# My thoughts about John Williams.



## jojoju2000

Hi everyone ! I am brand new here. I am happy to be in this forum however. For the last 6 months, I've been scrolling your guys's conversations about John Williams; and I want to add my thoughts about him. Ready ? Let's begin.

1. Williams is classically trained. Alot of people tend to forget this; but Williams had a solid classical education. He studied Piano with Famed Russian Pedagouge Rosina Lhevinne at Julliard in the Early 1950s, and Composition with Italian Classical Guitarist and Composer Mario Castelnuovo Tedesco in his Youth. He also took additional classes in music during his time in the US Air Force. So this guy isn't poorly trained. He had a solid foundation.

2. What we think of Traditional Classical Music ended in the 1950s in my view when the Minimalist Movement took over Classical Music and Film Scores too. So anyone one who writes in the traditional tonal style afterwards would not be seen as a innovator. People like Phillip Glass and Henry Mancini in the Film World, were willing to use Music and orchesteral scores in the way that it was not used before. So the argument that Williams hasn't been a major developer in the Classical Music World I think is somewhat of a fallacy if that is the right way to say it; unless we want Williams to write in a Minimalistic non Traditional way and Style. Does that make sense ? Williams is not a innovator.

3. He HAS promoted Classical Music in his career and in a way; created his legacy. Let's not forget about that too. He was Director of the Boston Pops, had a long collaboration with the London Symphony Orchestra and the Boston Symphony. He has worked with Yo Yo Ma, Itzhak Perlman, and Anne Sophie Mutter on Multiple Occasions with Concert Pieces, Film Scores, and other albums. He is one of the Patrons of the Tanglewood Music Center. He has performed with Seigi Ozawa, Gustavo Dudamel, AND Andre Previn. He is an advisor to the Young Musicians Foundation apparently as well. He and his wife, donated a bunch of money to the Los Angeles Philharmonic for them to create a composer chair.

Orchestras in America comissioned over the years a large number of Concertos and Symphonies from Williams; 60 in all.

https://thelegacyofjohnwilliams.com/2018/10/01/the-significance-of-a-legacy/
https://www.laphil.com/press/releases/1776

When his Concert with the Vienna Philharmonic was released last August, the leadership of that Orchestra said, 
" "At different points in its history, the Vienna Philharmonic has been conducted by the most important composers of the day," notes Michael Bladerer, CEO of the Vienna Philharmonic. "As one of the leading composers of our time, John Williams has continued this tradition, and I am very happy that his extraordinary concert will live on thanks to the recording made last January.""

Of course that Album reached Number 1 in many Classical Album Charts.

Vienna seems to love him. So much so, that they comissioned a new piece from him to replace one by Richard Strauss for their Annual Philharmonic Ball. People like Andre Previn ( Who was known for being a crossover artist in both the Classical, and Jazz/Pop Worlds), Seiji Ozawa, and Gustavo Dudamel have championed Wiliams's Music for YEARS. Newer Composers like Marcus Paus, and Alexandre Astier have also praised Williams. Astier said specifically, " "It is the ultimate reference in film music! I looked at his scores. It's very beautiful. He's a completely crazy guy. For me, he is not especially a composer of film music: he is a composer, who follows the others and who has his place in the pantheon of composers at all. The film wears it, because it composes in an era when the film is a good carrier of classical music. But he doesn't need the film to support him. His music works on its own. The film doesn't often work without him." https://translate.google.com/transl...-kaamelott-premier-volet_AN-202011270089.html

Williams has also received with Gold Medal by the Royal Philharmonic Society, which is apparently, the most prestigious award for anyone working in Classical Music.





 Musicians and Music Educators have creditited Williams with introducing orchestral music to young Children. Because especially in America, where Music Education is being cut by the Government, I think John Williams is a wonderful way for Children to get involved more in Music as a whole.

And finally, this interview with Williams by Previn in 1988; 



 Williams explains his relationship with Western Classical Music as a whole.

So that is my rant for the day.


----------



## Fabulin

Welcome to Talk Classical, and be prepared that the opinions on Williams here tend to range from "trash" to "insignificant". He is nowhere to be found on most lists of... anything.

You may wish to search the large John Williams thread on this forum, however. John Williams: worthy addition to the canon or charlatan? Some valuable points of view and data have been exchanged therein over the last few months and years.

Or maybe that's what you have been reading.


----------



## ORigel

When I first played the Swan Theme from Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake on CD, my brother thought I was playing John Williams!


----------



## SanAntone

Blah, blah, blah - John Williams writes movie soundtracks. Period.


----------



## mbhaub

Some of the more uptight musicians will never forgive "Johnny" Williams for writing for Television, much less the movies. Writing the theme songs for such inane shows as Lost in Space, Time Tunnel, Land of the Giants and Gilligan's Island didn't help his creds as a serious composer - but it sure put money in his pocket, gave generations of fans memorable tunes, and launched him into the movies, where he has been a phenomenal success. He also writes for the concert hall, and proves he has the chops to do it. All the modernist composers of ugly, unmemorable, almost unplayable music can eat their hearts out.

He has accomplished something very, very few composers in the past 50 years have done: added music to the standard repertoire. His overture to The Cowboys is firmly entrenched in every orchestra's play list - and not just for pops concerts. Personally, I think Steiner, Waxman, Korngold, Tiomkin, Herrmann, and a couple of others were better film composers, but Williams is extremely good.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> Blah, blah, blah - John Williams writes movie soundtracks. Period.


No, he's written other music. There are at least a couple of things to be said in favor of Williams. Unlike many other "moderns", he's shown he can orchestrate. I mean "orchestrate" in the classical disciplined sense, not just throwing instrumental groupings together and taking satisfaction in one's cacophonous "individual voice". And secondly, there's something to be said for writing music that's accessible on some level rather than being purposefully alienating.


----------



## Haydn70

SanAntone said:


> Blah, blah, blah - John Williams writes movie soundtracks. Period.


Hey, SanAntone, why don't you blah, blah, blah this:

John Williams orchestral and chamber music:

Concertos
1969: Concerto for Flute and Orchestra
1976: Concerto for Violin and Orchestra
1985: Concerto for Tuba and Orchestra
1991: Concerto for Clarinet and Orchestra
1993: Concerto for Bassoon and Orchestra, The Five Sacred Trees
1994: Concerto for Cello and Orchestra
1996: Concerto for Trumpet and Orchestra
1997: Elegy for Cello and Orchestra
2000: TreeSong for Violin and Orchestra
2002: Heartwood: Lyric Sketches for Cello and Orchestra
2002: Escapades for Alto Saxophone and Orchestra (cut from the Catch Me If You Can film score)
2003: Concerto for Horn and Orchestra
2009: Concerto for Viola and Orchestra
2009: On Willows and Birches, for Harp and Orchestra
2011: Concerto for Oboe and Orchestra
2014: Scherzo for Piano and Orchestra
2017: Markings for Violin, Strings and Harp
2018: Highwood's Ghost, An Encounter for Cello, Harp and Orchestra

Other orchestral works
1965: Symphony No. 1
1965: Essay for Strings
1968: Sinfonietta for Wind Ensemble
1980: Jubilee 350 Fanfare
1984: Olympic Fanfare & Theme
1986: Liberty Fanfare
1987: A Hymn to New England
1988: Fanfare for Michael Dukakis
1988: For New York
1990: Celebrate Discovery
1993: Sound the Bells!
1994: Song for World Peace
1995: Variations on Happy Birthday
1999: American Journey
2003: Soundings
2007: Star Spangled Banner
2008: A Timeless Call
2012: Fanfare for Fenway
2012: Seven for Luck for soprano and orchestra
2013: For 'The President's Own'

Chamber works
1951: Sonata for Piano
1997: Elegy for Cello and Piano
2001: Three Pieces for Solo Cello
2007: Duo Concertante for Violin and Viola
2009: Air and Simple Gifts for violin, cello, clarinet and piano
2011: Quartet La Jolla for violin, cello, clarinet and harp
2012: Rounds for solo guitar
2013: Conversations for solo Piano
2014: Music for Brass for Brass Ensemble and Percussion


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> Blah, blah, blah - John Williams writes movie soundtracks. Period.


So? Much of avant-garde music is essentially horror movie soundtracks in essence.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Composes commercial orchestral music. Also composes non-profitable "art" music.
Being popular not a disqualification.
Composers of the past also composed popular music for money.

There, I've summarized my participation in the other big thread (which I started).


----------



## consuono

MatthewWeflen said:


> Composes commercial orchestral music. Also composes non-profitable "art" music.
> Being popular not a disqualification.
> Composers of the past also composed popular music for money.
> ...


I don't understand the dichotomy there...I don't know why commercially successful has to mean self-evidently "not art". I wonder where the thought came along in "western culture" that an artist has to be totally separate from society. Maybe it was making artists like van Gogh some kind of immutable pattern. Épater la bourgeoisie.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

consuono said:


> I don't understand the dichotomy there...I don't know why commercially successful has to mean self-evidently "not art". I wonder where the thought came along in "western culture" that an artist has to be totally separate from society. Maybe it was making artists like van Gogh some kind of immutable pattern. Épater la bourgeoisie.


Agreed. Making money with one's music does not disqualify one as a "serious artist." We'd have to excise a lot of the "canon" if that were so.


----------



## jojoju2000

Fabulin said:


> Welcome to Talk Classical, and be prepared that the opinions on Williams here tend to range from "trash" to "insignificant". He is nowhere to be found on most lists of... anything.
> 
> You may wish to search the large John Williams thread on this forum, however. John Williams: worthy addition to the canon or charlatan? Some valuable points of view and data have been exchanged therein over the last few months and years.
> 
> Or maybe that's what you have been reading.


Yes I have been reading that thread. It's hilarious to be honest. People forget the Historical Context of how music as a whole developed over the years, and where people like Williams and Morricone lie. Are Movie Soundtracks less of art simply because they cater to a more populist sensibility ? So is Martin Scorsese wrong when he says that Movies are the culmination of all the traditional classical arts combined? I think he said that a few years ago during the Speech for the National Humanities Foundation.


----------



## jojoju2000

MatthewWeflen said:


> Agreed. Making money with one's music does not disqualify one as a "serious artist." We'd have to excise a lot of the "canon" if that were so.


So did anyone watch that Interview with Previn ??? Williams directly tackles Previn's questions regarding his status as a " Serious Artist ", it's actually quite illuminating.


----------



## Rogerx

https://www.talkclassical.com/23063-why-john-williams-great.html?highlight=John+Williams

Just 3 of a dozen topics already .

https://www.talkclassical.com/60008-john-williams-worthy-addition.html?highlight=John+Williams

https://www.talkclassical.com/25016-favorite-john-williams-film.html?highlight=John+Williams


----------



## jojoju2000

Rogerx said:


> https://www.talkclassical.com/23063-why-john-williams-great.html?highlight=John+Williams
> 
> Just 3 of a dozen topics already .
> 
> https://www.talkclassical.com/60008-john-williams-worthy-addition.html?highlight=John+Williams
> 
> https://www.talkclassical.com/25016-favorite-john-williams-film.html?highlight=John+Williams


Watch the 1988 Interview with Williams by Previn. He actually gets asked by Previn about how He sees himself in the Music World.


----------



## Rogerx

jojoju2000 said:


> Watch the 1988 Interview with Williams by Previn. He actually gets asked by Previn about how He sees himself in the Music World.


It's for you, not for me. Just use the search engine.


----------



## jojoju2000

Rogerx said:


> It's for you, not for me. Just use the search engine.


I already watched it, which is why I shared the video on my original post....


----------



## MatthewWeflen

jojoju2000 said:


> So did anyone watch that Interview with Previn ??? Williams directly tackles Previn's questions regarding his status as a " Serious Artist ", it's actually quite illuminating.


I watched it. I think you'll find that you get a lot more buy-in on a video is it is shorter than 40 minutes, or if you were to direct people to a specific time signature in the video.

For my part, I did not hear John Williams talking about "his relationship with Western classical music." At 29:30 or so He talked about how hard it is to write "art music" compared to film music and how his writing has changed, but then earlier he had talked about how hard he worked on film music as well. Is there a time signature that better captures your characterization of his comments?


----------



## Handelian

People who want to rubbish John Williams just do so first because they haven’t got his talent and second they haven’t had his success and third they haven’t made the money he has.
Just in one word - envy. 
I have never noticed Williams saying he is the heir to Mozart and Beethoven.
Let the small minded nay sayers gnash their teeth and watch Jaws instead!


----------



## mikeh375

Williams is a master composer, his concert works are excellent imv. I've said this before, but I'm wary about lumping his scores (more precisely perhaps, his cues), in the same rarefied genre as his concert music. The reason being that the composing paradigm is of necessity different when scoring to film than it is when creating a more unbounded concert work. The restrictions in film work apply to musical language, narrative, style, scoring, duration, dynamics, in fact all elements of music are hampered (perhaps limited is a better word) by the need to satisfy the requirements of the utility they are used for. Crucially for me, emotional, musical and practical motivation for the dots is being unreasonably dictated to and the deeper personal expression is, as a result, hindered. It is clear to me, listening William's concert music, that he has a more profound searching side that is partially suppressed in his more commercial music.

These restrictions clearly influence the compositional process as one can imagine. However, it's also fair to say that in William's case, he is so good that even under the musical strictures imposed by film, he can still manage to create a sense of long line and inevitability musically speaking in many cues, regardless of the dictates of duration and the structural desire to reach synch points. Nothing feels contrived or 'set-up' because it is written and recorded musically, free of the tyranny of a digital click. Some may view his cues as concert work, I'm just not so sure. I do think his film suites _are_ a good addition to the concert canon however because these have been arranged with concert performance in mind....oh and there's some darn fine tunes in them.

What is apparent to me though is the marked difference in the train of thought between say his Cello or Violin Concerto and perhaps the last long cue from E.T. It is that difference, that focus on one or other of the two compositional paradigms that creates a marked difference in purpose and result, between his music in the two disciplines. This in turn distinguishes in my mind the difference between that of utility, compromise and appeal to popularity and a more introspective and personal expression, which I would want to hear more of in concert music. YMMV (Fabulin... )


----------



## BlackAdderLXX

@jojoju welcome!


----------



## BlackAdderLXX

mikeh375 said:


> Williams is a master composer, his concert works are excellent imv. I've said this before, but I'm wary about lumping his scores in the same genre as his concert music. The reason being that the composing paradigm is of necessity different when scoring to film than it is to when creating a more unbounded concert work. The restrictions in film work apply to language, narrative, scoring, duration, dynamics, in fact all elements of music are hampered (perhaps limited is a better word) by the need to satisfy the requirements of the utility they are used for. Most importantly, the deeper personal expression is hindered and it is clear from William's concert music that he has a more profound searching side.
> 
> These restrictions clearly influence the compositional process as one can imagine. However, it's also fair to say that in William's case, he is so good that even under the musical strictures imposed by film, he can still manage to create a sense of long line and inevitability musically speaking in many cues, regardless of the dictates of duration and synch points.
> 
> What is apparent to me though is the marked difference in the train of thought between say his Cello or Violin Concerto and perhaps the last long cue from E.T. It is that difference, that focus on one or other compositional paradigm that makes the difference between his music in the two disciplines imv.


This is very well said.


----------



## Fabulin

mikeh375 said:


> I'm wary about lumping his scores in the same genre as his concert music.


Is anyone actually doing it? I've never seen anyone "lump" Tchaikovsky's symphonies and ballets together, or Brahms' chamber music with his orchestral music... The classical community seems quite at home with developing categories within its field.



> _What is apparent to me though is the marked difference in the train of thought between say his Cello or Violin Concerto and perhaps the last long cue from E.T. It is that difference, that focus on one or other compositional paradigm that makes the difference between his music in the two disciplines imv._


But why does it matter _so much_ that it becomes a focus? Isn't it very undesirable (culturally / socially) to hinder a diversity of possible applications of a work of culture by bottlenecking them into what was _intended_, whether through personal blocking / denying their concert presence from a position of power, or indirectly, by inclining others to do so with one's philosophical judgements?

I find that ideologies, definitions, and so on put unnecessary negative pressure on the concert programmer, the musician, and the audience to communally find out what is beneficial to them, and what is not.

Unless we are speaking purely about notes on paper, the idea that quality of the work of art is somehow dependent on a virtue of thought or character behind it sounds like plain ol' magical thinking.

When I was a child, I played with many toys in imaginative ways, and was once chided by a neighbour girl that "it was not what was supposed to be done with them", because it was not described in the instructions in the box. I found her remarks to be a misunderstanding of what "purpose" means in terms of human creations.

Let me portray the nuance of this misunderstanding in an example:

Trying to drink car fuel is a bad idea not because of human consumption not being the intended purpose, but because it's chemically toxic to our organism. If a new variety of car fuel was also unintended for human consumption, but turned out to be nutricious, safe, and healthy, the "unintended" philosophy would still try to block it from consumption, or advise against it, even though consumption would be a logical and in some contexts desirable possibility.

That's why I always ask about what is exactly wrong with the notes on a sheet of paper, and not engange in definition-fu too much. Ideas behind objects (in the Platonic sense) could well not exist and there would be no difference.

If your stance intends to defend something else (the "Williams as a false shepherd" view, please do explain what perceived danger do you have in mind).

*

A minor nitpick is that Williams often mentions directly or indirectly that he composes with the thought of concert applicability in the back of his head - even when he just says that it's a plus. No apex professional would disclaim outright that he focuses on goals beyond the scope of his contracts, whatever the reality behind it.

The underlying contrast with his approach to film scores can be seen here, [1:51+] in Williams' reminiscence of Alex North





North, Herrmann, and Goldsmith (but also Shore in LOTR) not seldomly wrote music that was very specific to everything money could buy for a particular project. They didn't care whether such music would have a concert / re-recording potential, or at least were unrealistically adamant about not making any concessions towards concert reality. Williams meanwhile has tended to try to make his music concert-friendly.


----------



## Fabulin

mikeh375 said:


> This in turn distinguishes in my mind the difference between that of utility, compromise and appeal to popularity and a more introspective and personal expression, which I would want to hear more of in concert music. YMMV (Fabulin... )


Isn't the vast majority of concert music "introspective and personal expression" anyway?


----------



## Jacck

Handelian said:


> People who want to rubbish John Williams just do so first because they haven't got his talent and second they haven't had his success and third they haven't made the money he has.
> Just in one word - envy.
> I have never noticed Williams saying he is the heir to Mozart and Beethoven.
> Let the small minded nay sayers gnash their teeth and watch Jaws instead!


I am not a musician and have no musical ambitions whatsoever, so I have no need to compete with Williams and envy him his talent. I think he is a little overrated though, especially compared to Goldsmith. All Williams music sounds mostly the same, he uses the same orchestration. Also, out of dozens scores there are only some 5 or 6 I care about. The rest are pretty forgettable. In contrast, I care maybe for 20-30 scores by Goldsmith.


----------



## Handelian

Jacck said:


> I am not a musician and have no musical ambitions whatsoever, so I have no need to compete with Williams and envy him his talent. I think he is a little overrated though, especially compared to Goldsmith. All Williams music sounds mostly the same, he uses the same orchestration. Also, out of dozens scores there are only some 5 or 6 I care about. The rest are pretty forgettable. In contrast, I care maybe for 20-30 scores by Goldsmith.


Never heard of Goldsmith. Who is he?


----------



## Jacck

Handelian said:


> Never heard of Goldsmith. Who is he?


if you never heard of Jerry Goldsmith, then you have almost no knowledge of film music. He is like a Beethoven of film music.


----------



## EnescuCvartet

SanAntone said:


> Blah, blah, blah - John Williams writes movie soundtracks. Period.


I won't defend Williams the composer against your comment, but I will defend film music. Not being a fan of a Williams is one thing. But to write him off simply on the grounds that he was a film music composer is not legitimate. It's the major medium of the last century. A medium that 19th century composers probably would have turned to, had that been an option. Discounting Williams on that alone is to discount David Raskin, Alex North, Bernard Herrmann, Franz Waxman, Millie Rozsa, et al. Not to mention Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Honegger, George Auric and countless others.

That said, I am not a fan of his music. Aside from a few of his early scores, I find him to be indulgent, obvious, kind of cheap, sentimentally, and kind of empty, artistically.


----------



## Fabulin

Handelian said:


> Never heard of Goldsmith. Who is he?


(1929-2004) contemporary and colleague of Williams, usually considered his closest "competitor" in terms of presence in various sub-genres of (American) film music. A prolific jack of all trades, including the atonal, the electronic, the percussive...


----------



## Christine

mbhaub said:


> Some of the more uptight musicians will never forgive "Johnny" Williams for writing for Television, much less the movies. Writing the theme songs for such inane shows as Lost in Space, Time Tunnel, Land of the Giants and Gilligan's Island didn't help his creds as a serious composer - but it sure put money in his pocket, gave generations of fans memorable tunes, and launched him into the movies, where he has been a phenomenal success. He also writes for the concert hall, and proves he has the chops to do it. All the modernist composers of ugly, unmemorable, almost unplayable music can eat their hearts out.
> 
> He has accomplished something very, very few composers in the past 50 years have done: added music to the standard repertoire. His overture to The Cowboys is firmly entrenched in every orchestra's play list - and not just for pops concerts. Personally, I think Steiner, Waxman, Korngold, Tiomkin, Herrmann, and a couple of others were better film composers, but Williams is extremely good.


He wrote only the incidental music, not the theme, for the first season of Gilligan's Island. His credibility was not shot down. It only showed his versatility, to be able to write music for a silly comedy.


----------



## Christine

consuono said:


> No, he's written other music. There are at least a couple of things to be said in favor of Williams. Unlike many other "moderns", he's shown he can orchestrate. I mean "orchestrate" in the classical disciplined sense, not just throwing instrumental groupings together and taking satisfaction in one's cacophonous "individual voice". And secondly, there's something to be said for writing music that's accessible on some level rather than being purposefully alienating.


Not "Period." He's written a slew of concertos for different instruments.


----------



## Jacck

EnescuCvartet said:


> I won't defend Williams the composer against your comment, but I will defend film music. Not being a fan of a Williams is one thing. But to write him off simply on the grounds that he was a film music composer is not legitimate. It's the major medium of the last century. A medium that 19th century composers probably would have turned to, had that been an option. Discounting Williams on that alone is to discount David Raskin, Alex North, Bernard Herrmann, Franz Waxman, Millie Rozsa, et al. Not to mention Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Honegger, George Auric and countless others.
> 
> That said, I am not a fan of his music. Aside from a few of his early scores, I find him to be indulgent, obvious, kind of cheap, sentimentally, and kind of empty, artistically.


I am a fan of film music, yet I am not the biggest fan of Williams. I would place him at place 7 or so in my list of favorite or important film composers. I agree with what you say "indulgent, obvious, kind of cheap, sentimentally, and kind of empty, artistically"


----------



## Fabulin

Jacck said:


> I am a fan of film music, yet I am not the biggest fan of Williams. I would place him at place 7 or so in my list of favorite or important film composers. I agree with what you say "indulgent, obvious, kind of cheap, sentimentally, and kind of empty, artistically"


It would be interesting to see how you justify putting those 6 composers above him (I mean: via examples and arguments)


----------



## Jacck

Fabulin said:


> It would be interesting to see how you justify putting those 6 composers above him (I mean: via examples and arguments)


via subjective enjoyment of their music? And even if you want to look at objective criteria, there is just no doubt whatsoever that Shostakovich, Prokofiev or Korngold were much better composers than Williams


----------



## Fabulin

Jacck said:


> via subjective enjoyment of their music? And even if you want to look at objective criteria, there is just no doubt whatsoever that Shostakovich, Prokofiev or Korngold were much better composers than Williams


There is serious doubt, as Williams could (and did!) run circles around the clumsiness of the latter two, no matter how you spin it.

Shostakovich is a fair match, but has had different strengths. He certainly was far less caring for detail.


----------



## Jacck

Fabulin said:


> There is serious doubt, as Williams could (and did!) run circles around the clumsiness of the latter two, no matter how you spin it.
> 
> Shostakovich is a fair match, but has had different strengths. He certainly was far less caring for detail.


before I discovered classical music and started listening to it, I have been listening for some 15 years to film music. I knew many of the Williams scores quite well. And then when I started discovering classical music, it became obvious to me, how much motifs Williams borrowed from classical music. The famous Star Wars?
Tchaikovsky 1st symphony




Strauss 2nd symphony





here is a more complete list
https://www.classicalmpr.org/story/2015/10/20/star-wars-john-williams-influences

yes, there is some genius in what Williams did - combine the various motifs of others into a very compelling score. But he did rip off a lot.


