerg69 wrote:I give up...get a life and stop wasting so much time worrying about crapola like this, and simply ENJOY a movie instead of this incessant ridiculousness.
You stated that it was *STILL* not clear to you what I meant with my repeated reference to picture size. In any possible logical interpretation of this statement, you were expressing frustration and were seeking a clarification of this point.
Then when I offered to clarify this point for you, you responded to my offer (even though I have already explained this point several times in past posts) with "I give up"!! Remarkable. Now I know that your statement really meant that you are NEVER going to understand what is meant by picture size, and that any attempt to explain it to you will be futile.
Summing up this interesting experience, I have known for a very long time that I missed something very important in my ongoing study of logic and reason. At long last, I have found that missing piece. Thank you.
musikone
(one who knows the meaning of ridiculousness!)
-
kriegerg69 wrote:Filmlover explained the issue very CLEARLY below and the reason for it....so why do you continue with this frustrating trolling over this issue? His explanation and example was very clear, precise, and HOW to solve the "50% smaller" issue with SD viewing.
You're STILL not very clear as to what you mean exactly in your repetitive "50% smaller" argument, anyway.
(1) Filmlover's solution does not work for me. Any "solution" which distorts the image (i.e., the relative proportions of objects) is *unacceptable*. With my TV set and the equipment provided to me by my cable "service" provider (the only one in the area in which I live), there is no way that I can enlarge the small image *proportionately* in order to fill up the TV screen in the smaller dimension.
(2) Are you saying that you do not understand what I mean when I refer to one picture being 50% the size of another picture? Or is there something else about my "50% smaller" argument that you do not understand? Tell me which it is, so that I might find some way to clarify what I mean.
musikone
-
RazorX wrote:Muskione, are you sure that you are looking at TCM HD and not a duplicate of the SD TCM channel? My cable operator has TCM SD on two different channels, I don't know why, and has the HD version on a third channel. There is no way you can be seeing a smaller image on the HD channel, under any circumstances, unless your television isn't set up properly.
An Academy ratio film should look pretty much the same on either channel. There may be a slight difference in picture quality but the dimensions should be identical. Anything in a widescreen format will stretch from side to side on the HD channel, without pillarboxing, as filmlover's screen shots demonstrate.
To answer your question: I am absitively, posolutely sure :-).
I use Cox cable, which has two separate TCM movie channels, identified as SD (channel 58) and HD (channel 1058). I have been through this matter in great detail with Cox, which assures me, with finality, that "this is the way that it is". Furthermore, Cox has verified that, using my present cable box, which is a Scientific Atlanta (Cisco) model 4240HD, the remote control's button marked HD zoom does not work and cannot enlarge the small-size picture I am getting on the HD Cox channel 1058 to fill the screen in the vertical dimension. This being said, it is possible that a newer cable box, recently released as a replacement for the very old 4240HD, may be designed to work properly with the HD zoom on the current Cox remote. This would solve my shrunken-picture dilemma.
Your channel setup for SD and HD, with two channels for SD and a third channel for HD, does not match my two-channel setup. At least, +I+ do not have to wonder why there are three channels, when only two should be necessary :-(. But then, with the correct number of channels, I get the 50% picture size on the HD channel. You have the three-channel advantage (or is this a disadvantage?) of getting the same picture size in SD and HD.
What a dilemma! What should I do? Ask Cox for three channels, with one being useless as in your setup, or settle for Cox's current two channels, but with the HD channel giving me a 50% picture size? Or perhaps I should simply accept the utter insanity of this whole business, which describes Cox perfectly. This is a cable "service" that never seems to get *anything* right.
But then again, perhaps I am just imagining all of these things -- just as in one of those famous TCM horror movies.
musikone
(not a Muskione, by the way, although some people think so :-)
-
Thank you for your for taking the time and trouble to post another message about an issue which continues to cause endless confusion here, and for very good reason :-).
After a brief review following your example, I have concluded that there are far too many variables involved here to reach any generalized conclusion. These variables include TCM's manipulations, the type of television set, the cable service provider, the aspect ratio, etc., etc. Putting it simply: what satisfies one viewer will probably not satisfy another viewer.
The result which you have displayed in your post is *not* what I am getting with my TV setup. For example, with the letterbox movie that I just checked, I get the *same image size* in both the SD and HD channels. However, with a movie that has a 4:3 aspect ratio and that nicely fills the screen (vertically) in SD, the image size that I get in HD is only 50% of the image size that I get in HD, as I have said many times. That is, the ratio of image sizes in SD vs. HD depends upon the particular aspect ratio, which greatly complicates matters.
Regarding TV set image modification, my Samsung TV has various types of image size modifications via the remote; all of these distort the image to some extent if it is not properly set. Unfortunately I do not have a pure zoom image modifier; i.e., which will shrink or enlarge the image *without distorting it.* My cable service remote also has an "HD zoom" button but it does not work; I am told by Cox cable that the cable box whhich I am using does not support this function, etc., etc. The bottom line for me is: I will not accept any image distortion, just for the sake of filling up the screen in either dimension.
