But if I say "Dash", what comes to mind? I think of a well-known laundry detergent, but I warn you that if we're going to do product placement, it needs to be declared on YouTube otherwise... Is it today's sponsor? No, no, no, better, better, better. Better than the sponsor?... Nothing in the world is better than the sponsor!

No, it's true but in this show we don't clean, we talk about... We talk about Mission Impossible and you might say... What does detergent have to do with it? Because in English "dash" is a little magic word that means "line". Let's get to the point!... Beyond the dash, we have another word which is "dot", meaning point.

Dash and dot, then.... You're getting closer to the secret of... Okay, it's Morse code that first comes to mind. It's Morse code, but what does it have to do with Mission Impossible? Nothing, I guess. Let's see Morse code.

So, M has two dashes. And I - just by chance - has two dots. I'm starting to have a suspicion. Let's check on the sequencer how two dashes and two dots sound. Interesting. So, let's open our synth, build our...

G note. G note. And these are two dashes, right? Yes. And this, in Morse, we saw, is M. Now let's make two dots.

And this in Morse is I. And now we duplicate possibly infinitely. Sure. Then we hit Play. You know this rhythmic pattern reminds me of something? Does it remind you of something?

What does it remind me of? Today we're talking about Mission Impossible, so... Mission Impossible, the theme song. It's the main theme, composed by Lalo Schifrin, in 1966. for a TV series. That later became an international franchise with Tom Cruise.

Going on for years, we're almost at 60 years. Yes, really. But 60 years of success. And copyright. Lots of copyright. But let's not be petty.

No, no, no. We are in love with art. So we tell you that in 1966, Lalo Schifrin was asked to compose, just over thirty years old, But wait, he was already coming from a significant musical background. Not sure if you know, but his first piano teacher was Enrique Barenboim, father of Daniel Barenboim. And it reminds me of that image I always have in my heart of little Beethoven going to Mozart's house to be heard, right? And Mozart says...

"Well, the boy seems to have talent." And so Schifrin actually shows talent. And you know what else Barenboim's father was very strict. He was really a teacher extremely strict and extremely rigid. Add that Schifrin's father was a musician at the Colon in Buenos Aires even stricter... So this poor child grew up really badly. But for us, he grew up very well, because he gave us epoch-making and memorable things, he made film music history.

In this case Mission Impossible, we've been hearing it for 60 years everywhere. But unfortunately, the father was not happy. Schifrin's father was not happy at all! Because the moment Schifrin, after graduation, went to Paris for a year, to further his classical piano skills. In Paris he started to frequent jazz clubs. Bad people, bad places.

Not sex, drugs and rock'n'roll, but sex, drugs and jazz. He probably said: "You know what? I almost want to be a jazz musician. Dad, I want to be a jazz musician." And the dad took it very well. He took it very badly. But we must also thank the father, because the father told him: "Now go and fend for yourself." Exactly, exactly.

And Schifrin obeyed. He cut off his allowance and he did something. After many struggles, Dizzy Gillespie called him to America, He must have thought it was a prank call, come play! And he didn't believe it, but then it was true, he took off and went... to the United States. In the United States, he then entered the world of soundtracks and landed, indeed, on the production of Mission Impossible.

Here's another great story: Schifrin was Chet Baker's pianist, before Gillespie, in fact, Gillespie came to know this young man, a very good pianist, because he had been Chet Baker's pianist, since Chet Baker had gone on a tour in Argentina. And coincidentally his pianist had died of an overdose, two days earlier. So they were looking for a pianist and asked the locals: "Do you have someone here who can play the piano well?" So that's how he started... Things also happen this way, being in the right place, at the right time, but you have to be ready to catch the train. But we are more interested in what he did with film music. And coming back to that masterpiece of a theme which is Mission Impossible, which, by the way, he wrote, not immediately, because first he did the pilot episode, so to speak, laid down the themes, then the producer Geller, said, "Look, there's a theme to be made, but you have to do it abstractly, without the images." Why?