----------



## Fabulin

Jacck said:


> before I discovered classical music and started listening to it, I have been listening for some 15 years to film music. I knew many of the Williams scores quite well. And then when I started discovering classical music, it became obvious to me, how much motifs Williams borrowed from classical music. The famous Star Wars?
> Tchaikovsky 1st symphony
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strauss 2nd symphony
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here is a more complete list
> https://www.classicalmpr.org/story/2015/10/20/star-wars-john-williams-influences
> 
> yes, there is some genius in what Williams did - combine the various motifs of others into a very compelling score. But he did rip off a lot.


Nihil novi. I likely know more examples of Williams borrowings than anyone on this board. And I know as well that your precious Shostakovich borrowed from Offenbach, Khachaturian, Mahler and others in some of his most popular works, as did most classical composers with their select influences. Holst was a ripper, Stravinsky was a ripper, and so were Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, Mendelssohn, Wagner, Tchaikovsky... _especially _in the works that have gone on to become very popular.

There are double standards in scholarship about that, because the sources classical composers of yore had used are more obscure than those preserved into the 20th century.

One scholar once said that "most good music tends to sound like other good music". There was even a meme going on for some time that "X is where Williams stole Star Wars from", with dozens of contradicting examples fighting to be the inspiration for the same notes.


----------



## mikeh375

I have made it clear that I do view his film work as concert worthy Fabulin.

Fabulin, have you ever written professionally for film or media? If you have then you, like any other media composer will be painfully aware of the creative limitations one has to impose on oneself which are necessary in order to get the music past a veritable carnage ridden trail of revision, deadline and approval. Ignoring the rare exception that is JW for the moment, the pressure to conform to say a director's expectation, let alone any other requirements for approval, is a limiting factor on the kind of expression or language a composer would want to write in if they where to create an 'absolute music' concert work. As you know, this musical conformity to the medium of film erodes individualism by sometimes demanding musical tropes (cliches) and techniques that are tried and tested and at present, seriously over-used and to the detriment of the art of scoring certain genres. One can only be lucky and avoid compromise if the brief as such marries up with the most personal language of the composer.

In Williams case however, he has a considerable advantage over many, including the now ubiquitous DAW composer, in that he simply knows what he is doing, being a master composer. However the qualities of unique, personal and profound thought heard in his 'serious' concert work, although inevitably present by varying degrees in everything he puts to paper because thats his training - his musical self - is also necessarily limited, curtailed by the same required practicalities film demands.

I didn't know, but am not surprised by the fact that he thinks in a concert sense whilst scoring and have pretty much said so above in the second paragraph of my post 20 above, because it is obvious to me by just listening. The art of inevitability, the longer line etc, are worked for in training or through experience, they are desirable musical instincts to acquire. One of William's great strengths is that he is excellent at maintaining the integrity of those hard won traits in his film work, despite the musical narrative being dictated to by on screen requirements. I'm sure you'll agree with that and I'm sure that those considerations are part of what he means when he talks about having half an ear on concert adaptation.

You imply that an attitude like mine, or my expressing of my opinion is somehow detrimental to the perception of scores as art - that the focus should not be so honed, that concept of scores as art is somehow repressed, that I'm pigeon holing, or inadvertantly promoting an ideology perhaps. Well, and I stress that this is my opinion (based on experience so far as it pertains), I believe that the practical and technical difference in the 2 mindsets needed in composing for film or the concert hall (and make no mistake, there _are_ 2 differing approaches, even JW implies that), and the resulting music created, is evidence enough in order to be able to make a distinction between accepting a work either as a profound, unbounded and personal utterance, or a clever, yet still expressive artifice (not pejoratively speaking at all), that's brilliantly crafted and has enduring appeal. To be clear, there is artistry _and_ art in film scoring as far as I'm concerned, but from a composer's pov, there is a big difference in approach regarding the depth of the introspection required, the searching for material, the type of material found and in the consideration of form, that has to be considered. That difference in creative approaches affects the expressive outcome imv. and influences my personal perception of what art music is.

I should add that this has nothing to do with the appeal of the music, immediate, tuneful, memorable or otherwise, but everything to do with the genesis and motivation and its resulting impact on the progressing creative act. This is a personal conviction as it pertains to my definition of art, artifice and concert music.

YM (will undoubtedly)V.


----------



## SanAntone

Haydn70 said:


> Hey, SanAntone, why don't you blah, blah, blah this:
> 
> John Williams orchestral and chamber music:
> 
> Concertos
> 1969: Concerto for Flute and Orchestra
> 1976: Concerto for Violin and Orchestra
> 1985: Concerto for Tuba and Orchestra
> 1991: Concerto for Clarinet and Orchestra
> 1993: Concerto for Bassoon and Orchestra, The Five Sacred Trees
> 1994: Concerto for Cello and Orchestra
> 1996: Concerto for Trumpet and Orchestra
> 1997: Elegy for Cello and Orchestra
> 2000: TreeSong for Violin and Orchestra
> 2002: Heartwood: Lyric Sketches for Cello and Orchestra
> 2002: Escapades for Alto Saxophone and Orchestra (cut from the Catch Me If You Can film score)
> 2003: Concerto for Horn and Orchestra
> 2009: Concerto for Viola and Orchestra
> 2009: On Willows and Birches, for Harp and Orchestra
> 2011: Concerto for Oboe and Orchestra
> 2014: Scherzo for Piano and Orchestra
> 2017: Markings for Violin, Strings and Harp
> 2018: Highwood's Ghost, An Encounter for Cello, Harp and Orchestra
> 
> Other orchestral works
> 1965: Symphony No. 1
> 1965: Essay for Strings
> 1968: Sinfonietta for Wind Ensemble
> 1980: Jubilee 350 Fanfare
> 1984: Olympic Fanfare & Theme
> 1986: Liberty Fanfare
> 1987: A Hymn to New England
> 1988: Fanfare for Michael Dukakis
> 1988: For New York
> 1990: Celebrate Discovery
> 1993: Sound the Bells!
> 1994: Song for World Peace
> 1995: Variations on Happy Birthday
> 1999: American Journey
> 2003: Soundings
> 2007: Star Spangled Banner
> 2008: A Timeless Call
> 2012: Fanfare for Fenway
> 2012: Seven for Luck for soprano and orchestra
> 2013: For 'The President's Own'
> 
> Chamber works
> 1951: Sonata for Piano
> 1997: Elegy for Cello and Piano
> 2001: Three Pieces for Solo Cello
> 2007: Duo Concertante for Violin and Viola
> 2009: Air and Simple Gifts for violin, cello, clarinet and piano
> 2011: Quartet La Jolla for violin, cello, clarinet and harp
> 2012: Rounds for solo guitar
> 2013: Conversations for solo Piano
> 2014: Music for Brass for Brass Ensemble and Percussion


He is known primarily as a composer of film music, which is where he has been very successful. I wonder if we would have heard of him had he not written film scores, or even if he would have written these works without the benefit of his income from the film music. In any event, if these works are any good - more power to him. But if his film music is any measure, they will be derivative and cliche ridden, although showing good orchestration and other technical skills.

But, there are so many 20th century composers I prefer, I don't feel any need to listen to his work. I don't even listen to Sibelius, Vaughan Williams, Elgar, and other 20th century composers whose style is too Romantic for my taste, so why would I listen to Williams?

But I did not know he wrote the Star Spangled Banner.

As a side note I prefer Ennio Morrecone.


----------



## Jacck

SanAntone said:


> As a side note I prefer Ennio Morrecone.


Morricone is also derivative, though he did not rip off the romantic composers, but mostly Italian baroque (Vivaldi) and Bach. Maybe rip off is a too strong word, he was inspired by the music and borrowed some motifs.


----------



## mikeh375

SanAntone said:


> He is known primarily as a composer of film music, which is where he has been very successful. I wonder if we would have heard of him had he not written film scores, or even if he would have written these works without the benefit of his income from the film music. In any event, if these works are any good - more power to him. But if his film music is any measure, they will be derivative and cliche ridden, although showing good orchestration and other technical skills.
> 
> But, there are so many 20th century composers I prefer, I don't feel any need to listen to his work. I don't even listen to Sibelius, Vaughan Williams, Elgar, and other 20th century composers whose style is too Romantic for my taste, so why would I listen to Williams?
> 
> But I did not know he wrote the Star Spangled Banner.
> 
> As a side note I prefer Ennio Morrecone.


20thC Romantic perhaps, but with some gravity, give it ten minutes or so then at least you'll know.


----------



## SanAntone

mikeh375 said:


> 20thC Romantic perhaps, but with some gravity, give it ten minutes or so then at least you'll know.


It's better than I would have thought, but (and again this is just my taste) entirely irrelevant.


----------



## Bulldog

Williams just isn't worth all the exposure he is receiving here on TC.


----------



## Christine

Jacck said:


> before I discovered classical music and started listening to it, I have been listening for some 15 years to film music. I knew many of the Williams scores quite well. And then when I started discovering classical music, it became obvious to me, how much motifs Williams borrowed from classical music. The famous Star Wars?
> Tchaikovsky 1st symphony
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strauss 2nd symphony
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here is a more complete list
> https://www.classicalmpr.org/story/2015/10/20/star-wars-john-williams-influences
> 
> yes, there is some genius in what Williams did - combine the various motifs of others into a very compelling score. But he did rip off a lot.


Once again, the only example of John Williams' alleged ripping off is Star Wars. What about the million other films he scored? He scored dozens of films. That's a lot of composing. Let's suppose he consciously copied the Star Wars theme from King's Row. That's like 0.05% of all his music. Is it fair, then, to label him as a copycat? We can toss in a few other examples such as Princess Leia's theme (it sounds similar to a classical piece; don't remember the piece), and the Tatooine desert scene from Rite of Spring, but that doesn't do much to bump up that 0.05%.

As for the Star Wars theme, people have compared this to King's Row, Mars Bringer of War, and a few other pieces. So does this mean that John Williams took from Composer A who took from Composer B who took from Composer C?

Let's have examples OTHER than Star Wars for ripping off. Before you name the two-note motif from Jaws, some say he took from Rite of Spring and others say he took from Dvorak 9. So does this mean Dvorak stole from Stravinsky? Or does it mean that more than one composer can come up with a two-note motif?

As for Jaws, he composed a lot of great music for the shark hunt scenes. Very original. Enough of Star Wars and the da-da da-da from Jaws already. He composed at least 100 hours of original film music.


----------



## Jacck

^^^
here you have more example of rip offs in various movies




but it is not important for me. Even though I am aware of the rip offs, I also recognize that they are ingenious rip offs. I do think that Williams has some genuine talent and that he is a great film composer. But I simply like Jerry Goldsmith more and think he was the more original and versatile composer that did not get the same recognition that Williams got (no Oscar)


----------



## mikeh375

Christine said:


> Once again, the only example of John Williams' alleged ripping off is Star Wars. What about the million other films he scored? He scored dozens of films. That's a lot of composing. Let's suppose he consciously copied the Star Wars theme from King's Row. That's like 0.05% of all his music. Is it fair, then, to label him as a copycat? We can toss in a few other examples such as Princess Leia's theme (it sounds similar to a classical piece; don't remember the piece), and the Tatooine desert scene from Rite of Spring, but that doesn't do much to bump up that 0.05%.
> 
> As for the Star Wars theme, people have compared this to King's Row, Mars Bringer of War, and a few other pieces. So does this mean that John Williams took from Composer A who took from Composer B who took from Composer C?
> 
> Let's have examples OTHER than Star Wars for ripping off. Before you name the two-note motif from Jaws, some say he took from Rite of Spring and others say he took from Dvorak 9. So does this mean Dvorak stole from Stravinsky? Or does it mean that more than one composer can come up with a two-note motif?
> 
> As for Jaws, he composed a lot of great music for the shark hunt scenes. Very original. Enough of Star Wars and the da-da da-da from Jaws already. He composed at least 100 hours of original film music.


There's some striking 'correlations' between some of ET and Hanson's 2nd Symphony (last mvt.). But tbh, I agree, Williams is his own man. Even when he is 'influenced', he still makes said influence his own. 
The absolute worst was Horner.


----------



## Jacck

mikeh375 said:


> There's some striking correlation between some of ET and Hanson's 2nd Symphony (last mvt.). But tbh, I agree, Williams is his own man. Even when he is 'influenced', he still makes said influence his own.
> The absolute worst was Horner.


Hans Zimmer is even worse than Horner. I'd say that he ruined the film music industry with his synthetiser scores, but maybe it was just the technological development that would have happened anyway.


----------



## mikeh375

..oooh Jacck, this is a real can of worms we are opening here....

I think Horner still takes the prize. I was utterly gob-smacked when I heard almost note for note Britten's Sanctus from his War Requiem in the film Troy. I knew the musicologist who dealt with that case - the Britten Foundation pressed charges if I'm not mistaken.
Horner even plagiarised himself, although I didn't blame him so much for that, given the immense pressure the job entails. Besides he was booked for his approach to scoring and his style. Horner was drafted in to save a bad situation with Troy and only had a couple of weeks I think to do a complete score. He'll have known he was in breach of copyright, but did he care I wonder. 

To be even fairer, the infamous temp track is the bane of all media composers because it implants firmly into the directors mind and ears when editing, over weeks. The moment the director hears something different, ie the bespoke composed cue, it just isn't right and so the composer has to get a little closer to the temp's source. It can be a nightmare not just artistically, but legally too in terms of copyright breach and many a musicologist is drafted in to ensure legality on a regular basis in media composing..


----------



## Jacck

most of the film composers plagiarized





though I am not aware of any Jerry Goldsmith rip offs.


----------



## jojoju2000

mikeh375 said:


> I have made it clear that I do view his film work as concert worthy Fabulin.
> 
> Fabulin, have you ever written professionally for film or media? If you have then you, like any other media composer will be painfully aware of the creative limitations one has to impose on oneself which are necessary in order to get the music past a veritable carnage ridden trail of revision, deadline and approval. Ignoring the rare exception that is JW for the moment, the pressure to conform to say a director's expectation, let alone any other requirements for approval, is a limiting factor on the kind of expression or language a composer would want to write in if they where to create an 'absolute music' concert work. As you know, this musical conformity to the medium of film erodes individualism by sometimes demanding musical tropes (cliches) and techniques that are tried and tested and at present, seriously over-used and to the detriment of the art of scoring certain genres. One can only be lucky and avoid compromise if the brief as such marries up with the most personal language of the composer.
> 
> In Williams case however, he has a considerable advantage over many, including the now ubiquitous DAW composer, in that he simply knows what he is doing, being a master composer. However the qualities of unique, personal and profound thought heard in his 'serious' concert work, although inevitably present by varying degrees in everything he puts to paper because thats his training - his musical self - is also necessarily limited, curtailed by the same required practicalities film demands.
> 
> I didn't know, but am not surprised by the fact that he thinks in a concert sense whilst scoring and have pretty much said so above in the second paragraph of my post 20 above, because it is obvious to me by just listening. The art of inevitability, the longer line etc, are worked for in training or through experience, they are desirable musical instincts to acquire. One of William's great strengths is that he is excellent at maintaining the integrity of those hard won traits in his film work, despite the musical narrative being dictated to by on screen requirements. I'm sure you'll agree with that and I'm sure that those considerations are part of what he means when he talks about having half an ear on concert adaptation.
> 
> You imply that an attitude like mine, or my expressing of my opinion is somehow detrimental to the perception of scores as art - that the focus should not be so honed, that concept of scores as art is somehow repressed, that I'm pigeon holing, or inadvertantly promoting an ideology perhaps. Well, and I stress that this is my opinion (based on experience so far as it pertains), I believe that the practical and technical difference in the 2 mindsets needed in composing for film or the concert hall (and make no mistake, there _are_ 2 differing approaches, even JW implies that), and the resulting music created, is evidence enough in order to be able to make a distinction between accepting a work either as a profound, unbounded and personal utterance, or a clever, yet still expressive artifice (not pejoratively speaking at all), that's brilliantly crafted and has enduring appeal. To be clear, there is artistry _and_ art in film scoring as far as I'm concerned, but from a composer's pov, there is a big difference in approach regarding the depth of the introspection required, the searching for material, the type of material found and in the consideration of form, that has to be considered. That difference in creative approaches affects the expressive outcome imv. and influences my personal perception of what art music is.
> 
> I should add that this has nothing to do with the appeal of the music, immediate, tuneful, memorable or otherwise, but everything to do with the genesis and motivation and its resulting impact on the progressing creative act. This is a personal conviction as it pertains to my definition of art, artifice and concert music.
> 
> YM (will undoubtedly)V.


Williams's added advantage however; is his collaboration with Steven Spielberg for instance; has had almost complete and total freedom if that makes any sense. Because the trust between Spielberg and Williams is so solid, that Williams can just go on autopilot. Which is probably why since 2005; Williams has chosen to only work with Spielberg..... on most of the films. The Star Wars Sequels was an exception.


----------



## jojoju2000

mikeh375 said:


> There's some striking 'correlations' between some of ET and Hanson's 2nd Symphony (last mvt.). But tbh, I agree, Williams is his own man. Even when he is 'influenced', he still makes said influence his own.
> The absolute worst was Horner.


Star Wars was a unique case because George Lucas originally wanted to use actual classical music pieces. Williams advised against it, however, but Lucas still pushed Wiliams to have references to previous Classical works. However, by the time of the Prequels, Lucas probably felt comfortable enough to let Williams go on Auto Pilot.


----------



## jojoju2000

Zimmer should not be a composer, of any medium.


----------



## jojoju2000

Jacck said:


> most of the film composers plagiarized
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> though I am not aware of any Jerry Goldsmith rip offs.


I think Jerry Goldsmith wasn't pushed to use Classical references ala Star Wars though....


----------



## jojoju2000

MatthewWeflen said:


> I watched it. I think you'll find that you get a lot more buy-in on a video is it is shorter than 40 minutes, or if you were to direct people to a specific time signature in the video.
> 
> For my part, I did not hear John Williams talking about "his relationship with Western classical music." At 29:30 or so He talked about how hard it is to write "art music" compared to film music and how his writing has changed, but then earlier he had talked about how hard he worked on film music as well. Is there a time signature that better captures your characterization of his comments?


The first ten minutes; perhaps it's more implicit, but Williams talks about how circumstances in his life led him to Film Music rather than Classical composing.

There's also a part ( I forgot exactly the time ), where he talks about how he considers his concert works to be seperate from his film work, how they are a fogotten memory so to speak, in response to Previn's question as to why Williams doesn't play enough of his concertos and stuff.


----------



## jojoju2000

mikeh375 said:


> Williams is a master composer, his concert works are excellent imv. I've said this before, but I'm wary about lumping his scores (more precisely perhaps, his cues), in the same rarefied genre as his concert music. The reason being that the composing paradigm is of necessity different when scoring to film than it is when creating a more unbounded concert work. The restrictions in film work apply to musical language, narrative, style, scoring, duration, dynamics, in fact all elements of music are hampered (perhaps limited is a better word) by the need to satisfy the requirements of the utility they are used for. Crucially for me, emotional, musical and practical motivation for the dots is being unreasonably dictated to and the deeper personal expression is, as a result, hindered. It is clear to me, listening William's concert music, that he has a more profound searching side that is partially suppressed in his more commercial music.
> 
> These restrictions clearly influence the compositional process as one can imagine. However, it's also fair to say that in William's case, he is so good that even under the musical strictures imposed by film, he can still manage to create a sense of long line and inevitability musically speaking in many cues, regardless of the dictates of duration and the structural desire to reach synch points. Nothing feels contrived or 'set-up' because it is written and recorded musically, free of the tyranny of a digital click. Some may view his cues as concert work, I'm just not so sure. I do think his film suites _are_ a good addition to the concert canon however because these have been arranged with concert performance in mind....oh and there's some darn fine tunes in them.
> 
> What is apparent to me though is the marked difference in the train of thought between say his Cello or Violin Concerto and perhaps the last long cue from E.T. It is that difference, that focus on one or other of the two compositional paradigms that creates a marked difference in purpose and result, between his music in the two disciplines. This in turn distinguishes in my mind the difference between that of utility, compromise and appeal to popularity and a more introspective and personal expression, which I would want to hear more of in concert music. YMMV (Fabulin... )


The difference is, however; that unlike many Film Composers, Williams had the very opportunity over time to work With Steven Spielberg and George Lucas for most of his " peak " years, they gave him almost complete freedom to do whatever he wanted. In fact, the story goes, regarding ET, that Once Spielberg heard the score, he ordered the film to be cut to the Score. Usually the score gets cut to the Film.


----------



## Bulldog

jojoju2000 said:


> Zimmer should not be a composer, of any medium.


I had a look at the list of films Zimmer scored. Overall, I'd say his scores are just as impressive as those of Williams.


----------



## Jacck

Bulldog said:


> I had a look at the list of films Zimmer scored. Overall, I'd say his scores are just as impressive as those of Williams.


they are much more primitive musically and in terms of instrumentation than Williams. Zimmer could be called a minimalist of film music. But sometimes even the minimalist scores can be impressive. I somewhat like the Interstellar score, even though it is minimalistic and primitive


----------



## jojoju2000

Jacck said:


> via subjective enjoyment of their music? And even if you want to look at objective criteria, there is just no doubt whatsoever that Shostakovich, Prokofiev or Korngold were much better composers than Williams


To what Films of Williams's do you compare this to may I ask ?


----------



## jojoju2000

Bulldog said:


> I had a look at the list of films Zimmer scored. Overall, I'd say his scores are just as impressive as those of Williams.


I just feel as if, Zimmer ushered in an era that denigrated the Traditional Classical Music score.


----------



## Torkelburger

Bulldog said:


> I had a look at the list of films Zimmer scored. Overall, I'd say his scores are just as impressive as those of Williams.


Absolute, utter nonsense. Compare:


----------



## Jacck

jojoju2000 said:


> To what Films of Williams's do you compare this to may I ask ?


Schindlers List?


----------



## Bulldog

Williams apologists are a hoot.


----------



## Haydn70

Bulldog said:


> Williams apologists are a hoot.


As are people who consider Zimmer a composer.


----------



## Haydn70

jojoju2000 said:


> Zimmer should not be a composer, of any medium.


Not to worry, jojoju, he isn't! He is a hack, of the first magnitude.


----------



## jojoju2000

Jacck said:


> Schindlers List?


I can see the merits in that. Some people will say that because of the Historical context for the film, that it would have more larger impact if one were to listen to the score while watching the film.

Personally, I like Williams's smaller more artistic films that he did. Angela's Ashes and Memoirs of a Geisha are two examples.


----------



## jojoju2000

Thanks for welcoming me. Lol.


----------



## Bulldog

Haydn70 said:


> As are people who consider Zimmer a composer.


You can blow smoke as far as you want, but it won't change the fact that Zimmer is a professional composer (good or bad).


----------



## Haydn70

Bulldog said:


> You can blow smoke as far as you want, but it won't change the fact that Zimmer is a professional composer (good or bad).


One of the most ridiculous statements seen on this site and that is saying something!

He has had zero training, a guy known as a "hummer"...hums or plays tunes into a recording device then hands off his "music" to a trained composer, a team of trained composers actually, who create the actual scores.

A professional composer, bad or good, worthy of the title actually knows the craft of composition. Zimmer doesn't.

No literate musician takes that man seriously as a composer.


----------



## Coach G

Say what will about John Williams, but apart from _Bugs Bunny_, _Tom & Jerry_, and other cartoons, the old _Cosmos_ TV series with Carl Sagan, Williams was one of my most my gateway to classical music back when I was a teenager in the 1980s; and I was as captivated by the _Star Wars_ message and mythology, as I was by Williams' big and brassy, classically-inspired score.

So what if he composed music for _Gilligan's Island_? A good many of our favorite and most revered composers of classic music composed _salon_ and _burlesque_ pieces, or just plain hack music. There are far worse and more unethical ways to make a living. Certainly, we're not going to let _Wellington's Victory_ and the _1812 Overture_ detract from Beethoven and Tchaikovsky's status as master composers, right?

By the way, I _like_ Gilligan's Island. I think it's a funny show.


