Why is that surprising?
I never got the impression that you did, I always thought she was longing for some other place, some place that did not really exist. I like your reasoning but I can’t see it.
(Besides the perfect NYC melody and chords was and is Rhaspody in Blue)
Jim
I think Mercer’s own comment gives a clue – “it just seemed to fit the need.” He was more or less casually picking and choosing elements to build his song, while at the same time, for commercial purposes – almost as an afterthought – make it fit the movie.
But a song is bigger than a movie. Moon River is for all time, Breakfast At Tiffany’s well-forgotten fluff. Mercer and Mancini, as songwriters – and great songwriters – know their creation will be remembered when nobody remembers the movie. It always stood on its own – a thing of beauty, a work of art, while the movie was embarrassingly bad.
You got that right. Love that song!
Rhapsody in Blue isn’t a song.
Mancini / Mercer wrote for *Breakfast at Tiffany’s * the way Paul Simon wrote songs for The Graduate. Neither *Mrs. Robinson * nor anything else in The Graduate soundtrack have much to do with anything occuring in the movie. But don’t they sound good! And make the movie work. Simon’s songs are the only good thing in The Graduate, for another parallel.
Johnny Mercer, Henry Mancini and Paul Simon are pursuing their art. They don’t let goofy little movies get in the way. The movies as ‘vehicles’ for the songs is a good description. *Moon River * was written with Audrey Hepburn’s vocal range a main concern, but how it fit the movie or her character of only passing concern.
Audrey was aware of this. She is, after all, an artist. Here is a letter she wrote to Henry Mancini at the time. A photograph of the letter is here:U-M Web Hosting
Now it makes more sense to me, good comparison, I was thinking of the song as further the development of the character. Your suggestions makes sense except for the fact that Mrs. Robinson was background music and Moon River was sung by the main character in character.
Okay, so what word should I use, “Instrumental”, “Piece”? I have seen ‘Song’ used the way I used it all the time. I take it this is incorrect?
Jim
Composition, orchestral work, piece of music.
Good point. You’re right.
I would quibble on just one point. The Graduate soundtrack was something more than background music, which isn’t usually so mesmerizing. The movie is laughable now, but when new we thought it monumentally hip, smart and cool. The soundtrack was something new in the world, equally as appealing as anything else in the film, with song after good song, rivaling the movie, almost, in length as well as other ways. It was the same feeling I got on first seeing a music video (very belatedly) and feeling I was seeing a new art form.
It was composed. It has notes following one after another, a melody, and is played on musical instruments. It can be whistled or hummed. You can get it on cassette, CD or LP. It’s a song.
One could describe it as a “song” but only in the most unsophisticated way. Better terms would be “concerto” or, more properly, “rhapsody” – which is a specific musical form. Opinions are divided over whether the Rhapsody is really jazz or classical or something in between, but given the fact that Gershwin was asked to write a concerto-like piece (concerto being a classical term) and that this work was his big entrance into the classical world, I would lean toward calling it a classical work with jazz influence. Moreover, the orchestration was done by Ferde Grofe, who is unmistakably a classical composer. Therefore, it makes sense to describe it by classical terminology, and under those circumstances, “song” would not only be rather vague but downright wrong (“song” being reserved, usually, for shorter works that feature at least one singer – not an extended instrumental piece.)
That makes it “music”, but not a song.
“Tune”?