Because we don't like them and we're redoing them. Put it down. So he - straight away - created something very rhythmic. With a structural problem that we'll see now when we look at the theme. The first time I saw the theme, I was looking for particular syncs, Instead no, because every time it was... different.

And now we also see the structure. Why Morse code? Schifrin does not specifically tell us that he used Morse code on that work. But he admits later on another score which is Airport 79. He comes out, exactly. So we can easily guess that...

After all, the coincidences would be too many. And so let's see it right away. So, here we have to say a couple of things already. We have to say, first of all, the unusual tempo. Time signature of 5/4 which is unusual in itself. Because if I'm not mistaken there was...

Can this be danced to, if you want? It can't be danced, because we don't have five legs. Schifrin said, jokingly, that to write music in two or in four you have to have two legs to dance. And here I write music in five, because I come from space. Here... he was asked to create primarily a catchy theme.

And on that I would say that... it went well. Then that it was rhythmic, and thus that it had a recognizable, strong rhythm. And from here the particularity of making the 5/4, which also calls to mind the bongos, which we just heard and then we'll hear again, the world of Latin Jazz. Of which he, by the way, was a great proponent. And it was also a sound system that was in vogue at that time and which we've heard also for years afterwards in Hollywood.

Also to describe action scenes. Think of many films with Steve McQueen... And here we see that there are 2 extra beats, though. This is the second and it's just right. Third, just right! This is the fourth and here the phrase should close.

And yet there are still two more. Why are there two more? There are two reasons why there can be these two extra beats: the need for a sync, thus to connect what musically happens to the image, but that's not the case, or more likely, since as you said earlier, he was told to do it somewhat blindly, he was given probably a runtime. It must last 57 seconds, 54. Oops, I'm missing 3 seconds. Let's add two beats!

And the theme comes in on the upbeat. This is very famous. Interlude. Response. And here it's interesting, you see, because he brings us the brass theme, basically taken straight from the bass theme; yes, it's harmonized but anyway the idea also melodic is absolutely the same. And then you see, here comes this second theme made with flutes, which is moved not on the but on the upbeat.

I think he did this thing to make us hear.... Pam, pam, pam, pam, pam, pam, pam, pam. the arrival. Not to miss the arrival of the "tutti". And I think that this also stems from his need to vary the response compared to the main theme. Because this then, as we'll see shortly, also has a meaning that goes beyond the meter.

Response on the flutes. On the second beat. We see that the bass continues the line. Trombone. The theme has now shifted to the brass. Here it returns to the first.

Support and then... the finale. Look at these wonderful parallel fifths. As we said last time, the world is full of parallel fifths, but there are those who do not want to see them. The world is full of beautiful music made with parallel fifths. But what we really like is the last chord.

And here his jazz nature, His jazz blood made itself heard. But here it goes beyond. It’s such a unique, so strong ending that it’s truly iconic. It rarely happens to have a piece in mind, in its fundamental elements, that we remember, etc. Rarely do we remember to recall the ending as well. Not in this case: the ending is an integral part of what we remember about this piece.

Because it's so distinctive, and it's truly a... remarkable coup de theatre, which reminds me, in another context, of the finale of Butterfly, the last chord of Madama Butterfly. The entire tragedy ends with a G major in first inversion, which is a weak inversion. Nothing final closes on the first inversion but Puccini does. This is a third inversion, not a first, but still certainly not a final on a nice full tonic. It's a very interrogative ending because - as we've hinted at before - the journey we construct with the melody, harmony, timbres is actually a reconstruction, a kind of almost theatrical narrative that symbolically mirrors those characters involved in the thriller we'll see or in the crime drama; the characters have their counterpart in the elements structured within the melody and harmony.