----------



## pianozach

MatthewWeflen said:


> Composes commercial orchestral music. Also composes non-profitable "art" music.
> Being popular not a disqualification.
> Composers of the past also composed popular music for money.
> 
> There, I've summarized my participation in the other big thread (which I started).


BEETHOVEN: Wellington's Victory

HANDEL: Water Music


----------



## Handelian

Bulldog said:


> Williams apologists are a hoot.


So are the people who criticise him as he is laughing his way to the bank


----------



## Jacck

jojoju2000 said:


> I can see the merits in that. Some people will say that because of the Historical context for the film, that it would have more larger impact if one were to listen to the score while watching the film.
> 
> Personally, I like Williams's smaller more artistic films that he did. Angela's Ashes and Memoirs of a Geisha are two examples.


It has been some years since I have heard those, but if I remember I ranked them somwhere into a middle tier of Williams scores. They had a good central melodic theme, but otherwise were rather unremarkable. My favorite Williams score has been E.T.


----------



## Fabulin

mikeh375 said:


> I believe that the practical and technical difference in the 2 mindsets needed in composing for film or the concert hall (and make no mistake, there _are_ 2 differing approaches, even JW implies that), and the resulting music created, is evidence enough in order to be able to make a distinction between accepting a work either as *a profound, unbounded and personal utterance*, or a *clever, yet still expressive artifice *(not pejoratively speaking at all), that's brilliantly crafted and has enduring appeal.
> 
> I should add that this has nothing to do with the appeal of the music, immediate, tuneful, memorable or otherwise, but everything to do with the genesis and motivation and its resulting impact on the progressing creative act. This is a personal conviction as it pertains to my definition of art, artifice and concert music.
> 
> YM (will undoubtedly)V.


Let's agree to disagree on

1) the existence or non-existence of such a thing as "profundity" in music. The way I see it, so-called profundity usually turns out to be built out of manipulative composition cliches as well.

2) composer's taste or wishes or life's story leading to the best artistic choices in a clear-cut dichotomy with external influences. This is too romantic a view for me, sorry.


----------



## Bulldog

Handelian said:


> So are the people who criticise him as he is laughing his way to the bank


I care about his monetary resources about as much as I care about yours.


----------



## jojoju2000

Oh God, I made a mess on my first day here.

Sorry for causing such controversy.


----------



## consuono

jojoju2000 said:


> Oh God, I made a mess on my first day here.
> 
> Sorry for causing such controversy.


Are you kidding? There's a controversy about everything.


----------



## Bulldog

Haydn70 said:


> No literate musician takes that man seriously as a composer.


Do you have accurate stats. to back up the above statement or are you just blowing more smoke?


----------



## mbhaub

jojoju2000 said:


> Oh God, I made a mess on my first day here.
> 
> Sorry for causing such controversy.


No, no, no...it's fun, educational and something to do! Williams has been a lightning rod of controversy for decades...and it continues. The real problem is there are people who don't understand the purpose of film music and the enormous challenge it is. JW is a master at his craft; no one can seriously challenge that. If he wasn't he wouldn't be as popular and prolific as he has been.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Nevermind ......


----------



## julide

Do people actually sit down to listen to film music when they could be listening to actual concert music.


----------



## jojoju2000

mbhaub said:


> No, no, no...it's fun, educational and something to do! Williams has been a lightning rod of controversy for decades...and it continues. The real problem is there are people who don't understand the purpose of film music and the enormous challenge it is. JW is a master at his craft; no one can seriously challenge that. If he wasn't he wouldn't be as popular and prolific as he has been.


\
One fact I will bring up;

Williams has recently received the Gold Medal by the Royal Philharmonic Society, which is the highest level award possible for someone working in the World of Classical Music apparently. If they can see there's more to Williams than just film scores, why can't we ?

Also, the previous winner of this Medal from 2019; Sofia Gubaidulina also wrote 30 something film scores. And yet, she's considered to be a classical composer. Maybe perhaps Williams was too tied into Pop Fluff Movies ? ( Even though he did alot more than just pop fluff )


----------



## jojoju2000

It's all Japaneese...


----------



## jojoju2000

julide said:


> Do people actually sit down to listen to film music when they could be listening to actual concert music.


I mean.... 



 Just ask the Boston Symphony and Boston Pops orchestras.


----------



## Coach G

julide said:


> Do people actually sit down to listen to film music when they could be listening to actual concert music.


_Sinfonia Antarctica_ by Ralph Vaughan Williams and _Alexander Nevsky_ by Serge Prokofiev are fairly popular concert pieces that are based on music that was originally composed for films.

Who's to say that if Mozart and Beethoven, who routinely composed to supply the demands of nobility, wouldn't have been happy to take money composing for Hollywood?


----------



## jojoju2000

Coach G said:


> _Sinfonia Antarctica_ by Ralph Vaughan Williams and _Alexander Nevsky_ by Serge Prokofiev are fairly popular concert pieces that are based on music that was originally composed for films.
> 
> Who's to say that if Mozart and Beethoven, who routinely composed to supply the demands of nobility, wouldn't have been happy to take money composing for Hollywood?


And besides, Williams was the conductor of the Boston Pops Orchestra for 13 years; where people came out in droves to hear his music, as well as other classical works and a bunch of pop singers as well. And after his tenure ended, he still makes summer appearances at Tanglewood.


----------



## jojoju2000

You might see a familar face in the video. Yes... Billie Eillish.


----------



## jojoju2000

Finally; His Music is being played by Music Schools. So there must be something there that Professors see in Williams's Music that we don't....


----------



## Handelian

Coach G said:


> _Sinfonia Antarctica_ by Ralph Vaughan Williams and _Alexander Nevsky_ by Serge Prokofiev are fairly popular concert pieces that are based on music that was originally composed for films.
> 
> Who's to say that if Mozart and Beethoven, who routinely composed to supply the demands of nobility, wouldn't have been happy to take money composing for Hollywood?


Beethoven was quite happy to take money for composing Wellington's Victory - it was his major earner. It actually makes Williams' music look good!


----------



## Handelian

Bulldog said:


> I care about his monetary resources about as much as I care about yours.


And do you think he cares about your opinion?


----------



## Handelian

jojoju2000 said:


> Oh God, I made a mess on my first day here.
> 
> Sorry for causing such controversy.


Don't be sorry at all. This site thrives on it!

Sao amusing to be discussing a guy who has all these awards, has made a ton of money, has conducted the Vienna Philarmonic in a recording, but there are folk on TC who are telling us he is no good!


----------



## consuono

julide said:


> Do people actually sit down to listen to film music when they could be listening to actual concert music.


Yes. The two aren't necessarily entirely different:





(edit) and I'll add this:


----------



## julide

I know i'm never going to a concert that includes film music.


----------



## consuono

julide said:


> I know i'm never going to a concert that includes film music.


You wouldn't go to hear Prokofiev's Alexander Nevsky? I certainly would.


----------



## Bulldog

Handelian said:


> And do you think he cares about your opinion?


Not ever having interacted with Williams, I have no idea what concerns him. Any other irrelevant questions?


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> You wouldn't go to hear Prokofiev's Alexander Nevsky? I certainly would.


I've always thought "the battle on the ice" sounded like:


----------



## Handelian

Bulldog said:


> Not ever having interacted with Williams, I have no idea what concerns him. Any other irrelevant questions?


About as relevant as your remark about not caring about his monetary resources I would think


----------



## BachIsBest

jojoju2000 said:


> Oh God, I made a mess on my first day here.
> 
> Sorry for causing such controversy.


Next, try starting a thread with a poll that has the title "who is the best musician" and make the choices "John Williams", "Herbert von Karjan", and "Wilhelm Furtwängler". It's guaranteed to keep the mods as busy as vaccine workers!

But, in all honesty, these kinds of threads can be interesting to read...


----------



## Bulldog

Handelian said:


> About as relevant as your remark about not caring about his monetary resources I would think


You don't have much of a memory. You're the one who brought up his laughing all the way to the bank.


----------



## SanAntone

Handelian said:


> Don't be sorry at all. This site thrives on it!
> 
> Sao amusing to be discussing a guy who has all these awards, has made a ton of money, has conducted the Vienna Philarmonic in a recording, but there are folk on TC who are telling us he is no good!


I never said he was "no good" just that his music does not interest me and I don't consider him anything more than a good composer of film scores. His concert music does not rise above the level of mediocre, IMO; given a choice of listening to Williams or Sibelius, or Shostakovich, or Rachmaninoff, I wouldn't choose Williams.

My question is why is he apparently so important to those of you beating the drum loudly for his music? I wasn't aware of a lack of large scale orchestral classical music that we need John Williams to fill the gap?

If you enjoy his music, great. But don't expect everyone to agree that his music is equal to that written by Sibelius or Shostakovich or any of the classical symphonists (who did not devote the majority of their energy to writing music for movies) from the 20th century.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> ...
> If you enjoy his music, great. But don't expect everyone to agree that his music is equal to that written by Sibelius or Shostakovich or any of the classical symphonists (who did not devote the majority of their energy to writing music for movies) from the 20th century.


Several of us have been telling you that very thing about Cage and other avant garde types that you feel have been woefully ignored/abused/minimized.

By the way, I don't know how it is that music composed for a film is somehow cheapened *as music*. We listen to orchestral selections from Wagner's operas and incidental music by Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn and others.


----------



## jojoju2000

consuono said:


> Several of us have been telling you that very thing about Cage and other avant garde types that you feel have been woefully ignored/abused/minimized.
> 
> By the way, I don't know how it is that music composed for a film is somehow cheapened *as music*. We listen to orchestral selections from Wagner's operas and incidental music by Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn and others.


It has to be academic and enjoyed by the Academic elite. It has to be so innovative and progressive that the rest of us can't enjoy orchestral music.

People have to realize why Western Classical Music fell out of favor by the 1950s right ? Especially in America ? Because people like John Cage I would say made Classical Music so surgical, so academic, that it didnt sound " pretty " anymore. The Music got so Atonal.

And then you have to combine the music education funding cuts over the last 30 years by people in power, as well as the overall modernization of American culture.... yeah.

It was John Williams however, who made Western Orchesteral Music popular again. It was him, who brought the symphony orchestra back into Normal Americans's lives. If it wasn't for John Williams, I would never have fallen in love with Classical Music.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Several of us have been telling you that very thing about Cage and other avant garde types that you feel have been woefully ignored/abused/minimized.
> 
> By the way, I don't know how it is that music composed for a film is somehow cheapened *as music*. We listen to orchestral selections from Wagner's operas and incidental music by Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn and others.


I have never said that John Cage was "woefully ignored/abused/minimized." I have defended him and his music against accusations that he is a charlatan, and that his music is not music. But I am not proselytizing on behalf of Cage. I haven't created threads meant to argue his case. And further, while he is generally considered a classical composer, I no longer concern myself with whether TC accepts him as such. IOW, I enjoy Cage's music but have detached myself from what other members of TC think about him.

John Williams is a very good composer of music for movies. To the extent that he has written concert music, I think this has happened in response to opportunities he has been given due to his fame from his film scores, by orchestras who wish to sell out a concert and raise some money with a crowd-pleasing program. I could be wrong, but I doubt his concert music would have been heard had he not made such a huge name writing for the movies.

Tbh, I don't care enough about Williams to argue for or against him, and only contributed to this thread because I was so surprised that he was being championed so strongly.

Being a very good film score composer is no small achievement, and Williams is certainly among the elite composers in this genre. Is that not enough for his fans? Or must they elevate him to what I consider unrealistic heights, equating him to Shostakovich and others?


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> I have never said that John Cage was "woefully ignored/abused/minimized." I have defended him and his music against accusations that he is a charlatan, and that his music is not music. ...


Well you have though. You've complained when someone suggested that Cage and other avant garde types should be excluded from discussions of classical music and segregated in its own little compartment. Sort of like the way you want to do with film scores. So much for that no labels subjectivity or whatever.

I would say that 4 minutes plus of silence is NOT music, and is NOT a "work". But other stuff by Cage that I've heard I would call music...BAD music.



> Or must they elevate him to what I consider unrealistic heights, equating him to Shostakovich and others?


Who's equating him with Shostakovitch? I think Williams' primary sins are that audiences like his music and he doesn't have the "I'm on the cutting edge" artiste aura. He isn't avant gardey enough. Throw together some blobs of sound accompanied by some esoteric-sounding philosophizing and posturing and he'd be in business. He'd be untouchable.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Well you have though. You've complained when someone suggested that Cage and other avant garde types should be excluded from discussions of classical music and segregated in its own little compartment. Sort of like the way you want to do with film scores. So much for that no labels subjectivity or whatever.


I haven't said that film music should be segregated to its own forum. But there is a difference. In every article, encyclopedia entry, book, review, etc. John Cage has been described as a classical composer, it was here on TC that that status was challenged. Conversely, John Williams is almost always referred to as a composer of film music, that is what he is known for, not his composing outside of films except maybe by his most ardent fans.

I haven't ridiculed John Williams, in fact, I have said he was among the elite group of the best film composers. What I questioned was the importance of his music outside of his film scores. And I could be wrong. He might be highly thought of in that regard. But, again, it has only been here on TC that I discovered this opinion.

Granted I don't follow John Williams, don't watch his movies, and don't know what the latest opinion is on his importance as a classical composer. He might be right up there with Philip Glass for all I know.

And somewhere in this thread, one of his fanboys did compare him favorably to Shostakovich.

You can think the same; I won't argue the point with you. I just find this thread surprising.


----------



## consuono

> I haven't said that film music should be segregated to its own forum. But there is a difference.


I haven't said that avant garde stuff should be in its own forum. But there is a difference.

It's a no-no to say that Williams is equivalent to, or is on the same playing field as, Shostakovich...but yet we're supposed to accept that today's avant garde IS on that same playing field. Williams is closer to Shostakovich than, say, Ferneyhough is.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> I haven't said that avant garde stuff should be in its own forum. But there is a difference.
> 
> It's a no-no to say that Williams is equivalent to, or is on the same playing field as, Shostakovich...but yet we're supposed to accept that today's avant garde IS on that same playing field. Williams is closer to Shostakovich than, say, Ferneyhough is.


You can say whatever you wish, this is a open forum. And I can respond to what you say. That's how it works. I don't make a practice off comparing composers, like Ferneyhough to Shostakovich. And I haven't declared a assessment on John Williams other than to say his fame is based on his work writing music for film, not writing concert classical music.

John Cage, Brian Ferneyhough and Dmitri Shostakovich all made their names writing classical music for concert, not for movies (although Shostakovich did write some film scores).

For me the distinction is clear.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> John Cage, Brian Ferneyhough and Dmitri Shostakovich all made their names writing classical music for concert, not for movies (although Shostakovich did write some film scores).


I'll remind you again, Yuhki Kuramoto also made his name writing classical music for concert.
https://www.talkclassical.com/44159-what-so-great-about-80.html#post1932739
On what grounds can we claim John Cage is "classical music", whereas Kuramoto is not?
At least Williams never said anything like "traffic noise is more musically interesting than Beethoven and Mozart", he HONORED the classical music practice/tradition.



SanAntone said:


> I haven't said that film music should be segregated to its own forum. But there is a difference. In every article, encyclopedia entry, book, review, etc. John Cage has been described as a classical composer, it was here on TC that that status was challenged.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cage
John Milton Cage Jr. (September 5, 1912 - August 12, 1992) was an American composer, music theorist, artist, and philosopher. A pioneer of indeterminacy in music, electroacoustic music, and non-standard use of musical instruments, Cage was one of the leading figures of the post-war avant-garde.

"Yuhki Kuramoto is a Japanese pianist and composer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuhki_Kuramoto
At school, he studied Rachmaninoff and performed as a part-time soloist in orchestras.
Kuramoto's style of music shows influence from a variety of composers from different periods. Most notably, by Rachmaninoff, Chopin and Ravel.
https://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/yuhki-kuramoto.html
He was considered an heir to Rachmaninoff and Chopin."

Which one seems more like a "classical music composer"?


----------



## Ethereality

consuono said:


> It's a no-no to say that Williams is equivalent to, or is on the same playing field as, Shostakovich...but yet we're supposed to accept that today's avant garde IS on that same playing field.


As I try to word a couple more angles on this Greatest Composers List as it is a survey of this forum and has applied mainly to composers of deeper discussion I've noticed, one wording that comes to me is I'd be surprised if Shostakovich or Williams are really favorite enough composers to people here to have a strong opinion like the above on. Your take is valid, no worries, but in my particular take, Williams is definitely more of a top favorite composer to specific types of individuals, and it can't be said as strongly of Shosty these days even though this list takes a more inclusive adjustment where all 50 are masters. My small point being, Williams definitely has more extreme fans than Zimmer or Shosty in pure listening, not by popularity but extremism, he's had an extremely analytical and dedicated online forum going for decades and we're nearer the end-half of his 90 years so far. The composers on this list all fit a very specific niche of listeners, the list is like the dark matter side of reality: the higher you are the more extreme your fans are even if it's a rare niche. Williams' niche is very 'passional, aesthetic, and melodic' in combination. See below clip.
I think I'll be doing a more thorough analysis of rateyourmusic.com however, as I said the mechanism this list uses automatically trends towards 'Classical composers' having more extreme fans, or rather, more agreeing/converging fans: if you understand the pattern I'm hinting at. Fewer musicians, more agreed favor.
Anyways, carry on.

Compare this passional approach to music to Tallis for instance, who is #1 on the list. A good starting place is *1:00*-*2:00*.





Because of this niche style, his music may not be very deep or intricate to fans of the Classical niche, rather, it holds a very extreme 'passional' fanbase of its own like Tallis. See also scores like Jurassic Park and Superman.


----------



## hammeredklavier

A question for non-classical avant-garde music enthusiasts —"Is Johann Strauss II a "classical music composer"?"


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> I'll remind you again, Yuhki Kuramoto also made his name writing classical music for concert.
> https://www.talkclassical.com/44159-what-so-great-about-80.html#post1932739
> On what grounds can we claim John Cage is "classical music", whereas Kuramoto is not?
> At least Williams never said anything like "traffic noise is more musically interesting than Beethoven and Mozart", he HONORED the classical music practice/tradition.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cage
> John Milton Cage Jr. (September 5, 1912 - August 12, 1992) was an American composer, music theorist, artist, and philosopher. A pioneer of indeterminacy in music, electroacoustic music, and non-standard use of musical instruments, Cage was one of the leading figures of the post-war avant-garde.
> 
> "Yuhki Kuramoto is a Japanese pianist and composer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuhki_Kuramoto
> At school, he studied Rachmaninoff and performed as a part-time soloist in orchestras.
> Kuramoto's style of music shows influence from a variety of composers from different periods. Most notably, by Rachmaninoff, Chopin and Ravel.
> https://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/yuhki-kuramoto.html
> He was considered an heir to Rachmaninoff and Chopin."
> 
> Which one seems more like a "classical music composer"?


If you wish to think that Yuhki Kuramoto is more like a "classical music composer" than John Cage, go for it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> If you wish to think that Yuhki Kuramoto is more like a "classical music composer" than John Cage, go for it.


In the same manner, Williams also seems more like a "classical music composer" than Cage.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> A question for non-classical avant-garde music enthusiasts -"Is Johann Strauss II a "classical music composer"?"


Yeah, good question. And what about Kurt Weill? George Gershwin?


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> ...
> 
> John Cage, Brian Ferneyhough and Dmitri Shostakovich all made their names writing classical music for concert, not for movies (although Shostakovich did write some film scores).
> 
> For me the distinction is clear.


But John Williams has written works for concert. Are those negated, and he is not to be considered "serious", because he wrote film scores? Are the scores for _Koyaanisqatsi_ and _Mishima_ by Philip Glass not to be considered "serious music"?


----------



## Christine

consuono said:


> I haven't said that avant garde stuff should be in its own forum. But there is a difference.
> 
> It's a no-no to say that Williams is equivalent to, or is on the same playing field as, Shostakovich...but yet we're supposed to accept that today's avant garde IS on that same playing field. Williams is closer to Shostakovich than, say, Ferneyhough is.


John Williams has always been my favorite composer. I never thought anyone could bump him from my No. 1 spot. But then something happened in early 2020. I googled "What classical music would a metalhead like?" Though I'm not into metal, I thought that what metalheads liked in classical, rather than what other genres liked in classical, would be the closest I could come to discovering new classical music to enjoy.

Reading through threads, the same names kept coming up, including Shostakovich. By the time I got to Shosty, I had already listened to quite a few other recommendations, and none blew me away. Then I get to Shosty's Symphony 11 and immediately recognize it as that awesome two-minute track of the 1970's Cosmo soundtrack which I had purchased in high school. I had a gut feeling that I was going to be enraptured by #11, and I was just spellbound. I proceeded to listen to other Shosty symphonies, and realized that this guy took out John Williams in the first round.

Though for the most part, Shosty's symphonies don't sound like John Williams, I could easily see how, if I had been introduced to Shosty's 10, 5 or 7 without knowing who the composer was ... I'd think, "Is this John Williams?" The way Shosty and Williams orchestrate strings is quite similar, especially cello and bass.

I've often thought how Shosty would've scored Jaws, Star Wars, Raiders and Jurassic Park. It's inconceivable.

Finally, I don't know how anyone who loves Shostakovich's symphonies (at least 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11) could NOT also love John Williams. And I'm betting that many John Williams fans -- who've never heard Shosty, would instantly be hooked on Shosty's symphonies.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> In the same manner, Williams also seems more like a "classical music composer" than Cage.


Okay. Although the vast majority of his work has been for film, he has written a number of concert pieces. Williams "is fundamentally a romantic traditionalist, but often blends traditional musical syntax and expression with avant-garde techniques and elements of popular music." (Grove Encyclopedia)

John Cage's career has been documented in countless articles, and books, and needs no help from me. He is considered one of the most important classical composers of the 20th century. But his work has been controversial, as is often the case with the avant-garde.

As far as I can see there is nothing linking John Williams and John Cage, other than some members of this forum beating a dead horse.


----------



## consuono

> Okay. Although the vast majority of his work has been for film, he has written a number of concert pieces.


So "classical music" is limited only to standalone "concert pieces"? Where would that put the Art of Fugue? Ballet music without dancers onstage?


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> John Cage's career has been *documented in countless articles, and books,* and needs no help from me. He is considered one of the most important classical composers of the 20th century. But his work has been controversial, as is often the case with the avant-garde.


The authors of those articles and books -Aren't they like, the musical equivalent of:

"It's not only artists who are at fault; it is equally the fault of the so-called art community: the museum heads gallery owners, and the critics who encourage and financially enable the production of this rubbish. It is they who champion graffiti and call it genius, promote the scatological and call it meaningful. It is they who, in reality, are the naked emperors of art, for who else would spend $10 million dollars on a rock and think it is art."


----------



## Lisztian

Fabulin said:


> There is serious doubt, as Williams could (and did!) run circles around the clumsiness of the latter two, no matter how you spin it.
> 
> Shostakovich is a fair match, but has had different strengths. He certainly was far less caring for detail.


In what world was Prokofiev clumsy


----------



## Fabulin

Christine said:


> John Williams has always been my favorite composer. I never thought anyone could bump him from my No. 1 spot. But then something happened in early 2020. I googled "What classical music would a metalhead like?" Though I'm not into metal, I thought that what metalheads liked in classical, rather than what other genres liked in classical, would be the closest I could come to discovering new classical music to enjoy.
> 
> Reading through threads, the same names kept coming up, including Shostakovich. By the time I got to Shosty, I had already listened to quite a few other recommendations, and none blew me away. Then I get to Shosty's Symphony 11 and immediately recognize it as that awesome two-minute track of the 1970's Cosmo soundtrack which I had purchased in high school. I had a gut feeling that I was going to be enraptured by #11, and I was just spellbound. I proceeded to listen to other Shosty symphonies, and realized that this guy took out John Williams in the first round.
> 
> Though for the most part, Shosty's symphonies don't sound like John Williams, I could easily see how, if I had been introduced to Shosty's 10, 5 or 7 without knowing who the composer was ... I'd think, "Is this John Williams?" The way Shosty and Williams orchestrate strings is quite similar, especially cello and bass.
> 
> I've often thought how Shosty would've scored Jaws, Star Wars, Raiders and Jurassic Park. It's inconceivable.
> 
> Finally, I don't know how anyone who loves Shostakovich's symphonies (at least 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11) could NOT also love John Williams. And I'm betting that many John Williams fans -- who've never heard Shosty, would instantly be hooked on Shosty's symphonies.


