I was wondering, the sound that you hear in all propaganda films (doesn't matter if it is from German, British, American films), you can hear all kinds of recorded sound, for example the weapons, rolling tanks, some talking soldiers, planes, explosions etc.
-Was some of this recorded live?
-Although it was probably edited later on, was the sound real? For example, if you see and hear a Tiger tank firing, was that the real sound?
The sound used in propaganda films
-
PatrickBateman
- Member
- Posts: 204
- Joined: 27 Nov 2014, 12:53
- Location: The Netherlands
-
GoeringsPetLion
- Member
- Posts: 83
- Joined: 01 Nov 2016, 00:51
- Location: Hohenlohe, Germany
Re: The sound used in propaganda films
Yes, this was surely recorded live. 
But, as far as I know, the cameras were not able to record sound. So, the sound was recorded with a seperate sound recorder.
But, as far as I know, the cameras were not able to record sound. So, the sound was recorded with a seperate sound recorder.
Re: The sound used in propaganda films
I would have thought it becomes clear after fairly limited study that most WWII soundtrack is added later:
1. The quality is too good.
2. Its always the same kind of noise.
For a start, there would be a huge variation in volume level in a real-life situation, eg. between explosions 100 yards away and 1,000.
Also, you would expect all kinds of non-cliched noises and general racket.
Further, the tech was still very cumbersome back in those days.
I don't have defintive sources to back this up, but this one seems to point the way:
"My aim in this article is to extend the kind of attention already directed to documentary sound conventions, particularly in the postwar period, to this material.[4] I argue that fiction films about the ‘Great War’ ultimately determined the sound aesthetics of World War II newsreels. Raw combat noise did not burst upon WWII newsreel audiences: combinations of voice-over, musical score, and combat noise had evolved through landmark aviation films such as Wings (William Wellman, 1927), Hell’s Angels (Howard Hughes, 1930), and Dawn Patrol (Howard Hawks/Edmund Goulding, 1930/1938). Ultimately, this article questions the use of highly conventionalised sound effects to make graphic images more intelligible and vivid, reinforcing their claim to realism at the expense of ‘authentic’ reality.
http://www.necsus-ejms.org/din-gunfire- ... newsreels/
1. The quality is too good.
2. Its always the same kind of noise.
For a start, there would be a huge variation in volume level in a real-life situation, eg. between explosions 100 yards away and 1,000.
Also, you would expect all kinds of non-cliched noises and general racket.
Further, the tech was still very cumbersome back in those days.
I don't have defintive sources to back this up, but this one seems to point the way:
"My aim in this article is to extend the kind of attention already directed to documentary sound conventions, particularly in the postwar period, to this material.[4] I argue that fiction films about the ‘Great War’ ultimately determined the sound aesthetics of World War II newsreels. Raw combat noise did not burst upon WWII newsreel audiences: combinations of voice-over, musical score, and combat noise had evolved through landmark aviation films such as Wings (William Wellman, 1927), Hell’s Angels (Howard Hughes, 1930), and Dawn Patrol (Howard Hawks/Edmund Goulding, 1930/1938). Ultimately, this article questions the use of highly conventionalised sound effects to make graphic images more intelligible and vivid, reinforcing their claim to realism at the expense of ‘authentic’ reality.
http://www.necsus-ejms.org/din-gunfire- ... newsreels/
Re: The sound used in propaganda films
Further down the article he adds:
"Two problems arise here. First, unlike the images, these sounds are rarely authenticated as field recordings of the object pictured (which, of course, they most often were not). Only in segments shot on training grounds and home bases, such as the 1941 ‘A.T.S. Girls With the Guns’ <http://www.britishpathe.com/video/ats-g ... y/wildcard>, does the presence of dialogue (and therefore of a synchronised sound track) speak to the legitimacy of stray noises picked up in the background. Occasionally, in segments like ‘The Flying Bomb, 1944’, the voice-over and music may also die down briefly in order to familiarise spectators with a new weapon or piece of technology. In such cases the experience is usually framed as an instructional one, which assumes that all facts presented are ‘real’: ‘many people not in the South of England have yet to see and hear one of these missiles’, the narrator explains as the newsreel offers them that ‘opportunity’.
The reason for this disparity in claims to authenticity made by sound and image is, of course, primarily technical: heavy and unwieldy sound recording equipment made it virtually impossible to record sound on the front lines."
"Two problems arise here. First, unlike the images, these sounds are rarely authenticated as field recordings of the object pictured (which, of course, they most often were not). Only in segments shot on training grounds and home bases, such as the 1941 ‘A.T.S. Girls With the Guns’ <http://www.britishpathe.com/video/ats-g ... y/wildcard>, does the presence of dialogue (and therefore of a synchronised sound track) speak to the legitimacy of stray noises picked up in the background. Occasionally, in segments like ‘The Flying Bomb, 1944’, the voice-over and music may also die down briefly in order to familiarise spectators with a new weapon or piece of technology. In such cases the experience is usually framed as an instructional one, which assumes that all facts presented are ‘real’: ‘many people not in the South of England have yet to see and hear one of these missiles’, the narrator explains as the newsreel offers them that ‘opportunity’.
The reason for this disparity in claims to authenticity made by sound and image is, of course, primarily technical: heavy and unwieldy sound recording equipment made it virtually impossible to record sound on the front lines."