Eduard Artemiev - Listen to Bach (The Earth) Rocord: Solaris, 1972 Eduard Artemiev Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_... Solaris IMDB: www.imdb.com/title/tt0069293/ MetafoR Facebook: / metafor-1445768205664908
This is such a subjective statement, but I have to agree. It is not just the melody/harmony (not to mention hypnotically beautiful rhythm) of piece itself which makes me agree, more-so how it is incorporated into the narrative, how it captures the somber melancholy of memory and days past. It must be said that Artemiev's additions to Bach's original piece absolutely elevates it in my mind. It feels odd to say that Bach can be improved upon in any way, but I feel this arrangement by Artemiev absolutely supersedes the original. The rining bells, the building strings in the back, they compliment the underlying choral notes so so so well, and truly capture a free-floating, fantastical science-fiction tone which I would want to feel in a sci-fi movie.
Agree. It plumbs the depths and scales the heights and suspends time. Eternity in an art form whose chief characteristic is duration. Paradox. Great art can do the impossible.
No matter how much we try ,our dream just tells us our own perception of them. But in reality they may be completely different. In dream we just want them to be just as ideal. Don't let this inner perception of them consume you. It will only break you . This film really changed my perception of love.
Eduard Artemiev and Andréi Tarkovski, a rich combination of wit and poetry, music and spirit. Tarvovksi had a unique talent in sculpting time and feelings in each of his fims. Simply a precious piece.
MetafoR I personally believe it is more than a film, it is a way of life, a religion. I imagine traveling East of Irkutsk on the Trans Siberian or the BAM and entering into an agrarian society in which I like Kris Kelvin burn the remnants of the past. #Соларис
Die Harmonie der Musik und der Bühne war wirklich großartig. Es ist wirklich erstaunlich, dass er Menschen dieses Gefühl vermitteln kann. Tarkovski ist ein außergewöhnlicher Filmemacher.
Спасибо большое, кажется никто не сказал, что это музыка Э. Артемьева на основе музыки Баха. Он её дополнил в верхнем и нижнем регистре ... и получилось потрясающе. И в Сталкере тоже.
@@vitalygubin1148 уважаемый Виталий, исправьте пожалуйста, я с трудом понял ваш текст. редактор... основа, да Бах. Но это и другая музыка -- другое впечатление. Не настаиваю.
@@cankalayc Hocam müziğin Bach ın olduğunu biliyorum. Bu parçayı kullanarak felsefik bakmışlar demek istedim zaten. Müziği filmi yapanlar yapmış demedim. Bu müziği filmde güzel kullanmışlar.
Haven't seen the movie, this just popped up in my recommended. I have seen STALKER and do intend to watch this soon, but man, what a somber piece. Masterful.
I watched Solaris for the first time yesterday and I can’t get this song out of my mind. The song causes me to stop and reflect on everything that is truly important and forget the meaningless distractions brought on everyday. The use of the synthesizer is especially impactful as a lot of the 70s and 80s television I watched as a kid sounded eerily similar to this. Brilliant
В КАКОЙ БЫ ИНТЕРПРИТАЦИИ НЕ ЗВУЧАЛА БЫ МУЗЫКА БАХА ВСЕ РАВНО ЭТО ВЕЧНОСТЬ ВОЗВЫШЕННОСТЬ И ВЕЛИКОЛЕПИЕ. Я СЛУШАЛА ЭТУ ПРЕЛЮДИЮ В ИСПОЛЕНИИ ОРГАНА ФА-НО И ГИТАРЫ И ПРОСТО А КАПЕЛЬНО И ВСЕ РАВНО МЕЛОДИЯ ВОСХИЩАЕТ . БАХ БУДЕТ ТАК ЖЕ СИЛЕН И В 35 ИЛИ 89 ВЕКАХ ЕСЛИ КОНЕЧНО ЧЕЛОВЕЧЕСТВО ДОЖИВЕТ ДО ЭТИХ ВЕКОВ.
Is the scene of Gibarian about to drink milk on film so important to the movie that it becomes the soundtrack cover art? The title when listed this way with the letter A raised above the rest of the letters, becomes the Latin sentence Sol-A-Ris, 'The sun is laughing'
ich habe den Film das erste mal mit 12 gesehen.....heute bin ich 57 Jahre alt und die Faszination ist ungebrochen. Ich habe eben das erste mal die russische Fassung geschaut....den Text kannte ich ja....smile... Nebenbei...die Clooney Adaption ist nicht schlecht....
Erstaunlich, ich bin heute auch 57 Jahre alt und habe den Film zum ersten Mal gesehen, als ich noch ein junger Mann war. Bis heute liebe ich diesen Film, ein Meisterwerk. Grüße aus Brasilien.
@@EatmeReadme I can't even define what feelings come out of me when I hear that. It's meditative ... but somehow ... hmm ... sorry, I'm not able to put it into words.
It's Bach's Choral Prelude No.5, "Ich ruf zu dir Herr Jesu Christ", BWV 639 (transcribed by Feruccio Busoni). This version by Edvard Artemiev for Tarkovsky's Solyaris is just sublime.