In certain aspects Williams learned from his mentor Bernard Herrmann, who was a modernist of the same generation as Shostakovich, and whose music shares some characteristics with the Russian's. Both Herrmann and Williams studied some music of Shosty (what was available to them those iron curtain days). He wouldn't be high on the list of Williams' greatest influences... but I think there is a similarity which comes primarily from versatility and melodic skill.

Shostakovich is the only composer in the 20th century about whom one can say that he could have reliably, consistently written themes as good as Williams' if hired to do so - and have a body of proof to support such a statement.


----------



## mikeh375

Fabulin said:


> Let's agree to disagree on
> 
> 1) the existence or non-existence of such a thing as "profundity" in music. The way I see it, so-called profundity usually turns out to be built out of manipulative composition cliches as well.
> 
> 2) composer's taste or wishes or life's story leading to the best artistic choices in a clear-cut dichotomy with external influences. This is too romantic a view for me, sorry.


There is regardless, a difference in mind set when approaching either discipline and this affects the resulting works creative and aesthetic reach. There are of course many, many overlaps and correlations between scoring and concert writing. I think of it as a kind of rabbit hole, the deeper you go and explore material with creative freedom, invention and a more unbounded imagination, the less likely you will engage the listener. But crucially, it follows that there may also be a more tangible sense of profundity engendered within the work as the composer breaks with more and more convention, resulting in a more satisfying work. If that aesthetic and technical depth of rabbit hole could be measured on a sliding scale, then I believe you can only go so deep (far) when writing for film in order to stay connected and frankly, get the gig.

As an example, any developmental potential in material that's found in the course of composing by incorporating personal aesthetics/techniques/imagination which results in music beyond the level of immediate or acceptable comprehension is necessarily discarded. The result is music that is not explored/developed any further and in an exhaustive and/or free manner - one possible prerequisite needed in order to create a homogenous and more 'absolute' work. I accept that this example is a little flawed though, because realistically, the search parameters needed at the _onset_ of composing for a project are dictated to by the required result....the composer is a priori, looking for a different kind of material and of a kind to suit the need.

Anyway, I'll just finally say that for a composer, the adjective 'profound' has some extra resonance...I know you'll understand what I mean as a composer yourself. I actually don't care for labels, ideologies, likes or dislikes, classifications and you'll rarely see me on a lot of shoot out threads here.


----------



## RogerWaters

SanAntone said:


> John Cage's career has been documented in countless articles, and books, and needs no help from me. He is considered one of the most important classical composers of the 20th century.


What makes John Cage a 'classical' composer, in your opinion?

Is it just because of extrinsic factors (institutional attachments, performance venues, etc)? Surely it can't be because of intrinsic factors, for the latter seem to share no _musical_ properties with the classical tradition?

John Cage seems very interested with _sound _to me, but not so much music, let alone classical music:



> We should recognise here that music is not just an art of sound. We might combine sounds in sequence as we combine colours on an abstract canvas, or flowers in a flowerbed. But the result will not be music. It becomes music only if it also makes musical sense. Leaving modernist experiments aside, there is an audible distinction between music and mere sequences of sounds, and it is not just a distinction between types of sound (e.g. pitched and unpitched, regular and random). Sounds become music as a result of organisation, and this organisation is something that we perceive and whose absence we immediately notice, regardless of whether we take pleasure in the result. This organisation is not just an aesthetic matter - it is not simply a style. It is more like a grammar, in being the precondition of our response to the result as music. We must therefore acknowledge that tonal music has something like a syntax - a rule-guided process linking each episode to its neighbours, which we grasp in the act of hearing, and the absence of which leads to a sense of discomfort or incongruity.
> 
> Of course there are things called music which do not share this syntax - modernist experiments, African drum music, music employing scales that defy harmonic ordering, and so on. But from mediaeval plainsong to modern jazz we observe a remarkable constancy, in rhythmical, melodic and harmonic organisation, so much so that one extended part of this tradition has been singled out as 'the common practice' whose principles are taught as a matter of course in classes of music appreciation. This phenomenon demands an explanation.


----------



## SanAntone

RogerWaters said:


> What makes John Cage a 'classical' composer, in your opinion?


The fact that he has been considered a classical composer for his entire career. I don't question that determination, which has been made by consensus. I generally accept a consensus opinion about how to classify a composer. Regarding John Williams that determination has been that he is a film composer who has also written some concert works. But the majority of his work has been for film.

As a film composer John Williams has exhibited rare gifts for matching music to action or emotional content of a scene. He has a real knack for enhancing the film with his music. No less a filmmaker than Steven Spielberg has used Williams for all but a few of his movies. I don't understand why that achievement does not seem to be "enough" for some in this thread.



> Surely it can't be because of intrinsic factors, for the latter seem to share no _musical_ properties with the classical tradition?


My idea of classical music is probably broader than yours based on your statement above.



> John Cage seems very interested with _sound _to me, but not so much music, let alone classical music:


The first third of his career he wrote works using conventional notation written for percussion and piano, sometimes prepared. Also, throughout his career but exclusively during his last period he wrote works for traditional instruments using chamber and orchestral groups.

I see nothing about his work which places him outside the tent of classical music.

But this thread is supposed to be about John Williams. I am unsure what relevance John Cage has to the thread.

Some people have said that listening to and enjoying the music of John Williams was an entry point to the wider world of classical music. Which is a nice anecdotal story. My entry into classical music was through Karlheinz Stockhausen.

I am not sure of the significance of these personal stories and what they say about the composers.


----------



## RogerWaters

SanAntone said:


> The fact that he has been considered a classical composer for his entire career. I don't question that determination, which has been made by consensus. I generally accept a consensus opinion about how to classify a composer.


But WHY is he considered a classical composer, I wonder?



SanAntone said:


> The first third of his career he wrote works using conventional notation written for percussion and piano, sometimes prepared. Also, throughout his career but exclusively during his last period he wrote works for traditional instruments using chamber and orchestral groups.


Ok, but did these works express music or just 'interesting' sounds? Less polemically put, did they have a musical _syntax_? I can write music with percussion, piano or with a chamber group and this music need not share in the musical language of the western tradition. There are chamber groups that purport to cover heavy metal songs... are they, in fact, playing classical music as opposed to heavy metal?


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> ...
> But this thread is supposed to be about John Williams. I am unsure what relevance John Cage has to the thread.
> ...


Only insofar as the discussion is about what a "classical music composer" is. You would seem to disqualify film scores and their creators, but I don't understand why. A ballet score is conceived to accompany dancers on a stage. Is The Rite of Spring not a legit classical music piece minus the dancers? As for "consensus", the consensus on Cage would also seem to be that his music in itself isn't that worthwhile. Nor would Stockhausen's, really. There's no doubt that Cage was a composer, but I don't know how he can be called a "classical composer" when most of his career consisted of trying to obliterate classical conventions and foundations. That's why some would call the avant garde a different genre entirely.


----------



## SanAntone

I've noticed in this thread, and elsewhere in TC there is an attitude expressed of judging the surface of a kind of music as a determinant factor. Iow, if John Williams writes music that "sounds" like classical orchestral music then he can and should be considered a classical composer. And by the same theory, since John Cage writes music which does not "sound" like classical music then he should not be considered a classical composer.

Whereas the determining factor I automatically apply is not what the music sounds like but what is the apparent motivation and intention of the composer. If there is a seriousness of purpose, to write music for concert performance for a classical music audience, as an artistic expression, then this is a classical music environment. It is hard to describe, but for me the determining factor is not what the music sounds like but what caused the music to be created. 

Film music, as a form of popular entertainment, does not fit this description, IMO. John Williams is hired to provide music for a movie. His music is subordinate to the film; it is not an end in itself but a means and part of the directors vision. It serves a purpose other than the pure expression of a composer's artistic vision. Ballet has been put forward as a comparable example. But I reject that comparison since in ballet the music and dance are equal partners, which is not the case in a film. 

But I use these labels in superficial manner since they are not that important to me. They are a convenience for classifying music and composers that was created long before I began to use them. I don't question them and don't reject them.

I probably won't contribute much more since I think I've said all I have to say about John Williams and related subjects.


----------



## Ethereality

There's not much music out there that's subordinate to something else, like film or TV music, so the fact that Williams has a more 'extreme' fanbase of lovers who analyze and hum his themes and orchestrations like they might with Bach or Tchaikovsky is the more important issue to focus on ime. I don't know if composers like Grieg or Johann Strauss really had as passionate of followers as Wagner, Williams, Tchaikovsky--it would be good to know this information. I don't consider Williams' aesthetic as always as 'filmy' as other composers. He seems to have greater colors, developments and expression than most classic film composers. Some of his soundtracks sound richer and more imaginative to me than Grieg or J. Strauss, although it's usually some small tracks or movements that stand out, in films like E.T., Harry Potter and all the Star Wars trilogies.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> No wondering why for me, it boils down to reducing him to the composer of 4'33". But Cage has a large following/audience.


I think you're the one who has to stop reducing Williams to a mere composer of film scores. Just because you don't care for his concert music, it doesn't mean he's not a composer of that genre. He still has a large following/audience in that genre. A lot of stuff Cage wrote is really horror movie soundtracks in essence (I'm not ridiculing his music), the sole difference is that Williams' work was used widely commercially as film scores, Cage's was not. Maybe you care more about "what appears on the surface, or surface images" more than "intrinsic value or essence" when it comes to judging a composer and his work.


----------



## consuono

> Film music, as a form of popular entertainment, does not fit this description, IMO. John Williams is hired to provide music for a movie. His music is subordinate to the film; it is not an end in itself but a means and part of the directors vision. It serves a purpose other than the pure expression of a composer's artistic vision.


The operas of Handel and Mozart are/were also more or less "popular entertainment". Mozart's music in the operas is also at the service of the librettist.



> Ballet has been put forward as a comparable example. But I reject that comparison since in ballet the music and dance are equal partners, which is not the case in a film.


Well then I guess we can assume that you would say that a concert performance of The Rite of Spring would be invalid without the presence of the equal-partner dance troupe.

By the way,


> Film music, as a form of popular entertainment, does not fit this description, IMO.


So is Prokofiev's score for Alexander Nevsky *not* "classical music"?


----------



## Ethereality

By the way, I think niche video game music is a little more psychologically rich or profound than film has been. See for example Uematsu's Tour de Japon or especially his very long and diverse game soundtracks. I think he's greater than Tchaikovsky if you study his ouevre, *edit*: his unpopular works are much better than his popular ones so it's kind of a tough topic to bring up, but his aesthetic is always that 'creative instrumentation' with great melodies. I don't think Williams is worse, but there's more 'depth' and diversity in the gaming world as music mostly accompanied text.


----------



## SanAntone

> But I use these labels in superficial manner since they are not that important to me. They are a convenience for classifying music and composers that was created long before I began to use them. I don't question them and don't reject them.


I never asked to be the bête noire of this thread. I don't listen to John Williams music, I generally don't find it interesting - I don't listen to any film music hardly at all. I have always known him as a composer of film music, his score to _Schindler's List_ is the only one which I thought was interesting, on its own, as music. I also don't listen to the majority of orchestral classical music. What got my attention with this thread is the idea that John Williams is a classical composer of the same stature as Shostakovich.

I don't really care if TC wants to call him a classical composer or if TC wishes to deny that label to John Cage. I just use these labels because they are there. But I am only interested in the music. The music of John Cage interests me; the music of John Williams does not.

So, may I ask that you stop quoting my posts and trying to argue with me? In any event this IS my last post in this thread.


----------



## consuono

> I don't question them and don't reject them.


That doesn't sound like a Cage fan... :lol:



> You can say whatever you wish, this is a open forum. And I can respond to what you say. That's how it works.


 



> I never asked to be the bête noire of this thread.


Oh well. At least you haven't been called a fascist or been suspended yet.


----------



## Prodromides

For whatever this may be worth to anyone, my favorite 100 soundtracks contain only one by John Williams and this is his 1972 score for *Images* (directed by Robert Altman).
So ... my thoughts on Williams are that I'd like more of his music if he wrote further like *Images* more frequently than as a one-off excursion.


----------



## mikeh375

Irrespective of his scores, Williams will consider himself classically trained. That does for me as a definition of a classical composer and to state the obvious, he has a canon of classical works. It's perfectly clear from his work in both disciplines that he also thinks musically and technically, just like a classically taught composer does.
Anything else is just public perception and pigeon holing imv.


----------



## Handelian

consuono said:


> The operas of Handel and Mozart are/were also more or less "popular entertainment". Mozart's music in the operas is also at the service of the librettist.
> 
> Well then I guess we can assume that you would say that a concert performance of The Rite of Spring would be invalid without the presence of the equal-partner dance troupe.
> 
> By the way,
> So is Prokofiev's score for Alexander Nevsky *not* "classical music"?


You are incorrect certainly about Mozart's mature operas, especially his collaborations with da Ponte. The other thing was that Handel's operas were entertainment for the nobility.


----------



## Fabulin

There is an excellent channel that gives a preview of the breadth of Williams' music by grouping select examples (from various films) thematically into suites. There could be many more, such as Jazz, "Viennese", "French", "Russian", Atonal, Synth-augmented, etc. but this youtuber's effort is already rewarding:

Contrapunctual 



Magic / Wonder 



"Operatic" 



Pastoral Americana 



Folk Americana 



Solo piano 



Solo trumpet 



Solo horn 



Strings elegy 



Lyric 



"The quiet side" 



Author's favorite gems 




Highly recommended to update oneself! I learned of a few pieces I didn't know too. Note that the material in the videos is limited to film scores, and has been compiled ca. 2013.


----------



## mikeh375

Fabulin said:


> There is an excellent channel that gives a preview of the breadth of Williams' music by grouping select examples (from various films) thematically into suites. There could be many more, such as Jazz, "Viennese", "French", "Russian", Atonal, Synth-augmented, etc. but this youtuber's effort is already rewarding:
> 
> Contrapunctual
> 
> 
> 
> Magic / Wonder
> 
> 
> 
> "Operatic"
> 
> 
> 
> Pastoral Americana
> 
> 
> 
> Folk Americana
> 
> 
> 
> Solo piano
> 
> 
> 
> Solo trumpet
> 
> 
> 
> Solo horn
> 
> 
> 
> Strings elegy
> 
> 
> 
> Lyric
> 
> 
> 
> "The quiet side"
> 
> 
> 
> Author's favorite gems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Highly recommended to update oneself! I learned of a few pieces I didn't know too. Note that the material in the videos is limited to film scores, and has been compiled ca. 2013.


Good one Fabulin. I had a listen to the Counterpoint selection. Love that Jaws cue. The contrapuntal cue from 'Black Sunday' is remarkably like a cue from Close Encounters' don't you think? JW ripping himself off or perhaps just doing a Horner....


----------



## George P Smackers

I'm new here too.

Am I right to assume that any John Williams thread is, or quickly becomes, a stalking horse for an "elitism vs. populism" or "avant gardism vs. pleasing sounds" argument? I've been surprised to find several on the front page.

Like Oscar Wilde says, "Whenever people talk about the weather, I always feel quite certain that they mean something else."


----------



## hammeredklavier

Handelian said:


> You are incorrect certainly about Mozart's mature operas, especially his collaborations with da Ponte.


I personally find Idomeneo most satisfying (at least in terms of Mozart's artistic expression).
"Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, it was a completely new thing. What marvelous dissonance! What harmony!" -Brahms, 1896
https://www.talkclassical.com/56299-mozart-le-nozze-di-9.html#post1982257

[ 8:00 ~ 12:00 ]
[ 26:00 ~ 32:30 ]
[ 1:23:30 ~ 1:28:30 ]
[ 1:44:30 ~ 1:50:00 ]
[ 2:01:00 ~ 2:06:00 ]
[ 2:21:30 ~ 2:27:30 ]
"What then is "Romantic"? How far back should its beginnings, in music, be pushed? To 1793, when a review of a new work by "Citizen Méhul" described him as a Romantic? Or further - to year 1780-81, the year of Mozart's Idomeneo, a work whose use of orchestral colour for structural and psychological purposes anticipates nineteenth-century Romantic opera?" <Berlioz: The Making of an Artist 1803-1832 , By David Cairns , P. 193>
"One of those works that even a first-class genius like Mozart manages only once in his lifetime." -Alfred Einstein
"Idomeneo was, we know from Mozart's own letters, the work he loved most of all his operas" (PA8)


----------



## Coach G

I have a very small handful of John Williams' "serious" works on a CD where he composed for music for cello and orchestra for Yo-Yo Ma. While it's not on par with our favorite _Cello Concertos_ by Dvorak, Elgar, Shostakovich, Barber, Britten (_Cello Symphony_) etc.; it's pleasant, tonal, not very original, but entertaining enough.

For me it's not a question as to whether or not Williams is a great composer, but rather, is he good at what he's known for, which is movie soundtracks. As far as I can see, Williams is the BEST in the business, and I can't imagine _Star Wars_, _Jurassic Park_, _Jaws_, or the _Cowboys_,without his contribution to those cinema masterpieces.


----------



## Fabulin

mikeh375 said:


> Good one Fabulin. I had a listen to the Counterpoint selection. Love that Jaws cue. The contrapuntal cue from 'Black Sunday' is remarkably like a cue from Close Encounters' don't you think? JW ripping himself off or perhaps just doing a Horner....


Williams has a specific type of fugatos & fugues that he often uses for dramatic situations of hectic preparations or communal struggles.






















Although "often" might be slightly misleading. He used it more commonly in the period called his "heroic" (1975-1993) Uses in the 21st century are much more rare.


----------



## consuono

Handelian said:


> You are incorrect certainly about Mozart's mature operas, especially his collaborations with da Ponte. The other thing was that Handel's operas were entertainment for the nobility.


I don't think that's correct either. Handel was still very much a creature of noble patronage, but the rising bourgeoisie was a big part of the audience of both. And the point is that Mozart's music was made to go with the libretto, obviously. I don't think there's anything wrong or inherently unartistic about it. Some -- if not most or all -- of Shakespeare's greatest plays were "popular entertainment". Patrons of The Globe were certainly not all from the nobility.


----------



## SanAntone

So, let me get this straight. The John Williams Fan Club is claiming that Steven Spielberg movies are in the same league as Shakespeare's plays and John Williams is on a par with Mozart and Handel.

Is there any need for a counter argument? Res ipsa loquitur.


----------



## consuono

So let me get this straight. The John Cage Fan Club would have us believe that their hero is in the same league as Bach, Beethoven and Mozart.

I didn't say anything about the quality of Williams' work and I never said I'm a Williams fan. I'm saying that just because a work is a film score doesn't disqualify it as serious music.


----------



## Barbebleu

SanAntone said:


> So, let me get this straight. The John Williams Fan Club is claiming that Steven Spielberg movies are in the same league as Shakespeare's plays and John Williams is on a par with Mozart and Handel.
> 
> Is there any need for a counter argument? Res ipsa loquitur.


This is a great thread. Highly entertaining. Btw I refer you to the last sentence of post #131. 

Sit vis vobiscum!


----------



## SanAntone

Barbebleu said:


> This is a great thread. Highly entertaining. Btw I refer you to the last sentence of post #131.
> 
> Sit vis vobiscum!


Yeh, I couldn't resist.


----------



## Coach G

SanAntone said:


> So, let me get this straight. The John Williams Fan Club is claiming that Steven Spielberg movies are in the same league as Shakespeare's plays and John Williams is on a par with Mozart and Handel.
> 
> Is there any need for a counter argument? Res ipsa loquitur.


Apples and oranges. _Star Wars_, _Jurassic Park_, and _Jaws_, _The Poseidon Adventure_, are all masterpieces of their respective genres of cinema, and Williams is part and parcel of creating those masterpieces. Shakespeare, Mozart, Beethoven, Rembrandt, Van Gogh, and Picasso; were masters of a different sort.


----------



## Fabulin

SanAntone said:


> So, let me get this straight. The John Williams Fan Club is claiming that Steven Spielberg movies are in the same league as Shakespeare's plays and John Williams is on a par with Mozart and Handel.
> 
> Is there any need for a counter argument? Res ipsa loquitur.


This is a strawman. I for one have never claimed that Spielberg films equal Shakespeare's plays (lol). Still, incidental music to Shakespeare's plays doesn't get an automatic pass because of the literary source material. Notes vs notes and that's all.

Williams being on par with Mozart is also silly and not true. Some (Gustavo Dudamel) may call him the Mozart of his time, but that's tongue-in-cheek.

As for Haendel... well, Beethoven thought he was the best, yet J.S. Bach would have probably disagreed. Hard to compare to Williams because of the different musical traditions and instrumental tools each of them had at their disposal. Sheet-to-sheet I would pick Williams, but skillwise I wouldn't be surprised if they were a match.

Nobody knows how good would Williams be in a keyboard duel, but he was a formidable pianist in his youth and has a quick mind for improvisation, so again, it would probably be amusing to watch and listen to.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> I don't think that's correct either. Handel was still very much a creature of noble patronage, but the rising bourgeoisie was a big part of the audience of both. And the point is that *Mozart's music was made to go with the libretto,* obviously. I don't think there's anything wrong or inherently unartistic about it. Some -- if not most or all -- of *Shakespeare's greatest plays were "popular entertainment"*. Patrons of The Globe were certainly not all from the nobility.





Fabulin said:


> This is a strawman. I for one have never claimed that Spielberg films equal Shakespeare's plays (lol). Still, incidental music to Shakespeare's plays doesn't get an automatic pass because of the literary source material. Notes vs notes and that's all.
> 
> Williams being on par with Mozart is also silly and not true. Some (Gustavo Dudamel) may call him the Mozart of his time, but that's tongue-in-cheek.


No, you didn't make the comparison, Consuono did. Maybe you didn't see the post I quoted just above yours. But it was what I was responding to.

Question will Spielberg's films be watched in 200 years? Will Williams's film scores be performed in 200 years? Who knows?

In 200 years nothing about our society might be anything we'd recognize. But I'd sooner bet on Mozart and Shakespeare over Spielberg and Williams.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> No, you didn't make the comparison, Consuono did. Maybe you didn't see the post I quoted just above yours. But it was what I was responding to.
> 
> Question will Spielberg's films be watched in 200 years? Will Williams's film scores be performed in 200 years? Who knows?
> 
> In 200 years nothing about our society might be anything we'd recognize. But I'd sooner bet on Mozart and Shakespeare over Spielberg and Williams.


Where will today's avant garde be in 200 years? Where will they be in the next decade? That's not the point, and I didn't say that Spielberg=Shakespeare. I'm saying that dismissing something outright as "popular entertainment" is idiotic and you don't even follow that stricture consistently. You can't.

Here's a comment of yours from another thread:


SanAntone said:


> But I also consider Jazz to be America's classical music.


Really now. Jazz is just rooted in "popular entertainment", right? That's what I'd always heard.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Where will today's avant garde be in 200 years? Where will they be in the next decade? That's not the point, and I didn't say that Spielberg=Shakespeare. I'm saying that dismissing something outright as "popular entertainment" is idiotic and you don't even follow that stricture consistently. You can't.


But I never _dismissed_ John Williams as "popular entertainment" I _described_ the movies he worked on as popular entertainment. I very much enjoy popular entertainment and would never judge it inferior to classical music. But they are different things.


----------



## La Passione

Johann Strauss's waltzes were definitely popular entertainment in Vienna in the 19th century. Ditto for Verdi's operas in Italy. So what.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> But I never _dismissed_ John Williams as "popular entertainment" I _described_ the movies he worked on as popular entertainment. I very much enjoy popular entertainment and would never judge it inferior to classical music. But they are different things.