It's a very simple journey: if we start playing from the beginning, we hear the bass and trombones guiding the entire progression on the pattern that centers on G which is actually a G minor far from being sad; we're in the minor world, right? and this is astonishing because it's an exciting pattern, thrilling, vigorous, far from negative so we have a usage of the minor with no melancholy at all. Above, we have the entrance of the bongos which gives us that rhythmic characteristic which - combined with the bassline - increases the level of excitement and agitation in the music. A very important thing: let's remember that he arranged it himself and that's no small thing because regarding the choice of timbres, the choice of instruments there could be involvement from others and in this case, it's him who chooses what to do, who to entrust those melodic designs to. What do we notice here? We notice the entrance of the theme played to the flutes.

But let's grasp the symbolic significance; let's put our theme on the analyst's couch and let's see why we might use perhaps the flute timbre. Firstly, what are its characteristics? A round, delicate, high timbre thus very high compared to, for example, the brass instruments which work on the bass. Having the responsibility to play a theme also means being symbolically the protagonists of the narrative told in the melodic and harmonic journey of the piece. The piece is, in fact, a small theater that has within it a rhythm, a development, an ending and in this theater intervene the elements that symbolically reflect that action, that interaction between the elements of what we mirror describe, in this case the impossible mission. In the impossible mission there is - for example - an intruder.

Who better than the flute can represent an intruder? I was thinking about this contrast between the flute with its delicate timbre and underneath instead the trombones, underneath the percussion which is indeed a contrast: it's an intruder, it's an antagonist And pay attention: this antagonism that we feel in the repetition of the theme which is then played by trumpets and which here has a completely different symbolic significance what is it telling us while we are unaware? Instinctively it's telling us the story of an intruder who succeeds in their intrusions. Why? Because underneath we have a progression of the bass and a harmonic scheme very centered on G, very centered on the tonality. At most when it varies it goes to the fourth above so to C and by remaining anchored to the tonality in this way it communicates the success of the operation so the flute succeeds in what it does; if underneath it had a different harmonic progression it wouldn't have the same assertion.

But on top of that: in contrast to the trombones; the trombones represent the threat, the enemy. It's a potent enemy: the trombone has a broad, solid sound, it's a somewhat assertive sound, even. Who better than them embodies - always symbolically - the enemy, the threat? We can also find a skirmish in the interlude that we have here of the brass after the end of the first exposition of the theme. This interlude can also have the function of a chorus: there's a clash, there's the intruder who probably succeeds, there are the enemies, the bongo tells us that the enemies are chasing him, the rhythm tells us that there's an action underway, the chorus - the brass in this case - from the outside says: "Watch their struggle", like the comedy of ancient Greece. Going on we return with the trumpets and then - in this game of encounter and clash - the final question: Here it is.

This conclusion is fantastic, crazy, memorable and tells us what the outcome of this encounter between the intruder who with the sinuous timbre of the serpent manages to.... How will it end? We don't know because more interrogative than this finale there's nothing; it's a finale simultaneously solid, energetic but terribly open, it leaves open a range of possibilities on how the conclusion of the mission will be which for nothing should be "impossible" but in reality is always "possible"! Every time we hear the opening theme, we wonder: will they make it? Will they pull it off? Watch out: we've seen the bongos.

I'm crazy about this, how the bongos give such a dominant character compared to many other percussion uses in an action like this, and among others, the bongo becomes so decisive in characterizing the theme that will remain for 60 years. In all versions - we'll now hear many more - we'll see that this timbral characterization of the bongo is practically always there. Even before seeing where the bongos end up today, there's a curiosity about the '80s theme because a second version was made in '88. Let's see this '88 version because it tells us some interesting things; interesting in '88.... so, first of all, the beginning is the same: the flame and we immediately hear the '80s snare but then what do we have? The synth!

So what does this tell us? That there was a technological progress in their missions and therefore they preferred to remove that somewhat '60s sound that didn't give the idea of technology to make something more modern with synths. Also because the sound landscape is evolving; the sound fashion, that is what we consider suitable at the moment.... at the moment, because then we listen to it some year later and say "How old is this stuff!" and I'll point out that these brass are absolutely worst than the '60s version and then the theme made by another synth here it is: it's really horrible ! It's really bad! But if we watch this '88 opening - let's put the link in the description - what do we notice?