At the moment, I am not prepared to sort all of these things out. It seems as though each case is different and I suppose that I could devote a lifetime trying to sort out all of these factors. But I have other things to do, the most important at the moment being my ongoing archiving of some great TCM movies, in such a manner that I can devote a few minutes to some other things also :-).
musikone
-
kriegerg69 wrote:Let's not get started on this tiresome old argument all over again when people can go back to the existing thread over that nonsense.
As I read it, your complaint with my "tiresome old argument" is that you are unable to see any rationale for "sacrificing" a very small number of true HD movies (poor things!) by viewing them in SD --heaven forbid!
Perhaps in a few years, when there are enough HD movies hanging around to make my current argument tiresome, then your tiresome argument will no longer be necessary.
musikone
-
filmlover wrote:TCM does have an HD channel. You should contact your local cable or satellite provider. While it is upgraded content, rather than actual HD, you do get to see widescreen movies in a widescreen format, not 4:3.
I *DO* get to see widescreen movies in a widescreen format when tuned to TCM's SD channel. Hence, despite recent posts to the contrary notwithstanding, TCM is not routinely converting wide screen formats to 4:3 for showing in their SD channel. Thus, as far as I am concerned, there is no reason not to view all movies in SD, thus giving up viewing a very few genuine-HD movies in the so-called HD channel.
Now that your post has once again put me up on my soapbox:
For a given aspect ratio, the picture area in the HD channel is only 50% of the picture area in the SD channel. So why would anyone in his/her right mind want to view an *identical* picture in this much smaller size? Don't tell me that it is because the picture is sharper in this smaller size :-).
musikone
-
What is the point of having a monthly schedule with multiple errors, such as have been occurring in the last few days of February?
A typical example of this sort of thing is the movie Grand Prix. The monthly schedule which I printed at the beginning of February shows this movie starting at 10:15 AM Pacific Time. The latest "full schedule" at the TCM website shows a starting time of 10:30 AM. I received no email notification that this change was being made.
The time is long overdue to stop being flippant about putting out scheduling information in advance, making a later change without notice, and then advising anyone who objects to this practice to visit the website to see if any of the previously monthly-scheduled times have been changed!
This is an impractical solution for sloppiness and/or laziness and/or ignorance and/or don't-care. I am on the TCM mailing list, precisely for the purpose of such schedule change notification, among other things. Why is it that these out-of-sight people who don't seem to know if things are being done, why things are being done, and how to do them continue to be tolerated here? Ad infinitum.
Is it because they know the "right" people? If so, this is the only right thing that they seem to know. Or is it that they are being paid what they are worth?
musikone
-
+I+ don't wonder.
musikone
-
cinemanut wrote:Bravo Cigarjoe, quite a list! My only real complaint about the annual 31 days of Oscar is that unless one is a novice to classic film, we've seen these same films at least once and likely more that once in our life and are looking for something fresh to whet our classic appetites.
No one on either side of the Financial Fence can argue with this. It has also been pointed out in this forum -- regularly and regularly and regularly and........
Unfortunately, however, those of us who are not directly involved in recruiting novices to expand the base of those who enjoy "classic" movies have little to say about which particular movies are freely shown to the masses (i.e., on television).
Hence those of our persuasion are *cursed* with 31 days of Oscar. Fortunately for us, even the novices would not stay interested for very long if 31 days of Oscar were to become 365 days of Oscar. Where is the line to be drawn between 31 and 365 days? I suppose that we will just have to wait and see :-(.
Where to draw this line is all that separates us from "them"!
musikone
Song Title
in General Discussions
Posted
lubovics wrote:As Icomputer,I am new to the computer, would you advise me on how I can geet access to these music programs. I greatly appreeciat yourr help. Thank you
This is not something that can be learned quickly! There is a whole lot of knowledge involved here, assuming that you want something other than to look up a music album at a company like Amazon, for example, and just buy it.
But if you want something more adventuresome, such as getting cheap or even free music that you get either by "streaming" or "downloading" from the internet, this is an entirely different type of activity, which involves a lot more than simply buying a CD off the shelf.
I see now that you have found that particular music that you have been looking for between regular-length movies on the TCM web site. I believe, as does Kyle, that this is specially composed music for TCM that is not available in commercial form.
I will listen for it and see if I have anything similar, with a name that I know, now that I know at least one "style" of music that you like. Although I have a huge collection of guitar music (solo or with orchestra or with vocal accompaniment) from which to recommend something to you, you may not be interested in the style of music.
If you thinkg that you might like classical guitar music with a Brazilian flavor, I would suggest that you search out the composer Heitor Villa-Lobos, who has written some outstanding music for this instrument, with or without vocals, both classical and semi-popular.
On a more popular side, look up (try a Google search on the computer) the music of the Brazilian composer *Antonio Carlos Jobim*, whose music (short pieces) you will probably love, as do I.
musikone