OK, well we'll let it go at that. :cheers:


----------



## jojoju2000

I found this interview with a Music Professor from Davidson College in North Carolina. What he says about Williams is kind of interesting;

https://www.davidson.edu/news/2019/12/18/qa-music-prof-neil-lerner-john-williams-composer-behind-indelible-star-wars-score



> What is John Williams's place in classical music?
> 
> At the moment, he's regarded chiefly as a film composer. And in the world of classical music, film scores are starting to get a little more recognition, but film music is still not seen as important as operas or symphonies or chamber music. I think as more time passes, that's going to shift.
> 
> Is that because film is still a relatively young medium?
> 
> That's right. Film scoring really didn't start until the late 1920s or early 1930s, when we have the beginning of synchronized sound film. Also, film music is commercial entertainment. There's no denying that. Yet some films can be really rich, complicated and interesting texts.
> 
> I predict that Williams's music is going to be considered some of the most important and interesting music composed in the 20th and 21st century. And in the same way that listeners and scholars and performers can now go back and enjoy the symphonies of Beethoven or Haydn, or the cantatas of Johann Sebastian Bach, or the polyphonic masses of Josquin des Prez, they will go back to study and listen to the film scores of John Williams.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> They're masterfully put together. There is an imaginative, creative musical mind behind them; he's a composer who is brilliant with the symphony orchestra. We now have digital sampling and the ability to create any sound we can imagine, but in the 18th and 19th century, the orchestra was the pinnacle of musical instruments. It's a dying art in several ways. And Williams is, I think, one of the last great practitioners of that, the culmination of a symphonic tradition, and also in many ways the sunset of it as well.


----------



## SanAntone

Well of course he would think that, he "has been teaching classes about music and cinema for more than 20 years—and every class covers the scores of John Williams, the composer who has defined the sound of movies for more than 40 years."

Good try, Prof.


----------



## Fabulin

jojoju2000 said:


> I found this interview with a Music Professor from Davidson College in North Carolina. What he says about Williams is kind of interesting;
> 
> https://www.davidson.edu/news/2019/...ams-composer-behind-indelible-star-wars-score


Not an uncommon view among academics who have studied Williams' music broad and deep.

There have already been several shifts in the perception of Williams and his work.
1960s-1970s known in his trade as one of the more competent of his generation
1970s-1980s "heroic period" - gradually more and more famous among the public, derided by academics
1980s-1990s Boston Pops days - increased concert demand, still derided by academics
1990s-2000s JP, Schindler, Potters, more SW, Live-to-projection concerts - the first big shift, with the positive starting to outweigh the critical
2000s-2010s continued work - becoming more and more accepted as a "great" with voices coming from all possible sources: academics, conductors, musicians, independent analysts...
2010s-2020+ work continued still - becoming an acclaimed figure with more and more presence outside of Hollywood (champions among the highly positioned, a creeping spring of compliments from Europe...).

Regardless of the trend above, I predict a significant acceleration of research once Williams dies and his library goes to Julliard, not to mention the sort of peak of interest a death itself brings to an already famous figure about whom journalists can write a lot. Nobody knows the day and the hour of this, but each further year Williams lives (and continues to work) this latter effect will become stronger.

Once his reputation stagnates post-mortem, I predict that he will be seen as an artist akin to a more prolific Verdi mixed with a more imaginative Saint-Saens (a Saint-Saens raised on Debussy's and Stravinsky's music :lol, with an added strong "closing an era" vibe. There are other variables that give Williams either some advantages or individuality, such as his breadth of musical styles that exceeds those of Verdi and Saint-Saens (if we stick to this comparison), his "old wizard / father christmas" public image, a vast body of personally conducted recordings, and just having worked in different times.


----------



## Christine

Fabulin said:


> Williams has a specific type of fugatos & fugues that he often uses for dramatic situations of hectic preparations or communal struggles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although "often" might be slightly misleading. He used it more commonly in the period called his "heroic" (1975-1993) Uses in the 21st century are much more rare.


Don't forget the construction of the shark cage in Jaws.


----------



## Fabulin

Christine said:


> Don't forget the construction of the shark cage in Jaws.


Read the post I was replying to :tiphat: There are more examples in the counterpoint video.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> But I never _dismissed_ John Williams as "popular entertainment" I _described_ the movies he worked on as popular entertainment. I very much enjoy popular entertainment and would never judge it inferior to classical music. But they are different things.


I also enjoy non-classical avant-garde music like Cage's, (or rather should I say I "find it emotionally effective") especially when I hear it in the context of documentaries/films of the horror/mystery genre. It really creates a different feeling from ones I would get from general classical music, and I would not consider it objectively inferior to classical music. They are different things, so they must be categorized differently.
What bothers me the most about the "avant-garde mentality" is, it encourages and promotes the thinking that composers such as Brahms, Saint-Saëns, Rachmaninoff were somehow not "important", as if they didn't contribute anything "ingenious" or "fresh" to classical music.
I'm sorry to say this, I see it as some sort of "parasite" or "cancer" that feeds on today's classical music. And I really think we need to "save" classical music from the "tainted influence". This is why I keep saying there should be separate forums for the two groups, "classical music fans" and "avant-garde music fans". Williams will never be "less classical" than Cage in my book.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> I also enjoy non-classical avant-garde music like Cage's, (or rather should I say I "find it emotionally effective") especially when I hear it in the context of documentaries/films of the horror/mystery genre. It really creates a different feeling from ones I would get from general classical music, and I would not consider it objectively inferior to classical music. They are different things, so they must be categorized differently.
> What bothers me the most about the "avant-garde mentality" is, it encourages and promotes the thinking that composers such as Brahms, Saint-Saëns, Rachmaninoff were somehow not "important", as if they didn't contribute anything "ingenious" or "fresh" to classical music.
> I'm sorry to say this, I see it as some sort of "parasite" or "cancer" that feeds on today's classical music. And I really think we need to "save" classical music from the "tainted influence". This is why I keep saying there should be separate forums for the two groups, "classical music fans" and "avant-garde music fans". Williams will never be "less classical" than Cage in my book.


You can live in a alternate universe, the one in your mind, where you ignore how John Cage and John Williams have been classified for their entire careers. There is a subset of people who wish to focus more on the minority of Williams's works which are concert classical-styled works and minimize the bulk of his work as a composer of film scores. A somewhat solipsistic point of view.

You opinions about avant-garde music are just that, your opinions; no more or less important than my opinions - and your opinion does not impinge on my enjoyment of John Cage and other avant-garde music. As I would expect my opinion of John Williams does not spoil the enjoyment of his music for his fans.

There are threads devoted to C20/21 music where most of the discussion of new music occurs, and you need not visit those threads.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> You can live in a alternate universe, the one in your mind, where you ignore how John Cage and John Williams have been classified for their entire careers. There is a subset of people who wish to focus more on the minority of Williams's works which are concert classical-styled works and minimize the bulk of his work as a composer of film scores. A somewhat solipsistic point of view.


I'll jump in once more to say that Williams fans *aren't* just focused on the "concert works" but rather on his entire body of work. They're just saying that his film scores can't be dismissed musically just because they're film scores.

There's another thread going on about Beethoven's Egmont music with or without the narration. Is that work not classical music *without* the narration? Of course it is.

One last thing, SanAntone. Your adherence to some sort of "concert work" standard is puzzling, given your affection for a guy who was apparently trying to obliterate that kind of standard. A good many of the avant garde pieces you and others have highlighted here through videos can't really be called "concert works" either. It's a weird amalgamated traditionalist-avant garde attitude in which Williams is excluded from the world of Brahms etc, but at the same time creating works by using the I Ching is included. No thanks.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> I'll jump in once more to say that Williams fans *aren't* just focused on the "concert works" but rather on his entire body of work. They're just saying that his film scores can't be dismissed musically just because they're film scores.
> 
> There's another thread going on about Beethoven's Egmont music with or without the narration. Is that work not classical music *without* the narration? Of course it is.
> 
> One last thing, SanAntone. Your adherence to some sort of "concert work" standard is puzzling, given your affection for a guy who was apparently trying to obliterate that kind of standard. A good many of the avant garde pieces you and others have highlighted here through videos can't really be called "concert works" either. It's a weird amalgamated traditionalist-avant garde attitude in which Williams is excluded from the world of Brahms etc, but at the same time creating works by using the I Ching is included. No thanks.


I have made no argument for or against either John Cage or John Williams being considered classical composers. I have pointed to an existing determination made by consensus over decades covering these men's careers. If you wish to go against the established reality and make alternative claims, that choice is open to you.

I simply accept things as they are.


----------



## consuono

> I have made no argument for or against either John Cage or John Williams being considered classical composers. I have pointed to an existing determination made by consensus over decades covering these men's careers.


Oh, come on. You're making that argument *based* on that consensus. And I'm following the consensus of probably 95% at least of music listeners who would call most of the avant garde crap. I'll bet Williams will have a better chance of being remembered than Cage, Stockhausen, Ferneyhough and Saunders. It's no accident that Williams and Pärt are probably the two most listened to living composers. The others mentioned above are...probably further down on that list. There's a consensus for you.

I'm through with the topic.


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm sorry to say this, I see it as some sort of "parasite" or "cancer" that feeds on today's classical music. And I really think we need to "save" classical music from the "tainted influence". This is why I keep saying there should be separate forums for the two groups, "classical music fans" and "avant-garde music fans".


Dream on. Your proposal would never be accepted by TC management or avant-garde enthusiasts. Although I'm not an enthusiast, it wouldn't be acceptable to me either.


----------



## consuono

Bulldog said:


> Dream on. Your proposal would never be accepted by TC management or avant-garde enthusiasts. Although I'm not an enthusiast, it wouldn't be acceptable to me either.


Me either. I don't have to read modern music threads.


----------



## Luchesi

Art should point to the future. Always has... Maybe not JsB, but he was a religious mind and religions have their own fantasy futures.

The future Art has always been difficult. Ferneyhough and Cage, even Reich, but Williams? 

People seem to 'like' the audience-pleasing works of Williams for personal/self-centered reasons. 

Do we like Schoenberg for egotistical reasons? 'Possible I guess.. Is it that way with all of CM as opposed to popular music? So there again it's definitive, who cares what people like? You begin to get out of a work of art what you bring to it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> I have made no argument for or against either John Cage or John Williams being considered classical composers.


but you said:



SanAntone said:


> Blah, blah, blah - John Williams writes movie soundtracks. Period.


and this is like saying "Blah, blah, blah - John Cage writes non-classical avant-garde music. Period." in a thread about Cage.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> but you said:
> 
> and this is like saying "Blah, blah, blah - John Cage writes non-classical avant-garde music. Period." in a thread about Cage.


When I wrote that I was not aware that he wrote anything else. Because of this thread I have updated my knowledge on John Williams's career. I never knew he wrote any concert classical works. Now I know that while the bulk of his work has been for films, he has written a number of concertos and other classical works. It doesn't change the fact that John Williams is primarily considered a film music composer.

John Cage has always been considered a classical music composer.

These determinations have already been made, not by me, by consensus over time in consideration of their entire career's work.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bulldog said:


> Dream on. Your proposal would never be accepted by TC management or avant-garde enthusiasts. Although I'm not an enthusiast, it wouldn't be acceptable to me either.


People clearly separate classical stuff vs. avant-garde stuff in visual arts; but why not in music? Why can't we all just accept that avant-garde music adheres to different philosophical principles so it's a different kind of music from classical music? Because being "dropped out" of "the club" would somehow diminish the value of the music and avant-garde music enthusiasts can't accept that? We can't ever question its "musical identity"?



hammeredklavier said:


> "It's not only artists who are at fault; it is equally the fault of the so-called art community: the museum heads, gallery owners, and the critics who encourage and financially enable the production of this rubbish. It is they who champion graffiti and call it genius, promote the scatological and call it meaningful. It is they who, in reality, are the naked emperors of art, for who else would spend $10 million dollars on a rock and think it is art."


----------



## consuono

Luchesi said:


> Art should point to the future. Always has... Maybe not JsB, but he was a religious mind and religions have their own fantasy futures.
> ...


Really? "Fantasy futures"? What's your "fantasy future"? How did Michelangelo and Shakespeare "point to the future"? This is more of that outmoded 19th century worship of "progress". That's a religion, too.


----------



## hammeredklavier

"Every man or woman in charge of the music of moving picture theater is, consciously or unconsciously, a disciple or follower of Richard Wagner" – Stephen Bush, film critic, 1911

"Please write music like Wagner, only louder" – Sam Goldwyn to a film composer

"If my grandfather were alive today, he would undoubtedly be working in Hollywood" —Wolfgang Wagner


----------



## Fabulin

hammeredklavier said:


> "Every man or woman in charge of the music of moving picture theater is, consciously or unconsciously, a disciple or follower of Richard Wagner" - Stephen Bush, film critic, 1911
> 
> "Please write music like Wagner, only louder" - Sam Goldwyn to a film composer
> 
> "If my grandfather were alive today, he would undoubtedly be working in Hollywood" -Wolfgang Wagner


"Wagner would have his own studio in Burbank with a huge water tank with a "W" on it" - John Williams

:tiphat:


----------



## Handelian

Luchesi said:


> Art should point to the future. Always has... Maybe not JsB, but he was a religious mind and religions have their own fantasy futures.
> 
> The future Art has always been difficult. Ferneyhough and Cage, even Reich, but Williams?
> 
> People seem to 'like' the audience-pleasing works of Williams for personal/self-centered reasons.
> 
> Do we like Schoenberg for egotistical reasons? 'Possible I guess.. Is it that way with all of CM as opposed to popular music? So there again it's definitive, who cares what people like? You begin to get out of a work of art what you bring to it.


If you think of the future in terms of Ferneyhough and Cage and Reich, then you are in the realm of fantasy - or nightmare!


----------



## Fabulin

Handelian said:


> If you think of the future in terms of Ferneyhough and Cage and Reich, then you are in the realm of fantasy - or nightmare!


_When _[Bernard] _Herrmann asked _[François]_Truffaut why he was chosen over modern composers, such as the director's friends Pierre Boulez or Karlheinz Stockhausen, the director replied that "They'll give me music of the twentieth century, but you'll give me music of the twenty first!"

_I wonder who will turn out to be a better gambler - Truffaut, or "Luchesi"...


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> People clearly separate classical stuff vs. avant-garde stuff in visual arts; but why not in music? Why can't we all just accept that avant-garde music adheres to different philosophical principles so it's a different kind of music from classical music? Because being "dropped out" of "the club" would somehow diminish the value of the music and avant-garde music enthusiasts can't accept that? We can't ever question its "musical identity"?


You want something to happen here on TC that isn't going to happen. You're free to question anything you want, or (in this case) accept reality.


----------



## consuono

Handelian said:


> If you think of the future in terms of Ferneyhough and Cage and Reich, then you are in the realm of fantasy - or nightmare!


:lol: :lol: If that's the future, I'll take the past thank you very much.


----------



## consuono

Fabulin said:


> _When _[Bernard] _Herrmann asked _[François]_Truffaut why he was chosen over modern composers, such as the director's friends Pierre Boulez or Karlheinz Stockhausen, the director replied that "They'll give me music of the twentieth century, but you'll give me music of the twenty first!"
> 
> _I wonder who will turn out to be a better gambler - Truffaut, or "Luchesi"...


Who is this Stockhausen of which you speak? :lol: OK, now I'm done. :lol:


----------



## Luchesi

Handelian said:


> If you think of the future in terms of Ferneyhough and Cage and Reich, then you are in the realm of fantasy - or nightmare!


 If they affect you that much, I say well done! They're 3 different paths to the future in music. You and I might not want that future. The critics of Beethoven wanted more Mozart and Haydn.


----------



## Lisztian

hammeredklavier said:


> People clearly separate classical stuff vs. avant-garde stuff in visual arts; but why not in music? Why can't we all just accept that avant-garde music adheres to different philosophical principles so it's a different kind of music from classical music? Because being "dropped out" of "the club" would somehow diminish the value of the music and avant-garde music enthusiasts can't accept that? We can't ever question its "musical identity"?


You're free to question its musical identity all you want. There is, however, a reason the music is discussed here: because it comes from the same tradition and many of us see it as the continuation that it is. I think Cage is actually one of the more 'borderline' cases (but he's still generally considered classical) but other avant-garde composers? Stockhausen, Boulez, Ligeti, etc? I mean it seems obvious to me that they belong. We can't accept what you suggest simply because we disagree with it. Most Romantic era music adheres to different philosophical principles to the music in the classical era. Should we drop that music out too?

Also, you frequently like to point out that you're not 'belittling the music, just informing us that it's something else.' But then you turn it around and quote things like:

"It's not only artists who are at fault; it is equally the fault of the so-called art community: the museum heads, gallery owners, and the critics who encourage and financially enable the production of this rubbish. It is they who champion graffiti and call it genius, promote the scatological and call it meaningful. It is they who, in reality, are the naked emperors of art, for who else would spend $10 million dollars on a rock and think it is art."

You can't have it both ways. Also, your categorisation of all this music as 'horror film soundtracks' betrays both ignorance of the breadth of the composers works and a lack of sympathy with their musical worlds. It does not in any objective sense tell us anything about the music. If we were even to begin to take what you were saying at all seriously about separating more avant-garde music, it would be because you gave us much more of an indication that you know what you're talking about.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Lisztian said:


> I think Cage is actually one of the more 'borderline' cases (but he's still generally considered classical) but other avant-garde composers? Stockhausen, Boulez, Ligeti, etc? I mean it seems obvious to me that they belong. We can't accept what you suggest because we disagree with it. Most Romantic era music adheres to different philosophical principles to the music in the classical era. Should we drop that music out too?


Actually, I've thought about this too. I think in order for any composer to be considered "classical", he has to show by words or actions that he belongs in the group. For instance, Philip Glass singled out Schubert as a crucial influence on his own music. (https://books.google.ca/books?id=0LhMDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA192) Ligeti discussed the merits of the polyrhythms of Chopin, Schumann, Brahms, Liszt. (



) Schoenberg said that he was a pupil of Bach and Mozart. (https://www.talkclassical.com/69140-expressivity-modern-music-3.html#post1981211) The fact that Cage was classically-trained isn't good enough a reason to consider him "classical". One can be classically-trained, but be a complete "rebel" and become a jazz or a prog-rock musician (for instance).



hammeredklavier said:


> In my view, a composer has to satisfy these 3 requirements in order to be genuinely considered to be part of "classical music":
> 1. must have connection to his close/direct predecessors in western classical music.
> 2. must have connection to distant predecessors in western classical music.
> 3. must not have avant-gardist philosophies like "noise is also music", "who cares if you listen".
> 
> Take Beethoven for example, he succeeded the Haydn brothers (his close predecessors) to be a major representative of Post-Classicism [1], and at the same time paid homage to the Baroque and Renaissance-era composers (his distant predecessors). He had strong personal expressions in works like the Grosse fugue, but he never had the attitude "noise is music". I think in the Grosse fuge, Beethoven expanded on the ideas of personal expression of his previous works, for example, the 9th symphony scherzo, to write his "final statement". I believe he wasn't really interested in "trolling his audience for the sake of trolling". I also think Beethoven was inspired by Mozart's expressions of "controlled violence" [2]. Beethoven created a unique sound world in "classical music" while respecting the "classical music" tradition at the same time.
> 
> John Cage, on the other hand, disowned his distant predecessors by saying "If you listen to Mozart and Beethoven, it's always the same. But if you listen to the traffic here on Sixth Avenue, it's always different." https://www.gramophone.co.uk/features/article/john-cage-manhattan-music
> 
> [1]:
> 
> 
> 
> "Gregorian melodies, of course, continued to be used in the Mass throughout the eighteenth century; but by Beethoven's time they were relatively rare, especially in orchestral Masses. The one composer who still used them extensively is Michael Haydn, in his a cappella Masses for Advent and Lent. It is significant that in some of these he limits the borrowed melody to the Incarnatus and expressly labels it "Corale." In the Missa dolorum B. M. V. (1762) it is set in the style of a harmonized chorale, in the Missa tempore Qudragesima of 1794 note against note, with the Gregorian melody (Credo IV of the Liber Usualis) appearing in the soprano. I have little doubt that Beethoven knew such works of Michael Haydn, at that time the most popular composer of sacred music in Austria." < Beethoven , By Michael Spitzer , Pg. 123 ~ 124 >
> 
> [2]:
> 
> 
> 
> "the fact remains that the "Great Fugue" is "a controlled violence without parallel in music before the twentieth century and anticipated only by Mozart in the C minor fugue for two pianos (K.426)" <Opera's Second Death, By Slavoj Žižek, Mladen Dolar, Page 128>
> "Mozart later arranged this fugue for strings as well, adding the introductory Adagio, K. 546. The traditional Baroque idiom that is developed in this fugue for two pianos lays great stress on dissonant chromatic semitones and appoggiaturas. The intensity of the fugal writing is startling, foreshadowing the fugal textures in some of Beethoven's later works, such as the first movement of the Piano Sonata in C Minor, op.111, which exploits a variant of the same idiom. Beethoven was so taken by this piece, in fact, that he copied out the entire fugue in score." < Mozart's Piano Music, By William Kinderman, Page 46 >


----------



## hammeredklavier

Lisztian said:


> it comes from the same tradition and many of us see it as the continuation that it is.


Jazz originated from ragtime composers who also composed operas, operettas, concertos. We talked about all this before. There are no grounds to claim Cage belongs in classical music more than Yuhki Kuramoto does. 







I still haven't heard any convincing argument against the claim, "Boulez's 2nd piano sonata consists of random notes. If you make a mistake playing this sonata, you can just pretend it's improvisation". I'm not saying the work actually consists of "random notes", but let me ask; how significant is the "innovation" these avant-gardists have come up with? Is it really that significant enough that we can all just trash composers like John Williams by saying "blah, blah, he writes for films" (like how SanAntone does in this thread)? Isn't much of it simply "glorified" horror-film music? If that's the case, why should someone like Cage deserve so much more "special treatment" from us than Williams?


----------



## Lisztian

hammeredklavier said:


> Actually, I've thought about this too. I think in order for any composer to be considered "classical", he has to show by words or actions that he belongs in the group. For instance, Philip Glass singled out Schubert as a crucial influence on his own music. (https://books.google.ca/books?id=0LhMDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA192) Ligeti discussed the merits of the polyrhythms of Chopin, Schumann, Brahms, Liszt. (
> 
> 
> 
> ) Schoenberg said that he was a pupil of Bach and Mozart. (https://www.talkclassical.com/69140-expressivity-modern-music-3.html#post1981211) The fact that Cage was classically-trained isn't good enough a reason to consider him "classical". One can be classically-trained, but be a complete "rebel" and become a jazz or a prog-rock musician (for instance).


So it seems that you are against Cage specifically being classical composer. Is it only Cage or are there others?

I don't know much about Cage, but I believe his favourite composer and biggest musician influence (along with some of his contemporaries) was Satie.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Lisztian said:


> So it seems that you are against Cage specifically being classical composer. Is it only Cage or are there others?


Stockhausen, who said that the September 11 attacks were the greatest works of art. Milton Babbitt who said "who cares if you listen". I'm not saying their philosophies are wrong, they're just really different from those of classical music.



Lisztian said:


> I don't know much about Cage, but I believe his favourite composer and biggest musician influence (along with some of his contemporaries) was Satie.


I think Cage just hated classical music in general. If we consider someone like Cage "classical", it's unfair to modern "new-age" and "film" composers who are actually respectful about classical music, right?
"If you listen to Mozart and Beethoven, it's always the same. But if you listen to the traffic here on Sixth Avenue, it's always different." https://www.gramophone.co.uk/features/article/john-cage-manhattan-music


----------



## Lisztian

hammeredklavier said:


> Jazz originated from ragtime composers who also composed operas, operettas, concertos. We talked about all this before. There are no grounds to claim Cage belongs in classical music more than Yuhki Kuramoto does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still haven't heard any convincing argument against the claim "Boulez's 2nd piano sonata consists of random notes. If you make a mistake playing this sonata, you can just pretend it's improvisation". I'm not saying it actually consists of "random notes", but let me ask; how significant is the "innovation" these avant-gardists have come up with? Is it really that significant enough that we can all just trash composers like John Williams "he only writes for films" (like how SanAntone does in this thread)? Isn't much of it simply "glorified" horror-film music? If that's the case, why should someone like Cage deserve so much more "special treatment" from us than Williams?


None of us have said anything about the significance of composers like Boulez (I'm not a fan of his second piano sonata myself, but I do enjoy quite a bit of his other music). We simply said they belong to the 'classical' genre. That being said, I've know many classical enthusiasts who greatly enjoy the second sonata.

As for much of it being simply glorified horror-film music, well yes I do believe horror music was often influenced by the surface qualities of works by Penderecki, Ligeti, Stockhausen, etc. But this is only the surface qualities (ignoring the structure) of SOME of the music. All of these composers have widely varied oeuvres. You also said that Cage essentially wrote horror movie soundtracks...what are some examples of this?