We notice that the symbolic characteristics that we find in the first version are absolutely not changed here; they're modernized and the timbres have changed but the basic characteristics of the sounds (instead of the flute, we find a synth) are maintained and therefore by maintaining them the philosophy of that path of encounter, clash, intrusion, of strength, threat which is the basis of the musical meaning is also maintained. So we may use different instruments but the symbolic path is always the same. Going back to the bongos let's see what's become of these bongos. They've evolved, over the years they will have multiplied... Look here what we have from Lorne Balfe's Twitter this is the latest Mission Impossible soundtrack, the one just released (dead reckoning) and guys... how many of them!

So that characteristic element of the first '66 version has become dominant. The famous Morse code rhythm, etcetera etcetera has now been exploded and almost violated by the "Top secret drum corps ensemble" that we see doing incredible things, always from Lorne Balfe's Twitter. This is also an arrogant demonstration of how much budget they had! Note well: these are phenomena, but how good they are! perfectly coordinated! Let's also look at what we were saying in the last episode, namely the use of spots, the use of recording, and I emphasize: record the percussion!

Because if not, it doesn't have the same impact and doesn't have the same dynamics. Now the young upstarts will tell you: "But why should I record a cymbal when I have samples? Because they suck! That seems like an absolutely unassailable motivation! The only time I decided not to record a percussion it was awful for it has not the same thickness as the recorded ones. The first time we worked together he produced a music that I composed and with a certain naivety I asked him: "What do we record and what do we sample?

Everything, we record everything! Nothing will be sampled." In the grandeur mania of this production of Mission Impossible 7, let's also see what has been done with the orchestra. Why? We left off in the last episode - the one from the orchestra to the screen - on the orchestral set up. Here we have the opposed violins: second on the right, first on the left. Cellos and violas in the center and so in this case we have that famous arrangement that is opposite to the one seen the other time.

How many double basses will there be? three, six, nine, ten double basses! I don't even want to count the cellos because they don't fit in the retina! With 10 double basses, there will be at least 18 cellos... I also see some microphones we talked about: the famous Decca Tree also in the bongos and and the spots. We can also maybe go back to some concepts if we want to make a comparison regarding the previous episode; we're also going here in these images to highlight those details that we explored in the last video.

You will find anyway at the end of the video the link to the previous episode. Last thing: this movie is the seventh of the series that was started by Brian De Palma in the revitalization of Mission Impossible - for the cinema - the peculiarity was that they called to compose the score of the film none other than Alan Silvestri. How did it go? Not went very well because it was rejected And who came? Danny Elfman. Actually, we found out that to all the composers - except one...

• it happened at least once in their career to have a score rejected for musical, extra-musical, contractual, timing, and a thousand reasons that can be all very valid but to all the composers at least once it happened - and we're talking about top movie composers - to have a score rejected. You're not a composer if you haven't had a score rejected! Christopher Young perhaps said it: "You're not considered a composer if at least once your score hasn't been rejected" So, if this assertion is true, John Williams ISN'T a composer because, whatever we know, maybe it happened he's the only composer whose score has never been rejected. So John, if you're listening, please write a bad one so they can reject it. Speaking of Schifrin, he had a score rejected as well The soundtrack of "The Exorcist" was commissioned first to Lalo Schifrin - who had written Mission Impossible years before. Schifrin composed the score, a grandiose thing, an orchestra with 90 elements and he just hated it and rejected it.

One day in the editing room the editor said "You know, maybe at this point we can maybe use Schifrin's score?" They took the tape, put it on and Friedkin very angry and furious took the tape, went to the studio parking lot, threw it in the trash and said that was the only place where that music could belong and for this reason we lost the master! But for this reason Schifrin perhaps became a true composer... I would say for now we stop here and see you next time don't miss it you will of course find now the link to the previous episode and on that previous one the link to the one before that and so on back to episode number one, so you can watch them all until the end of time. Goodbye, until next time!