@@GrindrProzac This is not Busoni's transcription or Artemiev's version, it's Bach's original organ score until 2:41. It's played by Gari Grodberg IIRC. Busoni's transcription is for the piano.
@@GrindrProzac Ferruccio Busoni transcribed the Bach"s organworks for piano. This choralprelude BWV639 is extracted from orgelbuchlein. It is a prelude composed on lutheran chorale from Joseph Klug 1533 singer melody. I suggest to looking for the organ related work and not the "arranged" version for a correct judgment of these Bach's masterpieces. Only for recognize the Bach genius.
To be more precise: Most of it, actually the whole "fundament" equals the organ part, is Bach's work. Artemiev added some sound effects and a beautiful additional voice that (at least to me) intensifies the already haunting character of the piece. The additional voice can clearly be heard starting from 3:15 (some kind of chimes as it seems to me).
@@DaniloInderWildi In other words, Bach took a coral's theme and made a variation on it in his prelude. Artemiev took Bach's work and made a variation on Bach's prelude.
Beautiful images and soundscape. Beautiful concept (at first), that there are radically different and powerful forms of life, perhaps intelligent, waiting for us out in the cosmos. However, Soviet Communism (to say nothing of Lem's Polish culture) was not a disciplined progressive party, and had many inherited ideological problems, cultural artefacts from Narodism and Orthodoxy/feudalism, that predisposed the intelligentsia and proletariat to re-feudalization and nihilist stagnancy, and no filmmaker on Earth was more of a paradigm of this utopian luddite mindset than Andrei Tarkovsky. His least nihilistic film was Andrei Rublev, yet even then he primarily sought to induce the audience to tears at the end by showing even a great artistic achievement to be curtailed by transience and mortality without much universal purpose. We get a striving in the mud, and much doubt. In Solaris, however, we have the fullest expression of reactionary peasant nature-worship and its backward impulse to agrarian re-feudalization and religious thinking: that nature is impenetrable and knowledge is vain, that all scientific endeavors are a lost cause, that humanity is 'a problem' and never the solution. In other words, Solaris is about defeat and looking inward for outward answers. Well, the future should be about success, and there is nothing inward besides ancient childish nightmares and excuses for laziness and cowardice. What matters are all the outward positive things we work hard to construct for each other -- progress. Solaris is the quintessential anti-Americanist film. It's the distilled opposite of the pioneer spirit and colonialism, of westerns and Star Trek, of the cosmopolitan entrepreneurial and mercantile organizations that have uplifted our species out of ignorance and stagnation in such a short period of time, for the first time -- i.e. western modernity. Solaris isn't science fiction about a future worth making, because as the peasant believes religiously, there are only endless cycles without direction for us, and anything else is in God's hands. Let the princes rule! Don't revolt! Don't build, don't change! It is the ideology of self-imposed stagnation and submission to oppression. It is the desiccated culture of the Old World summarized in 2 hours and 47 minutes. It's about a suicidal sour grapes attitude instead of optimism. The peasantry is not a progressive class, and it knows it, so it stubbornly resents and will always react against technological efforts to improve life. Yeah, Solaris is quite the tour de force of depressive, defective, ideology. The only redeeming moment is when Kelvin chooses not to return to Earth, but to step into the unknown, but Tarkovsky even takes that away from the audience by showing a sad man marooned on a world with aliens that cannot fully empathize or communicate with him, accidentally torturing him with his fear of mortality by showing him his elderly father. What pain, yet not at all cathartic. Quite the opposite; it's like turning up a pressure cooker of negative emotions. I'm not sure if Solaris was banned in the Soviet Union, but the free market 'banned' it in America automatically, so hostile is its spirit to everything Americans rightly regard as good and healthy. What a hideous, retrogressive masterpiece of psychological sadism. I love it. But not as much as Andrei Rublev.
We have taken different things from the same book, after reading those same pages, yet it's the fact you gave so much to think on, I really do have to thank you.