I'm a fan of John Williams. SanAntone's opinion that he's not a classical composer I respect: I don't know what I think myself. This has nothing to do with whether certain avant-garde composers are or aren't, and being called a classical composer isn't some kind of 'special treatment' like you suggest. It's a categorisation that has nothing to with merit. Amédée Méreaux is a classical composer and is, from what I've heard, generally considered to be crap.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Lisztian said:


> This has nothing to do with whether certain avant-garde composers are or aren't, and being called a classical composer isn't some kind of 'special treatment' like you suggest.


I agree, it is not 'special treatment'. But if a composer is considered "not classical", he should only be discussed in the subforums, not in the main forum. There should be a subforum "contemporary *ART* music", where Cage enthusiasts can talk about Cage's music all they want.


----------



## Lisztian

hammeredklavier said:


> Stockhausen, who said that the September 11 attacks were the greatest works of art. Milton Babbitt who said "who cares if you listen". I'm not saying their philosophies are wrong, they're just really different from those of classical music.
> 
> I think Cage just hated classical music in general. If we consider someone like Cage "classical", it's unfair to modern "new-age" and "film" composers who are actually respectful about classical music, right?
> "If you listen to Mozart and Beethoven, it's always the same. But if you listen to the traffic here on Sixth Avenue, it's always different." https://www.gramophone.co.uk/features/article/john-cage-manhattan-music


Stockhausen's unfortunate comment about September 11 has nothing to do with his music or its lineage, it simply means he'd most likely lost a bit of touch with reality by that point. Stockhausen was greatly respectful of many different composers. If that comment did count him out we'd have to remove Wagner and Gesualdo from being classical composers as well for their comments from the former and actions from the latter. Milton Babbitt never said 'who cares if you listen,' but rather that was the title given, without Babbitt's permission, by the publisher of the article. The original heading was 'the composer as specialist.' Besides, even Schumann said something similiar when he said, about his Symphonic Etudes: 'You are wise not to perform them; they are not suitable for the public. And I should be foolish to complain if audiences failed to grasp something which was never intended for their approval but exists rather for its own sake.' Is Schumann therefore not a classical composer?

As for Cage, as I said I don't know enough about him but, from what I know, do believe he's one of the more borderline cases. He is typically included as a classical composer, though.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Lisztian said:


> Stockhausen's unfortunate comment about September 11 has nothing to do with his music or its lineage, it simply means he'd most likely lost a bit of touch with reality by that point. If it did we'd have to remove Wagner and Gesualdo from being classical composers as well.


By the same logic, we can call Einaudi and Kuramoto, Yiruma, and everyone else "classical", right? Heck, why not call every kind of music "classical music" then? Aren't we gonna be all happy then?
Maybe I should start submitting stuff like these in for TC's List of Most Recommended Works:


----------



## consuono

Luchesi said:


> If they affect you that much, I say well done! ...


That's another indication of the problem though. "Épater le bourgeois" is also a 19th century relic...as if the value of a work of art is measured by how much certain people find it repellent.


----------



## Lisztian

hammeredklavier said:


> By the same logic, we can call Einaudi and Kuramoto, Yiruma, and everyone else "classical", right? Heck, why not call every kind of music "classical music" then? Aren't we be all happy then?
> Maybe I should start submitting stuff like this in for TC's List of Most Recommended Works:


I have no opinion on whether Yiruma is a classical composer. Einaudi, from what I've heard, is far more influenced by pop music than classical. Stockhausen, however, was primarily influenced by guys like Webern, Messiaen, Varese, Schaeffer, his post-war contemporaries and the new possibilities of technology. He belongs to and participated in furthering the tradition of classical music.


----------



## Luchesi

consuono said:


> That's another indication of the problem though. "Épater le bourgeois" is also a 19th century relic...as if the value of a work of art is measured by how much certain people find it repellent.


Human achievement is evaluated by what people like or find repellant?


----------



## consuono

Luchesi said:


> Human achievement is evaluated by what people like or find repellant?


When a mass of people find a work of art repellent, you have to wonder if it's an "achievement" at all.


----------



## Handelian

Luchesi said:


> If they affect you that much, I say well done! They're 3 different paths to the future in music. You and I might not want that future. The critics of Beethoven wanted more Mozart and Haydn.


Did they? That is why 30,000 people turned out at Beethoven's funeral in Vienna to honour him no doubt? Actually in Beethoven's time Rossini was more popular but acknowledged Beethoven as the master. As of course Haydn did, despite not liking him. Your critics appear to be rather in thin air and made up in your head. I can't see too many people thirsting for those you are advocating for the future. Boulez turned to conducting because no one wanted to listen to his music. So he didn't see much future in it.


----------



## Handelian

Luchesi said:


> Human achievement is evaluated by what people like or find repellant?


Art is supposed to enhance people's lives not repel them.


----------



## George P Smackers

Handelian said:


> Art is supposed to enhance people's lives not repel them.


The list of great works of art that are upsetting, startling, unnerving, appalling, challenging to our expectations, and so on, is too long for a hundred internet threads.


----------



## pianozach

hammeredklavier said:


> A question for non-classical avant-garde music enthusiasts -"Is Johann Strauss II a "classical music composer"?"


Johann Strauss II . . .

John Phillip Sousa?

Scott Joplin?


----------



## Luchesi

consuono said:


> When a mass of people find a work of art repellent, you have to wonder if it's an "achievement" at all.


Life can't be ALL attractive, appealing and pleasing. Art should reflect that, and explore it, no?


----------



## Fabulin

Luchesi said:


> Life can't be ALL attractive, appealing and pleasing. Art should reflect that, and explore it, no?


There is a difference between "examine" and "embrace".


----------



## Luchesi

Handelian said:


> Did they? That is why 30,000 people turned out at Beethoven's funeral in Vienna to honour him no doubt? Actually in Beethoven's time Rossini was more popular but acknowledged Beethoven as the master. As of course Haydn did, despite not liking him. Your critics appear to be rather in thin air and made up in your head. I can't see too many people thirsting for those you are advocating for the future. Boulez turned to conducting because no one wanted to listen to his music. So he didn't see much future in it.


Those are good points, but I've always thought 30,000 people showed up because of the cult of personality. What did they know of Beethoven's ultimate achievements? My takeaway is that very few people thirst for the future in the arts. We've seen this time and time again, but it doesn't stop the progress being made. Because young people get the bug to express themselves in new ways and it's either hit or miss (mostly miss).

I've admired JC Bach to take a different path (easily impugnable as it was) from his formidable, wide-reaching father --- but I don't know if it's a true characterization because I don't know the details.


----------



## Handelian

Luchesi said:


> Those are good points, but I've always thought 30,000 people showed up because of the cult of personality. What did they know of Beethoven's ultimate achievements? My takeaway is that very few people thirst for the future in the arts. We've seen this time and time again, but it doesn't stop the progress being made. Because young people get the bug to express themselves in new ways and it's either hit or miss (mostly miss).
> 
> I've admired JC Bach to take a different path (easily impugnable as it was) from his formidable, wide-reaching father --- but I don't know if it's a true characterization because I don't know the details.


Sorry but this ignores history. The people of Vienna showed up because, for all their faults, they knew musical greatness when they saw it. They saw it in Beethoven. If the future lies with the likes of Cage then it's no wonder people don't thirst for a future.


----------



## Luchesi

Fabulin said:


> There is a difference between "examine" and "embrace".


I don't understand the negativity. Art is about expression and innovation and history. It's not for attractiveness, like a clever pop song.


----------



## Luchesi

Yes, Cage was sometimes a bad boy. I think people knew his ideas at that time. I heard about the rationalizations first hand when I was growing up. He was in the media, such as it was. That was new! What was a serious composer? What did I know? Maybe it's shaped me being an open person about artistic explorations and the revelations. I surely didn't want to be like him! 

I wanted to be like Glenn Gould who is stretching the universe of old composers, for my young ears.


----------



## Ethereality

Luchesi said:


> Life can't be ALL attractive, appealing and pleasing. Art should reflect that, and explore it, no?





Luchesi said:


> I don't understand the negativity. Art is about expression and innovation and history. It's not for attractiveness, like a clever pop song.


It depends. Some who enjoy the brilliance in music may find more depth in other aspects of life. Music can be a kind of pleasing release. There are those who just love Classical as a way to hear enjoyment without needing to focus so much, like while doing housework, leisurely car trips, at work, etc. expecting the composer to come to them instead of interpreting everything for themselves.


----------



## Handelian

Luchesi said:


> I don't understand the negativity. Art is about expression and innovation and history. It's not for attractiveness, like a clever pop song.


Art is to been enjoyed. I don't have something hanging on my wall I don't enjoy looking at. Perhaps you like a hideous painting on your wall but I don't


----------



## Handelian

Ethereality said:


> It depends. Some who enjoy the brilliance in music may find more depth in other aspects of life. Music can be a kind of pleasing release. There are those who just love Classical as a way to hear enjoyment without needing to focus so much, like while doing housework, leisurely car trips, at work, etc. expecting the composer to come to them instead of interpreting everything for themselves.


The composer is my servant when I put his CD in the player. I might marvel at his ability but I have paid for his services


----------



## Luchesi

Ethereality said:


> It depends. Some who enjoy the brilliance in music may find more depth in other aspects of life. Music can be a kind of pleasing release. There are those who just love Classical as a way to hear enjoyment without needing to focus so much, like while doing housework, leisurely car trips, at work, etc. expecting the composer to come to them instead of interpreting everything for themselves.


Trying to find pleasing contentments in the serious arts is curiously aligned with human endeavors in other fields. Like the errors and baseless assumptions which gave us Newtonian mechanics. It's all very natural and difficult to counteract (so that progress can be made). It's not wrong if people on the street think that that's the role of music. After all, it IS the role of the popular arts. It always depends upon how much you want, in any subject.


----------



## Luchesi

Handelian said:


> Art is to been enjoyed. I don't have something hanging on my wall I don't enjoy looking at. Perhaps you like a hideous painting on your wall but I don't


I get the notion that Beethoven didn't care, so why would the creative minds of today?


----------



## Luchesi

We could all make our own art today, and by definition we would be pleased.with it Wow, that would be a dead end, wouldn't it?


----------



## Fabulin

Luchesi said:


> I get the notion that Beethoven didn't care, so why would the creative minds of today?


I don't know where you get it from, but certainly not from Beethoven, who was a perfectionist and aimed to communicate through music.

"Pleasant" is not the goal of music, but its _quality_, if it is any good. Even a work depicting anxiety or depression can be very beautiful, and in fact that's when it strikes the listeners the most.

If it sounds like garage noise, it probably doesn't tell much about the nuclear age.


----------



## Bulldog

Fabulin said:


> Regardless of the trend above, I predict a significant acceleration of research once Williams dies and his library goes to Julliard, not to mention the sort of peak of interest a death itself brings to an already famous figure about whom journalists can write a lot. Nobody knows the day and the hour of this, but each further year Williams lives (and continues to work) this latter effect will become stronger.


That's a sobering thought. I do hope your prediction is not accurate.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> When a mass of people find a work of art repellent, you have to wonder if it's an "achievement" at all.


I am curious about the evidence or proof of this "mass of people" finding a work by Cage or another avant-garde composer repellent.



Luchesi said:


> Life can't be ALL attractive, appealing and pleasing. Art should reflect that, and explore it, no?


Art reflects the aspect of the human experience the artist is addressing with his work. Sometimes that is an unpleasant truth.



Handelian said:


> Art is to been enjoyed. I don't have something hanging on my wall I don't enjoy looking at. Perhaps you like a hideous painting on your wall but I don't


Beauty is in the eye off the beholder. What you enjoy others might find uninteresting, and vice versa. The painting on your wall might strike someone else as hideous - which is why it is on _your_ wall and not his.

Why this needs pointing out on TC, again and again, is a mystery.


----------



## Handelian

Luchesi said:


> I get the notion that Beethoven didn't care, so why would the creative minds of today?


Where did you get the nation that Beethoven didn't care or is that another pseudo- legend you've added to your list?


----------



## Handelian

Luchesi said:


> Trying to find pleasing contentments in the serious arts is curiously aligned with human endeavors in other fields. *Like the errors and baseless assumptions which gave us Newtonian mechanics.* It's all very natural and difficult to counteract (so that progress can be made). It's not wrong if people on the street think that that's the role of music. After all, it IS the role of the popular arts. It always depends upon how much you want, in any subject.


Your statements are getting more and more obtuse. The fact that the vast majority of calculations outside of small particles are made by Newtonian mechanics appears to have escaped you. remember that next time you get in your car!


----------



## mikeh375

Handelian said:


> ........... Boulez turned to conducting because no one wanted to listen to his music. So he didn't see much future in it.


Did one of the greatest and influential composers of the 20thC really say that about himself somewhere? Hmm, I'd love to see any references, but I'm doubting you'll find any?


----------



## SanAntone

Handelian said:


> Did they? That is why 30,000 people turned out at Beethoven's funeral in Vienna to honour him no doubt? Actually in Beethoven's time Rossini was more popular but acknowledged Beethoven as the master. As of course Haydn did, despite not liking him. Your critics appear to be rather in thin air and made up in your head. I can't see too many people thirsting for those you are advocating for the future. *Boulez turned to conducting because no one wanted to listen to his music. So he didn't see much future in it.*





mikeh375 said:


> Did one of the greatest and influential composers of the 20thC say that about himself somewhere? Hmmm, any refs?


No it isn't true that was the reason. He chose conducting instead of entering academe as a professor since he preferred the role of interpreting music and leading an orchestra over teaching as a second career. Most contemporary composers do not live off their composing and most teach, some conduct or perform.

Interestingly, John Cage was able to live off his commissions, but that was mainly because he lived a monkish, low overhead, lifestyle. However, today (and for some time) his music is the largest revenue generator for his publisher (C.F. Peters) for their 20th century composers (of which their roster is the largest), and he could live comfortably off his royalties.


----------



## Handelian

SanAntone said:


> No it isn't true that was the reason. He chose conducting instead of entering academe as a professor since he preferred the role of interpreting music and leading an orchestra over teaching as a second career. Most contemporary composers do not live off their composing and most teach, some conduct or perform.
> 
> Interestingly, John Cage was able to live off his commissions, but that was mainly because he lived a monkish, low overhead, lifestyle. However, today (and for some time) his music is the largest revenue generator for his publisher (C.F. Peters) for their 20th century composers (of which their roster is the largest), and he could live comfortably off his royalties.


If his composing career was so successful why conduct? His composition output was very small. He was actually a bit of a con-man I think as far as that went.

Well, if Cage generates the most revenue, then it shows the paucity of the 20th century composers in Peters catalogue.


----------



## Handelian

SanAntone said:


> Beauty is in the eye off the beholder. What you enjoy others might find uninteresting, and vice versa. The painting on your wall might strike someone else as hideous - which is why it is on _your_ wall and not his.
> 
> Why this needs pointing out on TC, again and again, is a mystery.


Yes but you are arguing that beauty is unimportant. I am just arguing that for music to be listened to (for the vast majority of people) it must be pleasing. Why this has to be pointed out again and again is another mystery.


----------



## SanAntone

Handelian said:


> Yes but you are arguing that beauty is unimportant.


No, I am not. I am arguing that each of us sees/hears beauty differently and that beauty is not always the most important aspect of a work of art. Tchaikovsky is widely thought to write beautiful music, but I find it uninteresting. I wouldn't call the four note motif of Beethoven's 5th symphony "beautiful" but he created a landmark of western culture out of it. However, despite this achievement there are people who consider it not their cup of tea.

The appreciation of music is subjective.



> I am just arguing that for music to be listened to (for the vast majority of people) it must be pleasing.


We don't all find the same music pleasing, or base "pleasing" on the same thing, e.g. beauty. Often what is pleasing to me is some aspect of a work that has nothing to do with beauty.


----------



## consuono

> I am curious about the evidence or proof of this "mass of people" finding a work by Cage or another avant-garde composer repellent.


 Playlists might give a clue.


----------



## Bulldog

Handelian said:


> Well, if Cage generates the most revenue, then it shows the paucity of the 20th century composers in Peters catalogue.


Did you click on the C.F. Peters link - the group of composers there is quite impressive to a modernist listener or an unbiased traditionalist.


----------



## Bulldog

consuono said:


> Playlists might give a clue.


Except that it wouldn't include those who don't have any playlist.


----------



## SanAntone

Handelian said:


> If his composing career was so successful why conduct? His composition output was very small. He was actually a bit of a con-man I think as far as that went.


Like I said, all but a handful of classical music composers do not live off of their composing but most often teach at university, some perform and some conduct. Of those three options, Boulez chose to conduct. His career as a conductor has been distinguished. Having this method of paying the bills allowed him to only write what he felt strongest about and to avoid commissions which did not interest him.

I've noticed that some classical music listeners who do not like avant-garde composers like Cage and Boulez do not stop at saying that they don't care for the music, they go on to accuse them of being charlatans or con men.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> ...
> I've noticed that some classical music listeners who do not like avant-garde composers like Cage and Boulez do not stop at saying that they don't care for the music, they go on to accuse them of being charlatans or con men.


I don't think I've ever called either a charlatan or con.


Bulldog said:


> Except that it wouldn't include those who don't have any playlist.


Yeah well that's just one indication of listening time I guess.


----------



## Fabulin

To get the topic back on track, here is a more-or-less complete chronological list of known compositions by Williams
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...ZPXsMASnh5_COfWEICbbw4hS3I/edit#gid=865673007

It's a collaborative work in progress.


----------



## mikeh375

SanAntone said:


> .
> 
> I've noticed that some classical music listeners who do not like avant-garde composers like Cage and Boulez do not stop at saying that they don't care for the music, they go on to accuse them of being charlatans or con men.


You don't say. Love Boulez or loathe him, statements that call him a "bit of a con-man" reflect more about those who publish them than on the work of an acknowledged master composer imv. Quite sad that it gets so low and in this particular instance, quite laughably ridiculous.


----------



## mikeh375

Fabulin said:


> To get the topic back on track, here is a more-or-less complete chronological list of known compositions by Williams
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...ZPXsMASnh5_COfWEICbbw4hS3I/edit#gid=865673007
> 
> It's a collaborative work in progress.


Fabulin, is there a recording online of the piano sonata? I couldn't immediately find one, but found this instead, a new one on me......There is some real contemporary edge here, this is _not_ his film language....have a listen San Antone...
It does make me wonder what he might have written if film wasn't in his life.


----------



## Fabulin

mikeh375 said:


> Fabulin, is there a recording online of the piano sonata? I couldn't immediately find one, but found this instead, a new one on me......


The only answer I have is by a respectable Norwegian journalist going by the nick "Thor":


> The piano sonata is not available anywhere. There is also very little information about it. Through my research, I've come to the conclusion that it might be an exam piece written during the spring of 1951, performed once for the examiners at UCLA as part of his composition studies. But then never performed again, and obviously never recorded.





mikeh375 said:


> There is some real contemporary edge here, this is _not_ his film language....have a listen San Antone... It does make me wonder what he might have written if film wasn't in his life.


Maybe I have a different sense of Williams' range, but it does not strike me as something external to his (film) career. It connects neatly to his scores of the 1970s (Jaws, Black Sunday, The Close Encounters).

I sometimes wish that he wouldn't take some of the lesser film assignments and composed more orchestral concert works instead. Not more concerti maybe, but... things like this.


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> You don't say. Love Boulez or loathe him, statements that call him a "bit of a con-man" reflect more about those who publish them than on the work of an acknowledged master composer imv. Quite sad that it gets so low and in this particular instance, quite laughably ridiculous.


Who has done that?


----------



## mikeh375

consuono said:


> Who has done that?


post 215.................


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> post 215.................


Oh, I see that now. That's one. I thought the implication was that all of us who aren't avant garde enthusiasts call Boulez a con man. I'd say he was a fine conductor and a composer of music that I don't care for. Sort of in the same boat as several other conductors over the past 100 years.


----------



## pianozach

John Williams' legacy is intact. He will be regarded as one of the most notable film composers of the 20th Century.

He will forever be in the company of Zimmer, Morricone, Herrmann, _Goldstein_, Goldsmith [correction], Jarre, Barry, Howard, Horner, Portman, Shore, and Steiner.

And possibly Danny Elfman, Thomas Newman, Mica Levi, Michael Giacchino, and Alexandre Desplat


----------



## consuono

pianozach said:


> John Williams' legacy is intact. He will be regarded as one of the most notable film composers of the 20th Century.
> 
> He will forever be in the company of Zimmer, Morricone, Herrmann, Goldstein, Jarre, Barry, Howard, Horner, Portman, Shore, and Steiner.
> 
> And possibly Danny Elfman, Thomas Newman, Mica Levi, Michael Giacchino, and Alexandre Desplat


Do you mean Goldsmith? Actually I think film composers were the ones who stepped into the void left when "serious music" became somewhat purposefully estranged from audiences... when composers started composing for each other and conservatory faculty and critics.


----------



## Handelian

mikeh375 said:


> You don't say. Love Boulez or loathe him, statements that call him a "bit of a con-man" reflect more about those who publish them than on the work of an acknowledged master composer imv. Quite sad that it gets so low and in this particular instance, quite laughably ridiculous.


I would say that Boulez and his cronies worked a con with his vociferous attacks on tonal composers. The problem was so many people fell for it. The rule of if you shout loud enough and appear important then people will listen.


----------



## mikeh375

Handelian said:


> I would say that Boulez and his cronies worked a con with his vociferous attacks on tonal composers. *The problem was so many people fell for it*. The rule of if you shout loud enough and appear important then people will listen.


..you badly underestimate the excellence and artistic integrity of the people who "fell" for the alleged "it." Boulez's youthful polemics where as a result of the white heat of artistic rebellion, a necessary trait that's also sewn into even the most beloved eras of music.
Instead of being inflammatory and defamatory with utter nonsense, it is fine and even considerate to just say the music is not for you.


----------



## pianozach

consuono said:


> Do you mean Goldsmith? Actually I think film composers were the ones who stepped into the void left when "serious music" became somewhat purposefully estranged from audiences... when composers started composing for each other and conservatory faculty and critics.


OMG. Yes; Gold_*smith*_. That's a serious typo there. :lol:

Corrected.


----------



## SanAntone

pianozach said:


> John Williams' legacy is intact. He will be regarded as one of the most notable film composers of the 20th Century.
> 
> He will forever be in the company of Zimmer, Morricone, Herrmann, _Goldstein_, Goldsmith [correction], Jarre, Barry, Howard, Horner, Portman, Shore, and Steiner.
> 
> And possibly Danny Elfman, Thomas Newman, Mica Levi, Michael Giacchino, and Alexandre Desplat


Where does Randy Newman fit in your group?



Handelian said:


> I would say that Boulez and his cronies worked a con with his vociferous attacks on tonal composers. The problem was so many people fell for it. The rule of if you shout loud enough and appear important then people will listen.


Yeah, you would say that. 

I suppose enjoying the composers who write the kind of music you like is not enough, you have to trash those who like other music.


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> ..you badly underestimate the excellence and artistic integrity of the people who "fell" for the alleged "it." Boulez's youthful polemics where as a result of the white heat of artistic rebellion, a necessary trait that's also sewn into even the most beloved eras of music. ....


That's interesting. Who says it's a necessary trait? I don't think Mozart rebelled in any "white heat". He worked hard, studied closely, assimilated, adapted and developed his own voice while demonstrating his mastery of the forms of his time and earlier. He didn't go out into the street, bang a couple of cobblestones together and call it a trailblazing work. And "trailblazing" it indeed would have been. It would also have been crap.


----------



## pianozach

SanAntone said:


> Where does Randy Newman fit in your group?


The problem with discussing film scores/soundtracks is that there are so many different types.

I mean, there's a through-composed original, such as Lawrence of Arabia.

There's recycled scores, such as 2001: A Space Odyssey

There's song scores, musicals, and mixes. Guardians of the Galaxy has a songtrack and a soundtrack.

So . . . Randy Newman always seems to be more a songster, as he was for the *Toy Story* films. So I tend to forget that he's composed some actual legit scores, like *Awakenings, Ragtime* or *Avalon*.

I'm not ready to place him in the Top Twelve, but, then again, I'm just not all that familiar with his work.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> The appreciation of music is subjective.


