The demands of a re-recording are dependant upon the score itself. Some film scores flow better in the re-recordings than they do on the original tracks. Joel McNeely's Vertigo is such an example. By staying closer to Herrmann's original noted tempi rather than to what Matheson conducted on the original soundtrack recording, the music makes a much fuller impression.

In this particular case, you can compare the original recording to the new one. Both are on the same label, so to say that one is meant to steal the thunder of the other is silly. Instead, one has a chance to compare the different versions of the music.

Although none of the other McNeely re-recordings of Herrmann music have been as successful, many have been quite good, just the same, such as Psycho.

Silva's re-recordings tend to be a mixed bag, but even they have a few gems. Raise the Titanic is excellent, and I like finally having Walkabout, which sounds pretty authentic to me.

Intrada's re-recordings with Bruce Broughton have all been nothing less than fabulous, as have John Morgan and William Stromberg's work with Marco Polo.

I understand why there is a certain purist aspect to film music collection; unlike other forms of music, film scores are meant from their inception to be a specific recording, and alternatives may not necessarily ring true. Nevertheless...

[list=a]

But how can we define "good"? Isn't it totally subjective?

If your definition of good is same as the original recording then any alteration is going to move it away from "good"

If your definition of good is "enjoyable listen" then it is purely subjective as the enjoyment of the recording could be based on indefinable factors like the kind of playback unit you have, whether you have ever heard the original score or maybe even if you had a bad day at work.

I think that re-records are just going to have to be judged on an individual basis and reviewers should take into account their feelings about re-records before setting fingers to keyboard.

You know, with the enjoyment of music being so subjective it is a small miracle that we soundtrack fans actually agree on any score as being a winner.

For example, most soundtrack fans consider Bernard Herrmann a genius and his works are revered among the soundtrack community. Yet there are those who do not enjoy his work. Not for lack of trying, I suspect, but perhaps at some visceral level it just doesn’t appeal.

This makes it very difficult to agree on any standard against which work should be judged other than personal bias.

In any case, here is the thread if you have the time and desire for a good read:
http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.asp?threadID=11030&forumID=1&pageID=1

Oh, and the short version: I prefer rerecordings over original recordings in most cases (especially for pre-1970 scores).

NP: MIAMI VICE (Hammer)

I still dont like the reverberation on there but I do like the Cid march version.

when I was a teen many years ago I had a great sounding wooden record cabinet with the tubes. The sound was superior on that. Everything sounded so full and rich. It had to do with the wood cabinet and the tubes. All the turntables I have had since, none of them sounded as good.

Many CDs today do not sound as good as that old stereo did.