I do not remotely understand the sentiments you're expressing in relation to Tarkovsky's Solaris (I haven't read Lem's novel so I can't comment on that). I understand the historical line you trace to justify your reading of Solaris' themes, but the conclusions you draw from the material presented in the film are overblown. Admittedly, in both Solaris, Stalker, and other films, Tarkovsky expressed a markedly anti-futurist sentiment. He is hopelessly humanist, Romantic, caught in the beauty of nature and simple times, childhood, dogs, etc. We all know this. He was a philosopher, his dad was a poet. Keep in mind the reaction of a film like this to the hyper-progressive sentiment which would have pervaded his upbringing. Think of the vestiges of the Russian Futurists, the space race, the premature push for technological and societal development in Soviet Russia. Gone are the days of Dovzhenko's Urga and other peasant idealizing Soviet films. I don't think Solaris is nearly so dogmatic as to reflect an inherently anti-progress or anti-exploration ideology. In fact, the film belies the necessity of ideology in the face of utterly unavoidable human desires for comfort, safety, meaning-finding, connection. Tarkovsky doesn't present these "grounding" aspects of the human condition as ideals to strive towards, but unfortunate conditions of the existence of empathic creatures. Tarkovsky's depiction of the finitude of scientific endeavors feels, to me at least, not so much a movement in any other explicit ideological direction, but a step back from the senseless onward push of humanity, the moore's law of society. His concerns are much more about uncovering hyper-specific emotional scenarios and unearthing character histories than they are about deconstructing ideologies of progress. Even if you take it that these are unconscious elements in Solaris, I don't quite see it. Solaris' set decoration is hopelessly aestheticized, streamlined and styled in such a popular 2001-adjacent, soviet architecture. Even though the station is in disrepair, Tarkovsky never holds back a feast for the eyes, he never strays from the inherent spectacle of space exploration. In my eyes, all of Solaris' push to demonstrate the inability to understand other beings, the necessity of connection, the beauty of the earth and nature, is not so much an anti-exploration sentiment but an acknowledgement and acceptance of the irrevocable characteristics of being human which tie us to where we come from and determine how we move forward. Traits, habits, quirks, desires we can never shed, no matter how far we peer over the horizon. Does this mean that space exploration is, itself, futile? It doesn't seem so from Tarkovsky's view, considering the situation on Solaris progresses toward a definite new understanding between the human characters and the Solaris animas. Your comment is very well-written I will say. If I am missing something please do tell.
@@milestiller665 Well, thanks for the reply, Miles. You said you didn't understand my sentiments, but then you went on to explain them better than I did in my opinion. It's only a matter of degree that I regard Tarkovsky's traditional rural attitudes in poetic form to be essentially proselytized by the Solaris film, which I do consider to be socially harmful and retrogressive from a historical point of view. In short, I don't believe it is possible to move or change or develop and adopt new technologies too quickly, so numerous are the natural causes of severe human suffering that presently obtain, and I attribute all delay as a direct result of class impositions. There is a concerted effort among the poets who glorify the peasantry (without working as peasants themselves) to model a supposed need for God (self-image, or natural order) as a social method for reducing the value of innovation, even to instill psychological guilt in the innovator or supporter thereof. This technique preserves the technological limitations that necessitate the continuation of a concentration of capital to maintain some kind of class dominance -- i.e. ability inequality. This attitude manifests as nature worship, or scientific-technological denigration, in art. Static knowledge instead of revolutionary praxis. From a science fiction point of view, I felt Tarkovsky wanted me -- the audience -- to feel sadness about progress, that it is vain, that failing to find our reflections (that mirror) out in the cosmos, we ought to believe we ought never to have left the traditional safety of our serf comforts on the imperial estates of our terrestrial lords. In my view, humans aren't looking for a mirror at all. We are making them. Our function is to build happiness, not stumble upon its premade causes. We're not looking for God. Healthy-minded people, in fact, build paradise everywhere possible out of chaotic circumstances. Human beings are reshapers of nature, and success in that respect alone is what makes us happy. Those who don't understand these preconditions of thriving must explain it to themselves superstitiously. They always want to passively go back to paradise, never forward to paradise, which would require great effort. An Americanized capitalist version of Solaris would've been about exactly as you described -- Kelvin optimistically makes contact with the planetary intelligence and begins a processes of productive understanding. It would, therefore, presuppose that if a truly alien entity is not quite a mirror at first, we could still transform it into one, and make it of use to our species without qualms. In other words, how can we make use of the Solaris entity's ability to manifest replicants and entire worlds out of particles and memories? How can we make use of their telepathic method of understanding our minds? For the futurist, what we can learn and invent based on any novel experience makes us curious and happy in a context of rational serenity; for the Tarkovsky-type of humanist, novelty is but an opportunity to reflect upon the myriad ways we have diverged from God's traditional ways, which is scary and torturous and should make us feel nostalgic and ashamed, because what is traditional and natural is the only correct way to live, etc, etc.
Америка давно пережила свой яд! Крестьяне, регрессивны? А разве не крестьяне в СССР первыми полетели в космос, совершили прорыв в будущее, посредством совершения революции? США - это культ торгашества, культ докрестьянского отношения с природой, культ зверя-хищника, культ зародыша человека, крестьянин-первая ступень превращения из зверя, в человека... Как Солярис-зародыш Бога, так американский, регрессивный культ,культ предтечи человека, крестьянина...
I had no idea there was a movie called Solaris. I just found out a couple of weeks ago. Now I know why I got the name Solaris, I am walking in the footsteps of Jesus 😇🙏 2618 thumbs up is Phi² and 135comments is the mirror value to 531, that is an acronym for Jesus fish 153, sum the values you get 135+531=666. JESUS - 45 666
Какая-то душа (возможно) у Вас есть. А вот *разума* нет точно. Когда J.-S.Bach (здесь играет: BWV639 / «Ich ruf’ zu dir, Herr Jesu Christ») стал русским композитором??