It is subjective, but the question of whether or not certain "genres" belong in "classical music" - is not a subjective matter. 
For example, just because jazz and prog rock use western harmony, it doesn't mean they belong in "classical music". 
I respect your appreciation for stuff like Cage, but unfortunately, I can't acknowledge it as a part of "classical music".


----------



## hammeredklavier

Why is it *ok* to call "great music of the past", simply "tafelmusik", "salon music", "incidental music", "stage music", "church music", etc, but *not ok* to call general avant-garde music "horror film music"? Come on, let's face it. Isn't that what the general modern avant-garde aesthetics is most useful for, in the modern culture and society? The whole "cult" around the avant-gardists often seems bizarre to me. There are so many things about the music we're somehow "forbidden" to question.


SanAntone said:


> Blah, blah, blah - John Williams writes movie soundtracks. Period.


----------



## hammeredklavier

mikeh375 said:


> Instead of being inflammatory and defamatory with utter nonsense, it is fine and even considerate to just say the music is not for you.


Calm down, Mr. mikeh375, I think the arguments Handelian is making are all fair and valid. You should perhaps explain to us (since you sound like you "understand" the stuff so well) why stuff like Cage and Boulez is musically great -maybe with your wisdom explain to us the "standard of quality" of that sort of avant-garde, (an explanation me and some other people have long been waiting for):
"were there any mediocre avant-gardists who wrote mediocre avant-garde music? If so, how are Cage and Boulez superior to them? Were there any mediocre works written by Cage? If so, how are they mediocre compared to the "better part" of his output?"**

**Surely "not all of them" are great, right? Or do you admire or appreciate just about anything that has that typical random rambling avant-garde-style sound (with some "tone-rows" thrown here and there to be passed off as "elements of coherence"), - without asking yourself whether the stuff is really something that takes talent, skill, or inspiration to write? I'm just curious.



mikeh375 said:


> Did one of the greatest and *influential* composers of the 20thC


Being simply "loud-mouthed" is a different thing from being "inspiring". Right?


----------



## mikeh375

consuono said:


> That's interesting. Who says it's a necessary trait? I don't think Mozart rebelled in any "white heat". He worked hard, studied closely, assimilated, adapted and developed his own voice while demonstrating his mastery of the forms of his time and earlier. He didn't go out into the street, bang a couple of cobblestones together and call it a trailblazing work. And "trailblazing" it indeed would have been. It would also have been crap.


Does my post 234 apply to you too? I thought in your post 229 there was a much more reasonable tone, ah well.

To become as brilliant as Boulez and in a time when tonality had outlived itself, a time utterly different to the past in many ways and one that absolutely needed a new approach, Boulez of course had to work hard, study, assess and assimilate. His tradition was built on Webern's legacy and not tonality.

Have you seen a score of his? You're smart enough to know what it must take to write like he does. The fact that you can't hear, see or refuse to accept a different approach to the old way of learning and writing is hardly a convincing basis on which to judge in such a pejorative manner. There are no pretty tunes or easy ways in to his work, but there are aesthetic rewards, just as there are in many 20th and 21stC works, but if your mind is made up, fine, why go out of your way to insult knowing there are fans here?

Regarding rebellious traits one might ask how in the timeline, Mozart got to what he was from Monteverdi, or how Scriabin,Wagner, Debussy and Schoenberg came to be, I needn't mention Beethoven. Maybe equate rebellious white heat to individuality, a cherry picking of what feels relevant to a composer and a desire to stretch the boundaries of the past - just as Boulez did in fact with his past.


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> Does my post 234 apply to you too? I thought in your post 229 there was a much more reasonable tone, ah well.
> 
> To become as brilliant as Boulez and in a time when tonality had outlived itself, a time utterly different to the past in many ways and one that absolutely needed a new approach, Boulez of course had to work hard, study, assess and assimilate.


Wait...a lot of unproven or questionable things there. Boulez as a composer to some was "brilliant", but I don't think a consensus on his work has really been formed yet. That's your opinion of Boulez the composer, and that's fine. I just find most music of that type to be uninteresting, and I don't think I'm alone. As a conductor, I don't know if he would make the top ten over the past century.

Also, regarding tonality, if it has "outlived itself" why do you continue to use it? I can't tell you how many modern composer bios I've come across that say something to the effect that "So-and-so began his/her composing career using the techniques of serialism, but eventually felt that approach to be a dead end".

Now I do appreciate the skill and craftsmanship in the Second Viennese School once you understand their m.o....but is it a pattern that can hold up over time? I think that is as stale and clichéd now as tonality ever was. It's a relic of the first half of the 20th century.


> His tradition was built on Webern's legacy and not tonality.


Are there any bad or middling works within that legacy that you can point out?



> Have you seen a score of his? You're smart enough to know what it must take to write like he does. The fact that you can't hear, see or refuse to accept a different approach to the old way of learning and writing is hardly a convincing basis on which to judge in such a pejorative manner. There are no pretty tunes or easy ways in to his work, but there are aesthetic rewards, just as there are in many 20th and 21stC works, but if your mind is made up, fine, why go out of your way to insult knowing there are fans here?


Yes, and Ferneyhough's scores make for extremely interesting reading too... but horrendous listening. "Augenmusik" only goes so far.



> Regarding rebellious traits one might ask how in the timeline, Mozart got to what he was from Monteverdi, or how Scriabin,Wagner, Debussy and Schoenberg came to be, I needn't mention Beethoven. Maybe equate rebellious white heat to individuality, a cherry picking of what feels relevant to a composer and a desire to stretch the boundaries of the past - just as Boulez did in fact with his past.


Not even Beethoven tried to destroy in essence the building materials which had made up music for centuries. In fact at the end he went back to the old outmoded contrapuntal models.


----------



## mikeh375

hammeredklavier said:


> Calm down, Mr. mikeh375, I think the arguments Handelian is making are all fair and valid. You should perhaps explain to us (since you sound like you "understand" the stuff so well) why stuff like Cage and Boulez is musically great -maybe with your wisdom explain to us the "standard of quality" of that sort of avant-garde, (an explanation me and some other people have long been waiting for):
> "were there any mediocre avant-gardists who wrote mediocre avant-garde music? If so, how are Cage and Boulez superior to them? Were there any mediocre works written by Cage? If so, how are they mediocre compared to the "better part" of his output?"**
> 
> **Surely "not all of them" are great, right? Or do you admire or appreciate just about anything that has that typical random rambling avant-garde-style sound (with some "tone-rows" thrown here and there to be passed off as "elements of coherence"), - without asking yourself whether the stuff is really something that takes talent, skill, or inspiration to write? I'm just curious.
> 
> Being simply "loud-mouthed" is a different thing from being "inspiring". Right?


If you think it's fair to call someone with the musical provenance of Boulez a "con-man" because their music doesn't resonate with you then I'm not interested. Go and read up for yourself because I'm not going to waste time on a post to try and open up closed ears, you know how to google, so google and get a little more informed about him.

But briefly, no I do not think all AG music is great, but I recognise when I personally think it is because I'm open to it. I also understand what skill means when it comes to composing and I trust my instincts and proclivities absolutely.

_"Being simply "loud-mouthed" is a different thing from being "inspiring"Right?_

Yes, but what's that got to do with Boulez, who through his music and innovation has inspired composers and had mellowed as he got older?


----------



## mikeh375

consuono said:


> Also, regarding tonality, if it has "outlived itself" why do you continue to use it? I can't tell you how many modern composer bios I've come across that say something to the effect that "So-and-so began his/her composing career using the techniques of serialism, but eventually felt that approach to be a dead end".


I was talking about Boulez, nobody else. There are still plenty who write outside of tonality and newer generations are simply rebelling or pushing back, finding their own way.



consuono said:


> Are there any bad or middling works within that legacy that you can point out?


Actually there is a Boulez concert on the BBC IPlayer with the BBC SO where he performs an early cantata that just didn't do it for me at the time.



consuono said:


> Yes, and Ferneyhough's scores make for extremely interesting reading too... but horrendous listening. "Augenmusik" only goes so far.


Fernyhough isn't Boulez.



consuono said:


> Not even Beethoven tried to destroy in essence the building materials which had made up music for centuries. In fact at the end he went back to the old outmoded contrapuntal models.


I've already talked about rebelliousness. Boulez had a different legacy to Beethoven.


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> I was talking about Boulez, nobody else. There are still plenty who write outside of tonality and newer generations are simply rebelling or pushing back, finding their own way.


So you think Boulez et al might be mistaken in holding that tonality had outlived itself? I mean rebellion FOR WHAT? It's as if the act of "rebelling" is the sole virtue. So what?



> Actually there is a Boulez concert on the BBC IPlayer with the BBC SO where he performs an early cantata that just didn't do it for me at the time.


But it does it for you now? Are there any atonal.composers that you think are subpar overall?



> Fernyhough isn't Boulez.


He's close enough for the principle to apply.


----------



## Handelian

mikeh375 said:


> ..you badly underestimate the excellence and artistic integrity of the people who "fell" for the alleged "it." Boulez's youthful polemics where as a result of the white heat of artistic rebellion, a necessary trait that's also sewn into even the most beloved eras of music.
> Instead of being inflammatory and defamatory with utter nonsense, it is fine and even considerate to just say the music is not for you.


So you mean Boulezcan be as vociferous as he likes in his accusations but those of us who see through it and say so are being 'inflammatory and derogatory'. Seems a few double standards going on here. Boulez that could've just said that he was writing a different sort of music instead of trying to bully the whole of the music establishment. Who believes his con now?


----------



## mikeh375

consuono said:


> So you think Boulez et al might be mistaken in holding that tonality had outlived itself? I mean rebellion FOR WHAT? It's as if the act of "rebelling" is the sole virtue. So what?


None of the above.



consuono said:


> But it does it for you now? Are there any atonal.composers that you think are subpar overall?


I've not listened to the Boulez Cantata since.
I listen to atonal composers in whos' music I can discern the kind of moment to moment discourse and narrative that appeals to my sensibilities. I tend to shy away from some forms of extreme techniques and over time one gets to know the composers who suit. My distinguishing of atonality is no different to any other listeners in that sense. So when one scratches and taps the body of an instrument incessantly, then no I don't think it has real artistic merit and to save me typing out again, read here if you want to....
https://www.talkclassical.com/16182-improvisation-classical-music-3.html#post1985120



consuono said:


> He's close enough for the principle to apply.


Well maybe to you, there are other opinions.


----------



## mikeh375

Handelian said:


> So you mean Boulezcan be as vociferous as he likes in his accusations but those of us who see through it and say so are being 'inflammatory and derogatory'. Seems a few double standards going on here. Boulez that could've just said that he was writing a different sort of music instead of trying to bully the whole of the music establishment. Who believes his con now?


No one believes Boulez was a saint early on, but the same could be applied to many composers over the ages. The "con" has left a legacy that many composers have to confront and assimilate or reject. He has also left us with a first class research institute. There are not that many composers who achieve that level of standing and respect, certainly amongst peers.

It's as it always has been even though you don't see it.


----------



## Handelian

mikeh375 said:


> No one believes Boulez was a saint early on, but the same could be applied to many composers over the ages. The "con" has left a legacy that many composers have to confront and assimilate or reject along with a first class research institute. There are not that many composers who achieve that level of standing and respect amongst peers.
> 
> It's as it always has been even though you don't see it.


The con left many people isolated while Boulez enjoyed the fat of the state. Always been so? I don't think it applied to Bach, Handel, Mozart, etc. People with real genius.


----------



## mikeh375

^^^ sigh..whatever. This back and forth is unedifying and pointless.


----------



## janxharris

Handelian said:


> If his composing career was so successful why conduct? His composition output was very small. He was actually a bit of a con-man I think as far as that went.
> 
> Well, if Cage generates the most revenue, then it shows the paucity of the 20th century composers in Peters catalogue.


Mahler was similarly unpopular as a composer and not until Bernstein championed his music in the fifties (edit:1960 actually) did this change. As I am sure you will know he, too, took up conducting.


----------



## Handelian

mikeh375 said:


> ^^^ sigh..whatever. This back and forth is unedifying and pointless.


Why bother then?


----------



## Handelian

janxharris said:


> Mahler was similarly unpopular as a composer and not until Bernstein championed his music in the fifties (edit:1960 actually) did this change. As I am sure you will know he, too, took up conducting.


Mahler was a conductor who composed in his spare time during the holidays. He was not a composer who took up conducting


----------



## janxharris

Handelian said:


> Mahler was a conductor who composed in his spare time during the holidays. He was not a composer who took up conducting


Well, either way - his unpopularity didn't last.


----------



## mikeh375

Handelian said:


> Why bother then?


Well seeing that you ask, I'm not anymore.


----------



## mikeh375

It seems that Mahler actually _was_ first and foremost a composer (and pianist) who then took up conducting...

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/musicapp_historical/chapter/mahler/


----------



## Handelian

mikeh375 said:


> It seems that Mahler actually _was_ first and foremost a composer (and pianist) who then took up conducting...
> 
> https://courses.lumenlearning.com/musicapp_historical/chapter/mahler/


Other way round.


----------



## mikeh375

Handelian said:


> Other way round.


The timeline in his education suggests otherwise. I know perfectly well he made his living as a conductor of some repute, but he lived to compose in the summer from what I've read about him. He was a composer who conducted. You don't get to write what he wrote with a part time mentality.


----------



## Handelian

mikeh375 said:


> The timeline in his education suggests otherwise. I know perfectly well he made his living as a conductor of some repute, but he lived to compose in the summer from what I've read about him. He was a composer who conducted. You don't get to write what he wrote with a part time mentality.


The timeline actually suggests otherwise. He wrote during his summer holidays.


----------



## mikeh375

Handelian said:


> The timeline actually suggests otherwise. *He wrote during his summer holidays.*


Yes, yes, yes we all know that. I even just said so in the post you quoted, c'mon, keep up. His schooling and early years where taken up first with piano and then theory. He composed before he conducted. You are missing the point.

Is there a Mahler expert in the house who might be able to offer any references or quotes as to how Mahler thought of himself and his composing versus conducting? Did he view conducting as a means that allowed him to compose for example?


----------



## mikeh375

Some Mahler quotes that pertain to the composer in him.

Only when I experience do I compose - only when I compose do I experience.

But it's peculiar, as soon as I am in the midst of nature and by myself, everything that is base and trivial vanishes without trace. On such days nothing scares me; and this helps me again and again.

If I weren't the way I am, I shouldn't write my symphonies

..... also had a brother who was like me a *musician and a composer*. A man of great talent, far more gifted than I. He died very young... he killed himself in the prime of his life.

If I weren't the way I am, I shouldn't write my symphonies.

It's not just a question of conquering a summit previously unknown, but of tracing, step by step, a new pathway to it.

I don't let myself get carried away by my own ideas - I abandon 19 out of 20 of them every day.

Tradition is the spreading of fire and not the veneration of ashes.

"I don't choose what I compose. It chooses me."


----------



## SanAntone

> Tradition is the spreading of fire and not the veneration of ashes.


Beautiful statement. Best thing I've learned about Mahler in a long time.


----------



## janxharris

mikeh375 said:


> Yes, yes, yes we all know that. I even just said so in the post you quoted, c'mon, keep up. His schooling and early years where taken up first with piano and then theory. He composed before he conducted.
> 
> Is there a Mahler expert in the house who might be able to offer any references or quotes as to how Mahler thought of himself and his composing versus conducting? Did he view conducting as a means that allowed him to compose for example?


Mahler increasingly avoided society and socializing when he was composing at Worthersee - so it's difficult to imagine him relishing the battles and anti-semitism he faced when conducting in Vienna.

I too think that the music he composed speaks for itself about where his heart really was (even though I don't enjoy a fair few of his works).


----------



## Handelian

janxharris said:


> Mahler increasingly avoided society and socializing when he was composing at Worthersee - so it's difficult to imagine him relishing the battles and anti-semitism he faced when conducting in Vienna.
> 
> I too think that the music he composed speaks for itself about where his heart really was (even though I don't enjoy a fair few of his works).


I don't think Bohm or Karajan relished the battles they had at Vienna either!


----------



## Fabulin

Handelian said:


> I don't think Bohm or Karajan relished the battles they had at Vienna either!


I've never heard of that. What's their story with Vienna?


----------



## Handelian

Fabulin said:


> I've never heard of that. What's their story with Vienna?


Bohm had tremendous rows and stepped down. Karajan's time there was as turbulent as Mahler's though minus the anti-semitism of course. He eventually left to set up his own show.


----------



## Luchesi

Handelian said:


> Your statements are getting more and more obtuse. The fact that the vast majority of calculations outside of small particles are made by Newtonian mechanics appears to have escaped you. remember that next time you get in your car!


Absolutes of space and time? That was centuries ago.


----------



## Luchesi

Handelian said:


> Where did you get the nation that Beethoven didn't care or is that another pseudo- legend you've added to your list?


We'll never know what Beethoven really thought, but I don't think he cared whether his music was difficult for performers or average listeners at the time.


----------



## janxharris

How sad that Mahler's music which eventually touched so many people's lives was hardly recognised in his day.

An indictment of humanity?


----------



## Luchesi

janxharris said:


> How sad that Mahler's music which eventually touched so many people's lives was hardly recognised in his day.
> 
> An indictment of humanity?


If you subscribe to optimistic nihilism then the universe has no purpose for us, which means we're free to create our own purpose(s) of life. Learn the complexities of Mahler and how he might have 'learned' them from earlier generations, or just let his music wash over you. Most people were too distracted.


----------



## Handelian

Luchesi said:


> Absolutes of space and time? That was centuries ago.


I see you are living in a virtual world


----------



## Handelian

Luchesi said:


> We'll never know what Beethoven really thought, but I don't think he cared whether his music was difficult for performers or average listeners at the time.


As Beethoven had to make his money through his music I think he cared pretty much


----------



## consuono

janxharris said:


> Mahler was similarly unpopular as a composer and not until Bernstein championed his music in the fifties (edit:1960 actually) did this change. As I am sure you will know he, too, took up conducting.


That isn't entirely true. Audience reception to Mahler's music was mixed in his lifetime, but he did have various critical successes. From the Wiki entry on his eighth symphony:


> Up to this time, receptions of Mahler's new symphonies had usually been disappointing. However, the Munich premiere of the Eighth Symphony was an unqualified triumph; as the final chords died away there was a short pause before a huge outbreak of applause which lasted for twenty minutes. Back at his hotel Mahler received a letter from Thomas Mann, which referred to the composer as "the man who, as I believe, expresses the art of our time in its profoundest and most sacred form".


He didn't purposefully alienate the audience and compose only for Richard Strauss or Hans von Bülow. As for composer vs conductor, my understanding is Mahler would've loved to have been able to compose full time, but had to rely on conducting to make a living.


----------



## Luchesi

Handelian said:


> I see you are living in a virtual world


Me? Newton was living in a macro world of shortcuts. He had a terrible childhood, he wasn't a nice man and his superstitious assumptions about mythical absolutes delayed discoveries for a long time. If he wasn't so unreasonably self-confident things might have been different.


----------



## consuono

Luchesi said:


> Me? Newton was living in a macro world of shortcuts. He had a terrible childhood, he wasn't a nice man and his superstitious assumptions about mythical absolutes delayed discoveries for a long time. If he wasn't so unreasonably self-confident things might have been different.


You sound awfully absolutist in your anti-absolutism.


----------



## Luchesi

consuono said:


> You sound awfully absolutist in your anti-absolutism.


Yes because the church men with their cushy jobs loved the idea of a clockwork universe. Like Aristotle's primitive assumptions it gave them respectability.

I'm not bitter..


----------



## Handelian

Luchesi said:


> Me? Newton was living in a macro world of shortcuts. He had a terrible childhood, he wasn't a nice man and his superstitious assumptions about mythical absolutes delayed discoveries for a long time. If he wasn't so unreasonably self-confident things might have been different.


Yes but he was also a mathematical genius. Just the sort which little men envy.


----------



## Handelian

Luchesi said:


> Yes because the church men with their cushy jobs loved the idea of a clockwork universe. Like Aristotle's primitive assumptions it gave them respectability.
> 
> I'm not bitter..


You have such a problem here. Try some counselling.


----------



## consuono

Luchesi said:


> Yes because the church men with their cushy jobs loved the idea of a clockwork universe. Like Aristotle's primitive assumptions it gave them respectability.
> 
> I'm not bitter..


You're just trying to substitute one set of absolutes with another more to your liking.


----------



## Luchesi

consuono said:


> You're just trying to substitute one set of absolutes with another more to your liking.


Of course that's possible. I have to keep an open mind.

I posted the latest research on the big question, determinism or randomness running in the universe. I still have an open mind about who was correct Schrodinger or Bohr. It's too puzzling for me. The Schrodinger conception has finally been observed, But there STILL are extenuating experimental conditions. I want this solved in my lifetime.


----------



## Handelian

Luchesi said:


> Of course that's possible. I have to keep an open mind.
> 
> I posted the latest research on the big question, determinism or randomness running in the universe. I still have an open mind about who was correct Schrodinger or Bohr. It's too puzzling for me. The Schrodinger conception has finally been observed, But there STILL are extenuating experimental conditions. I want this solved in my lifetime.


Well as everything is blind chance, how do you know your reasoning is even correct?


----------



## Luchesi

Handelian said:


> Well as everything is blind chance, how do you know your reasoning is even correct?


What does that mean?


----------



## theoriginaldig

Whatever the merits of John Williams (although personally I generally admire and enjoy Boulez's music), the slighting of Newton present in some of the comments here is outrageous. Newtonian mechanics breaks down under what are - in relation to the sorts of circumstances that we typically encounter - extraordinary physical conditions, ones that could hardly have been envisaged in the 17th century; and the ability of Einstein and others to formulate theories that provide adequate descriptions of those conditions were very firmly based on the physical and mathematical work done by Newton (and others, e.g. Leibniz, in relation to calculus). The radical changes in physics between Newton's time and today respond to experimental evidence and theoretical developments that only became available - and the theories only became reasonable (rather than baselessly wild speculation) - because of the progress made by earlier scientists, particularly Newton.


----------



## Handelian

Luchesi said:


> What does that mean?


Nothing to you as your brain is the product of chance neurons


----------



## Luchesi

theoriginaldig said:


> Whatever the merits of John Williams (although personally I generally admire and enjoy Boulez's music), the slighting of Newton present in some of the comments here is outrageous. Newtonian mechanics breaks down under what are - in relation to the sorts of circumstances that we typically encounter - extraordinary physical conditions, ones that could hardly have been envisaged in the 17th century; and the ability of Einstein and others to formulate theories that provide adequate descriptions of those conditions were very firmly based on the physical and mathematical work done by Newton (and others, e.g. Leibniz, in relation to calculus). The radical changes in physics between Newton's time and today respond to experimental evidence and theoretical developments that only became available - and the theories only became reasonable (rather than baselessly wild speculation) - because of the progress made by earlier scientists, particularly Newton.


So what? How does that make the baseless assumptions and behavior and wayward obsessions of Newton OK with you?


----------



## RogerWaters

Handelian said:


> The con left many people isolated while Boulez enjoyed the fat of the state. Always been so? I don't think it applied to Bach, Handel, Mozart, etc. People with real genius.


This.

Boulez's manipulation of the French subsidy machine has been explored and exposed by Benoît Duteurtre, in a book published in 1995. Unfortunately, it's in French.

"Duteurtre tells the story of the steady takeover by Boulez and his entourage of the channels of musical and cultural communication, the new power networks installed in the wake of May 1968, the vilification of opponents, the anathematising of tonal music and its late offshoots in Messiaen, Duruflé, and Dutilleux, and the cultural coup d'état which was the founding of IRCAM"


----------



## Luchesi

Handelian said:


> Nothing to you as your brain is the product of chance neurons


And your brain is different.


----------



## consuono

RogerWaters said:


> This.
> 
> Boulez's manipulation of the French subsidy machine has been explored and exposed by Benoît Duteurtre, in a book published in 1995. Unfortunately, it's in French.
> 
> "Duteurtre tells the story of the steady takeover by Boulez and his entourage of the channels of musical and cultural communication, the new power networks installed in the wake of May 1968, the vilification of opponents, the anathematising of tonal music and its late offshoots in Messiaen, Duruflé, and Dutilleux, and the cultural coup d'état which was the founding of IRCAM"


But in fairness and a propos Handelian's statement, Bach and Handel did derive their income from the nobility and civil government and as far as I know so did Mozart early on in his career. I don't mind "public sponsorship" if something other than crap is produced. But if I sense that it's crap, don't try to browbeat me into thinking it's genius.


----------



## Luchesi

consuono said:


> But in fairness and a propos Handelian's statement, Bach and Handel did derive their income from the nobility and civil government and as far as I know so did Mozart early on in his career. I don't mind "public sponsorship" if something other than crap is produced. But if I sense that it's crap, don't try to browbeat me into thinking it's genius.


There's something for everyone's interests and there should be.


----------



## consuono

Luchesi said:


> There's something for everyone's interests and there should be.


Only there isn't. My interests figure very little into today's "academic" music scene.


----------



## Luchesi

consuono said:


> Only there isn't. My interests figure very little into today's "academic" music scene.


If you'd rather stay 100 years behind there's plenty of earlier music to explore and learn about.

The singsongy sounds get quite tiresome for performers and especially composers. The harmonic presictability of music before Chopin upstages and assuages this kvetch for me, I guess. But later into the romantic works the trend gets stronger, until there's less interest in the earlier qualities.


----------



## consuono

Luchesi said:


> If you'd rather stay 100 years behind there's plenty of earlier music to explore and learn about.
> 
> The singsongy sounds get quite tiresome for performers and especially composers. The harmonic presictability of music before Chopin upstages and assuages this kvetch for me, I guess. But later into the romantic works the trend gets stronger, until there's less interest in the earlier qualities.


The blobs of sound, holding or repeating "daring" dissonant chords for what seems like an eternity, polyrhythms for the sake of polyrhythms, the exaltation of the ugly just because it's edgy and unlike the 19th century get even more tiresome and stale.


----------



## theoriginaldig

Luchesi said:


> So what? How does that make the baseless assumptions and behavior and wayward obsessions of Newton OK with you?


The 'wayward obsessions' I'll allow, but the 'baseless assumptions' bit is complete nonsense. The assumption that space and time are absolute is simply replaced in Einsteinian relativity theory by an absoluteness of 'space-time' (and e.g. the speed of light - it's always the same for all observers, and so 'absolute' in a pretty clear sense), and there aren't any 'theological' assumptions or whatever inherently present within Newtonian mechanics itself (rather than e.g. florid reflections upon its metaphysical significance) that are somehow absent from Einsteinian theory. It's pretty clear that you don't actually know the first thing about either Newtonian mechanics or the theories of special and general relativity, and that you're simply relying on really very crude popular sketches of their significance, without the slightest knowledge of the actual underlying theorising. Are you going to have an entirely random and ill-informed swipe at Archimedes and Gauss next?


----------



## Handelian

Luchesi said:


> And your brain is different.


My brain happens to be logical and capable of logical thought which is why I don't dismiss Newton when I drive my car


----------



## Handelian

consuono said:


> But in fairness and a propos Handelian's statement, Bach and Handel did derive their income from the nobility and civil government and as far as I know so did Mozart early on in his career. I don't mind "public sponsorship" if something other than crap is produced. But if I sense that it's crap, don't try to browbeat me into thinking it's genius.


Bach and Handel did not derive their income from the civilian government n the same way. Bach was employed by the nobility and then by the church. Handel was an entrepreneur whose income depended on the popularity and acceptance of his works. So they were paid to write stuff no-one outside a tiny minority would listen to.


----------



## mikeh375

consuono said:


> The blobs of sound, holding or repeating "daring" dissonant chords for what seems like an eternity, polyrhythms for the sake of polyrhythms, the exaltation of the ugly just because it's edgy and unlike the 19th century get even more tiresome and stale.


From the 1950's on, the tradition in music was considered to be of 20thC provenance, not the 19thC and all sensible comparisons should stem from there imv as music had moved away from 19thC aesthetics. So with that in mind, saying that Polyrhythms are used for the sake of themselves is just far too dismissive for me and does not consider the creatively fertile freedoms inherent in the emancipation of rhythm from regularity. The lure of such creative freedom can be very attractive to many and is a seductive liberty for some composer's imaginations.

I would say however that the freeing of line and musical flow/discourse from the barline is admittedly a dichotomous development because on the one hand, the lack of regular pulse certainly alienates many listeners, perhaps even more so than vertical dissonance. On the other hand, for a composer, free manipulation of the rhythmic in music offers exciting possibilities. Moving forward, rhythmic diversity will continue to be a part of the art.

Btw, I can't think of one composer who considers "the exaltation of the ugly" to be a defining precept for their work overall.


----------



## Fabulin

mikeh375 said:


> From the 1950's on, the tradition in music was considered to be of 20thC provenance, not the 19thC and all sensible comparisons should stem from there imv as music had moved away from 19thC aesthetics.


If such a strong cut-off is made, how is it still "classical music", and not its own thing?

Having a claim at being a spiritual successor is ok, but only in relation to virtues that are continued.


----------



## mikeh375

Fabulin said:


> If such a strong cut-off is made, how is it still "classical music"?


..sorry Fabulin, I honestly don't care for that debate, it's just music to me. Perhaps some others will get heated under the collar about labelling and categorising. The dominant influence was Webern but of course it wasn't so clear cut, things never are, although Boulez tried to make it so.
Afaic, one listens and likes or doesn't. As we all know, the 20thC has seen the expansion in techniques in all the components of music and the art is much richer for it imv. (Including JW's art too... )


----------



## Luchesi

consuono said:


> The blobs of sound, holding or repeating "daring" dissonant chords for what seems like an eternity, polyrhythms for the sake of polyrhythms, the exaltation of the ugly just because it's edgy and unlike the 19th century get even more tiresome and stale.


I never hear what complainers would rather have them do. What's your recommendation?


----------



## SanAntone

mikeh375 said:


> From the 1950's on, the tradition in music was considered to be of 20thC provenance, not the 19thC and all sensible comparisons should stem from there imv as music had moved away from 19thC aesthetics. So with that in mind, saying that Polyrhythms are used for the sake of themselves is just far too dismissive for me and does not consider the creatively fertile freedoms inherent in the emancipation of rhythm from regularity. The lure of such creative freedom can be very attractive to many and is a seductive liberty for some composer's imaginations.
> 
> I would say however that the freeing of line and musical flow/discourse from the barline is admittedly a dichotomous development because on the one hand, the lack of regular pulse certainly alienates many listeners, perhaps even more so than vertical dissonance. On the other hand, for a composer, free manipulation of the rhythmic in music offers exciting possibilities. Moving forward, rhythmic diversity will continue to be a part of the art.
> 
> Btw, I can't think of one composer who considers "the exaltation of the ugly" to be a defining precept for their work overall.


Excellent post. The 20th century was a century of stylistic diversity, innovation, experimentation and creativity. Music as different as Webern and Sibelius was written in the 20th century. "Something for everyone" is more true for the 20th century than any other, IMO. If you don't like Boulez, there's Vaughan Williams, and vice versa.


----------



## Handelian

Luchesi said:


> I never hear what complainers would rather have them do. What's your recommendation?


Write something people enjoy listening to?


----------



## Luchesi

theoriginaldig said:


> The 'wayward obsessions' I'll allow, but the 'baseless assumptions' bit is complete nonsense. The assumption that space and time are absolute is simply replaced in Einsteinian relativity theory by an absoluteness of 'space-time' (and e.g. the speed of light - it's always the same for all observers, and so 'absolute' in a pretty clear sense), and there aren't any 'theological' assumptions or whatever inherently present within Newtonian mechanics itself (rather than e.g. florid reflections upon its metaphysical significance) that are somehow absent from Einsteinian theory. It's pretty clear that you don't actually know the first thing about either Newtonian mechanics or the theories of special and general relativity, and that you're simply relying on really very crude popular sketches of their significance, without the slightest knowledge of the actual underlying theorising. Are you going to have an entirely random and ill-informed swipe at Archimedes and Gauss next?


Thanks for your slant on this and your accusatory tone. My wife says they're good for me.


----------



## Luchesi

Handelian said:


> Write something people enjoy listening to?


I actually do it every week.


----------



## Handelian

Luchesi said:


> I actually do it every week.


I hadn't noticed


----------



## Luchesi

Handelian said:


> I hadn't noticed


Pre-pandemic it was every Tuesday night right down the street, in our fun-loving ensemble. We have a talk-back about music theory etc. for all the interested students or others. Now we just rehearse and keep it very limited.


----------



## Handelian

Luchesi said:


> Pre-pandemic it was every Tuesday night right down the street, in our fun-loving ensemble. We have a talk-back about music theory etc. for all the interested students or others. Now we just rehearse and keep it very limited.


Just hope it's more tuneful than Boulez or it wouldn't be much fun.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> Excellent post. The 20th century was a century of stylistic diversity, innovation, experimentation and creativity. Music as different as Webern and Sibelius was written in the 20th century. "Something for everyone" is more true for the 20th century than any other, IMO. If you don't like Boulez, there's Vaughan Williams, and vice versa.


But the dividing line given was 1950. Vaughan Williams was a child of the 19th century and represented things that Boulez inveighed against. Strange how avant gardists have that right but nobody else does. Actually I think the dividing line would be somewhere around 1970.


Luchesi said:


> I never hear what complainers would rather have them do. What's your recommendation?


To shut up if they have nothing to say.


mikeh375 said:


> Btw, I can't think of one composer who considers "the exaltation of the ugly" to be a defining precept for their work overall.


I'm sure they don't, but along with tonality and other CP things being superseded, traditional aesthetics go out the window too. Their intensely personal conceptiom of "beauty" is what counts, or some such. I can't think of any really "beautiful" atonal music, certainly not post-Webern.


Handelian said:


> ...Handel was an entrepreneur whose income depended on the popularity and acceptance of his works. ...


I mean in this sense. It seems it was simply the way things were done pre-Beethoven:


> Handel's career was built on patronage. As an eleven-year-old prodigy in Germany, his talents were first recognized by the Duke of Weissenfels, who encouraged Handel's father, a doctor, to allow his son to pursue music. After moving to London in 1710, Handel quickly gained the attention and favor of Queen Anne. After her death in 1714 and the ascension of George I, Handel continued to establish himself as a favored composer amongst the elite. He became a British subject in 1727, which allowed him to be appointed as a composer of the Chapel Royal... With the support of the Royal Family-first George I, then George II and Frederick, Prince of Wales, Handel established himself as the premier composer in London and indeed in Europe.


Of course neither Handel nor Bach ever really took that edgy "the audience be damned" attitude.

https://georgianpapers.com/2018/12/07/handel-princess-augusta/


----------



## Handelian

consuono said:


> But the dividing line given was 1950. Vaughan Williams was a child of the 19th century and represented things that Boulez inveighed against. Strange how avant gardists have that right but nobody else does. Actually I think the dividing line would be somewhere around 1970.
> To shut up if they have nothing to say.
> I'm sure they don't, but along with tonality and other CP things being superseded, traditional aesthetics go out the window too. Their intensely personal conceptiom of "beauty" is what counts, or some such. I can't think of any really "beautiful" atonal music, certainly not post-Webern.


The reason Boulez ranted against it was to try and justify his own tuneless miscreations. He hadn't the talent to write what RVW wrote so he had to protest against it.


----------



## consuono

Handelian said:


> The reason Boulez ranted against it was to try and justify his own tuneless miscreations. He hadn't the talent to write what RVW wrote so he had to protest against it.


You know, I suspect that's true with a lot of moderns. You really can't compose but you still want to be a composer. What to do? Well, you change the rules. Imagine that I want to be a champion marathoner but I can't run 100 yards without collapsing. So I redefine "marathon" as being able to stand on one leg and swing the other ballet-like for 5 minutes. I *dare* you to say that's not a marathon according to my intensely personal interpretation.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> But the dividing line given was 1950. Vaughan Williams was a child of the 19th century and represented things that Boulez inveighed against. Strange how avant gardists have that right but nobody else does. Actually I think the dividing line would be somewhere around 1970.


What Boulez inveighed against is irrelevant and does not represent me or any person I know who likes to listen to new music.

I was posting about the entire 20th century, not some arbitrary dividing line in 1950 or 1970. My point was that there's a lot of diversity of styles available to listeners.

But, according to you there's been no music worth listening to written since 1970. However, I hear some everyday. And so should you if you like Penderecki, Pärt, Glass, and Adams.


----------



## consuono

> What Boulez inveighed against is irrelevant


Well then I guess we can consider what Boulez composed in reaction to it to be irrelevant as well.


> But, according to you there's been no music worth listening to written since 1970. However, I hear some everyday. And so should you if you like Penderecki, Pärt, Glass, and Adams.


I didn't say that there's nothing worth listening to post-1970. On the other hand I'm also not saying that it's all of equal worth and all worthy of hearing and analysis. Pärt in particular is somewhat outside that "mainstream".


----------



## Handelian

SanAntone said:


> What Boulez inveighed against is irrelevant and does not represent me or any person I know who likes to listen to new music.
> 
> I was posting about the entire 20th century, not some arbitrary dividing line in 1950 or 1970. My point was that there's a lot of diversity of styles available to listeners.
> 
> But, according to you there's been no music worth listening to written since 1970. However, I hear some everyday. And so should you if you like Penderecki, Pärt, Glass, and Adams.


Glass? Adams? No thanks! They have been tried and found wanting!


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Well then I guess we can consider what Boulez composed in reaction to it to be irrelevant as well.


I wouldn't say that, since I always focus on the music a composer has written and generally ignore what they say or write about other composers/music.



> I didn't say that there's nothing worth listening to post-1970. On the other hand I'm also not saying that it's all of equal worth and all worthy of hearing and analysis. Pärt in particular is somewhat outside that "mainstream".


I_f I Were King Of The Forest not queen, not duke, not prince
My regal robes of the forest would be satin, not cotton, not chintz
I'd command each thing, be it fish or fowl, with a woof and a woof, and a royal growl
As I'd click my heel all the trees would kneel and the mountains bow and the bulls kowtow
And the sparrows would take wing, if I were king
_


----------



## mikeh375

Handelian said:


> The reason Boulez ranted against it was to try and justify his own tuneless miscreations. He hadn't the talent to write what RVW wrote so he had to protest against it.


Go and have a lie down David.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> ...
> I_f I Were King Of The Forest not queen, not duke, not prince
> My regal robes of the forest would be satin, not cotton, not chintz
> I'd command each thing, be it fish or fowl, with a woof and a woof, and a royal growl
> As I'd click my heel all the trees would kneel and the mountains bow and the bulls kowtow
> And the sparrows would take wing, if I were king
> _


I assume there's some kind of witticism there but I don't get it. Good song though, pre-1950 and pre-1970. Nice and tonal. Then again an atonal Wiz would probably have an audience of about 147.


----------



## pianozach

The works of John Williams pre-1950 seem rather thin.


----------



## jojoju2000

pianozach said:


> The works of John Williams pre-1950 seem rather thin.


Williams was only 18 Pre 1950........


----------



## jojoju2000

mikeh375 said:


> Fabulin, is there a recording online of the piano sonata? I couldn't immediately find one, but found this instead, a new one on me......There is some real contemporary edge here, this is _not_ his film language....have a listen San Antone...
> It does make me wonder what he might have written if film wasn't in his life.


In one of his interviews, Williams did say that if it wasn't for the birth of his first child, that he would have gone into Classical Composing right away; but having a child at such a young age required money, and so he needed work. Hollywood it was then.


----------



## Haydn70

jojoju2000 said:


> Zimmer should not be a composer, of any medium.


Not to worry, he isn't! A hack of the first order.


----------



## pianozach

jojoju2000 said:


> Zimmer should not be a composer, of any medium.





Haydn70 said:


> Not to worry, he isn't! A hack of the first order.


First people pile on top of John Williams, and now *Hans Zimmer*.

Zimmer is the master of film scores that range from exhilarating to exasperating. He's the guy you call when you want your movie soundtrack to sound epic.

*Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Interstellar
Blade Runner 2049
Inception
The Lion King
Dunkirk
Sherlock Holmes
Gladiator
The Ring
The Dark Knight
*


----------



## Fabulin

pianozach said:


> First people pile on top of John Williams, and now *Hans Zimmer*.
> 
> Zimmer is the master of film scores that range from exhilarating to exasperating. He's the guy you call when you want your movie soundtrack to sound epic.


Zimmer is an under-educated, simplistic pop musician and businessman who employs an entire studio of ghostwriters and who has pushed factory-like music production to the detriment of the art of film scoring, driving good composers out of assignments with "quick & reliable" offers of homogenous music delivery by either his company directly or the teams of any of his former minions.

The use of the word "epic" is a misuse and cheapening of what should apply to the scores such as Huppertz' Metropolis, Rózsa's Ben Hur, Shore's LOTR, or Williams' Star Wars.


----------



## Haydn70

Fabulin said:


> Zimmer is an under-educated, simplistic pop musician and businessman who employs an entire studio of ghostwriters and who has pushed factory-like music production to the detriment of the art of film scoring, driving good composers out of assignments with "quick & reliable" offers of homogenous music delivery by either his company directly or the teams of any of his former minions.


Spot on.

I wrote this in an earlier post:

"[Zimmer] has had zero training, a guy known as a "hummer"...hums or plays tunes into a recording device then hands off his "music" to a trained composer, a team of trained composers actually, who create the actual scores."


----------



## SanAntone

I started watching _Catch Me If You Can_ (Leonardo DeCaprio, Tom Hanks) last night, and thought the score by John Williams was especially good. Not his usual "epic" orchestral writing, but a more quirky chamber sound. I noticed it and enjoyed it.


----------



## Fabulin

SanAntone said:


> I started watching _Catch Me If You Can_ (Leonardo DeCaprio, Tom Hanks) last night, and thought the score by John Williams was especially good. Not his usual "epic" orchestral writing, but a more quirky chamber sound. I noticed it and enjoyed it.


You might wish to check out the concerto for alto saxophone and orchestra titled "Escapades" he created based on this score. There are many covers of it on Youtube.


----------



## mikeh375

I'm gonna stick up for Zimmer. I've just watched Gladiator again and yes, of course there are moments in the music where he was most likely pressured by time and a temp track to get closer to well known pieces, but in many cues, the music is a great boon to the action, incredibly well done and often quite moving.

His great skill and innovation is mainly in production, opening up the acoustic, timbral palette considerably. Fine, he's not trained to Williams extent, but in his chosen media, he has achieved much.


----------



## Guest002

mikeh375 said:


> I'm gonna stick up for Zimmer. I've just watched Gladiator again and yes, of course there are moments in the music where he was most likely pressured by time and a temp track to get closer to well known pieces, but in many cues, the music is a great boon to the action, incredibly well done and often quite moving.
> 
> His great skill and innovation is mainly in production, opening up the acoustic, timbral palette considerably. Fine, he's not trained to Williams extent, but in his chosen media, he has achieved much.


I shall stick my head above the parapet and praise (1) Gladiator; (2) the Da Vinci Code; and (3) (and my favourite, mostly) True Romance.

I thought Interstellar (purely the music) hogwash with nothing to redeem it; and I found nothing except the opening music of interest in Sherlock Holmes (but boy, the opening music was _good!_)

Williams, Zimmer and Shore all have places (small ones, but places nonetheless) in my collection! Williams less than most, funnily enough.


----------



## Jacck

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I shall stick my head above the parapet and praise (1) Gladiator; (2) the Da Vinci Code; and (3) (and my favourite, mostly) True Romance.
> I thought Interstellar (purely the music) hogwash with nothing to redeem it; and I found nothing except the opening music of interest in Sherlock Holmes (but boy, the opening music was _good!_)
> Williams, Zimmer and Shore all have places (small ones, but places nonetheless) in my collection! Williams less than most, funnily enough.


I dont like Hans Zimmer for what he did to the film industry. But my favorite score of his is definity The Last Samurai, and then maybe Driving Miss Daisy, Black Hawk Down and Gladiator (and possibly a couple others that I cannot remember now)


----------



## SanAntone

Fabulin said:


> You might wish to check out the concerto for alto saxophone and orchestra titled "Escapades" he created based on this score. There are many covers of it on Youtube.


Found it on the box set _John Williams & Steven Spielberg: The Ultimate Collection_ - most of the rest doesn't interest me, but the three tracks that make up "Escapades" are excellent.









It has a jazzy style, and the alto sax and bass soloists are really good. It might be a stretch to call a 15 minute work a concerto, but nevertheless, it's the best thing (according to my taste) by Williams I've heard.


----------



## Guest002

Jacck said:


> I dont like Hans Zimmer for what he did to the film industry. But my favorite score of his is definity The Last Samurai, and then maybe Driving Miss Daisy, Black Hawk Down and Gladiator (and possibly a couple others that I cannot remember now)


What did he do to the film industry? I am a complete novice on this stuff, rarely watching films that don't involve Churchill, Hitler or Shakespeare in Love. Any link would be useful!


----------



## Jacck

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> What did he do to the film industry? I am a complete novice on this stuff, rarely watching films that don't involve Churchill, Hitler or Shakespeare in Love. Any link would be useful!


it is generally acknowledged that Hans Zimmer changed film scores with his style. Some think for the better, others think for the worse. Peronally I am on the worse side of the argument
https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/how-hans-zimmer-changed-modern-film-scores/


----------



## Guest002

Jacck said:


> it is generally acknowledged that Hans Zimmer changed film scores with his style. Some think for the better, others think for the worse. Peronally I am on the worse side of the argument
> https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/how-hans-zimmer-changed-modern-film-scores/


OK. Interesting article. Now re-reading it with more care. But it seems to me that the fault is in those trying to emulate Zimmer (badly) than with Zimmer for setting something to aspire to. So I'm not sure I'd share the criticism, speaking entirely as one ignorant of the subtleties.


----------



## Jacck

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> OK. Interesting article. Now re-reading it with more care. But it seems to me that the fault is in those trying to emulate Zimmer (badly) than with Zimmer for setting something to aspire to. So I'm not sure I'd share the criticism, speaking entirely as one ignorant of the subtleties.


maybe it goes in hand with the overall degeneracy of Hollywood. Hollywood movies from the last 15 years are hardly worth the time investment to watch them, let alone the price of a movie ticket. Action sequences and special effects over intelligent screenwriting and character building. They have become so vacuumed out that they are forced to make remakes of remakes of remakes, with each remake worse than its preceding copy


----------



## Fabulin

SanAntone said:


> Found it on the box set _John Williams & Steven Spielberg: The Ultimate Collection_ - most of the rest doesn't interest me, but the three tracks that make up "Escapades" are excellent.
> 
> It has a jazzy style, and the alto sax and bass soloists are really good. It might be a stretch to call a 15 minute work a concerto, but nevertheless, it's the best thing (according to my taste) by Williams I've heard.


I'm glad you found something to like. If you like jazz, this piece might be right up your street:


----------



## Guest002

Jacck said:


> maybe it goes in hand with the overall degeneracy of Hollywood. Hollywood movies from the last 15 years are hardly worth the time investment to watch them, let alone the price of a movie ticket. Action sequences and special effects over intelligent screenwriting and character building. They have become so vacuumed out that they are forced to make remakes of remakes of remakes, with each remake worse than its preceding copy


Thanks for the replies. Something to think about, for sure!


----------



## SanAntone

Fabulin said:


> I'm glad you found something to like. If you like jazz, this piece might be right up your street:


Nah, not for me.


----------



## Alfacharger

SanAntone said:


> Nah, not for me.


Maybe some early (Johnny) Williams from the score to How to Steal a Million!


----------



## mikeh375

Jacck said:


> maybe it goes in hand with the overall degeneracy of Hollywood. Hollywood movies from the last 15 years are hardly worth the time investment to watch them, let alone the price of a movie ticket. Action sequences and special effects over intelligent screenwriting and character building. They have become so vacuumed out that they are forced to make remakes of remakes of remakes, with each remake worse than its preceding copy


I agree with and can even confirm AB's suspicion about poor wannabes copying and even tainting the Zimmer style to a certain extent, through a lack of real ability to do so. The fact is, without his success, he wouldn't be aped so much. His time may well pass, but for now, directors and producers want him and they are as much to blame for the dominance of his style given they are in the main, more likely to commission the tried and tested (read successful), for their scores.

i agree with you a little Jacck about Hollywood and it's "degeneracy". Scores (and movies), have in certain genres, degenerated into musical cliches which again, one could attribute to HZ's success. I just don't think he is entirely to blame, he happens to be able to supply rather well, what people want atm.


----------

