# John Williams: worthy addition to the canon or charlatan?



## MatthewWeflen

I am listening to John Williams presently. I always enjoy his music, and it certainly enhances whatever movie I may be watching with his score. I am wondering what people here think of his ouvre.

Are his compositions as interesting or complex as some of the all time greats? Is he a lesser light, though still comparable to an overture composer like a Rossini or a popular musician like J. Strauss? Is he a hack/ ripoff artist?

For my part, I think he is probably closest to the second option, but is a great "gateway" musician to get people into classical.


----------



## mbhaub

He's a very skilled, professional composer. He's paid his dues, worked very hard and mastered his craft. But add to the canon? Certainly his film music is worth our attention; perhaps not all of it. At his best he wrote scores that are right up there worthy to stand next to Korngold, Waxman, Steiner, Herrmann and the others. But since film music (other than some chosen works by Vaughan Williams, Prokofieff, Shostakovich...) generally isn't part of the orchestral canon, Williams contributions will depend on his concert works - and there's the problem. He's written several concertos, but it seems that the only one that gets a regular outing is the bassoon/orchestra work The Five Sacred Trees. To the best of my knowledge he hasn't written a major (or even minor) orchestral work that is going to become standard fare other than for pops concerts. He won't be the first film composer to be in that situation. Although if someone could explain why Prokofieff's Lt. Kije suite from the film is legit music and a suite from Star Wars isn't, I'd like to hear your argument.


----------



## Becca

MatthewWeflen said:


> ... an overture composer like a Rossini ...


reductio ad absurdum


----------



## D Smith

A charlatan is someone who is a fake or a fraud. How John Williams, an extremely talented composer, could be considered a charlatan is beyond me.


----------



## David Phillips

Gustav Holst lived a life of genteel poverty teaching and composing until he died of overwork at the age of 59. John Williams rips off ideas from The Planets and makes a million bucks. How can that be right?


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I've listened to both the Planets suite and John Williams' Star Wars scores quite a bit. I agree they're tonally similar in spots, but I would not be able to point to passages that sound similar (like Jaws and Dvorak 9-4). Could you elaborate?


----------



## KenOC

In terms of the actual substance of JW's _Star Wars_ theme, many would look not to Holst but to Korngold's music for _Kings Row_. Of course JW set the music more effectively, no mean task given Korngold's talents!


----------



## Guest

Get rid of the canon altogether.


----------



## mbhaub

David Phillips said:


> Gustav Holst lived a life of genteel poverty teaching and composing until he died of overwork at the age of 59. John Williams rips off ideas from The Planets and makes a million bucks. How can that be right?


Most (all?) composers "rip off" someone, sometime. Yes, there are more than hints of Holst's Mars in the opening scene of Star Wars. Yes, the main theme of Star Wars is quite similar to the main title of Kings Row. Deliberate? I don't know. In any event, the final score is quite effective. Many years ago at Jeff's Classical Music Shop in Tucson (no longer there) the owner had a funny, large on-going poster labeled: The John Williams Lack-of-Originality Chart. With each new movie he'd identify themes and their source from the masters. I wish I had a copy of that.


----------



## Larkenfield

Williams' Schindler List theme is now being widely performed in concert halls ... and IMO, deservedly so. I find it deep, melodic, and meaningful. He's written masterful themes with sensitivity and wide emotional appeal that can stand on their own, not to mention that he's always been a masterful orchestrator... It's not for every composer to have the gift of melody, and I consider that the most glaring shortcoming of so much modern 20th-century music where it was considered sentimental, old-fashioned, or unimportant. I believe the human heart and brain will always have a need for a beautiful, memorable, and uplifting melody. I believe the realization of that will be the next revolution in music because of its immediate emotional appeal rather than an abstract work that's more intellectually interesting than deeply felt or satisfying. It's emotion that unites people, not just the intellect.


----------



## KenOC

Larkenfield said:


> Williams' Schindler List theme is now being widely performed in concert halls ... and IMO, deservedly so.


In the 2016-17 season and among US orchestras, John Williams was the 2nd most-performed living composer (after John Adams). The data are for mainline concerts only and exclude pops concerts.

Arrangement of John Williams' works, 1 performance
Catch Me If You Can, 2 performances
Escapades for saxophone (from Catch Me If You Can), 9 performances
For New York (Variations on Themes of Leonard Bernstein), 2 performances
Hook: Flight to Neverland, 1 performance
JFK, Suite from the film, 2 performances
Lincoln, Suite from the film, 4 performances
Sound the Bells, 2 performances
The Cowboys Overture, 4 performances
The Patriot, 1 performance
The Witches of Eastwick: Devil's Dance, 1 performance
Theme from Schindler's List, 5 performances


----------



## SONNET CLV

Larkenfield said:


> Williams' Schindler List theme is now being widely performed in concert halls ... and IMO, deservedly so. I find it deep, melodic, and meaningful. He's written masterful themes with sensitivity and wide emotional appeal that can stand on their own, not to mention that he's always been a masterful orchestrator... It's not for every composer to have the gift of melody, and I consider that the most glaring shortcoming of so much modern 20th-century music where it was considered sentimental, old-fashioned, or nonessential. I believe the human heart and brain will always have a need for a beautiful, memorable, and uplifting melody. I believe the realization of that will be the next revolution in music because of its emotional directness rather than an abstract work that is more intellectually interesting than deeply felt or satisfying.


But … isn't this the theme from Mahler's Eighth Symphony?

Listen about 7 minutes in ….


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I heard about six notes that sounded a bit like Schindler, but nothing close to the entire theme. Am I missing something?


----------



## BabyGiraffe

MatthewWeflen said:


> I heard about six notes that sounded a bit like Schindler, but nothing close to the entire theme. Am I missing something?


J.W. lifted a short motive. It's not uncommon practice (especially in older music), plus his most of his music is derivative. He is a very skilled composer, but a well known plagiarist (in film music directors usually say: "compose something that sounds like "x" theme"). If he had any original ideas (even his non-film music is based on "borrowed" ideas - mainly Shostakovich from what I've heard), he would have probably been recognised by the critics. 
Still, it's pretty hard to come with any original melody - http://www.musipedia.org/melody_search.html - try this melody search engine, - but he was not really trying to do anything original. It is interesting that sometimes he improved upon the source material (by adding "better" - more catchy/tuneful - melody - see for example Howard Hanson's second symphony and the score of E.T.)


----------



## Guest

David Phillips said:


> Gustav Holst lived a life of genteel poverty teaching and composing until he died of overwork at the age of 59. John Williams rips off ideas from The Planets and makes a million bucks. How can that be right?


How can that be wrong? (setting aside the emotive "rip-off").

Williams was born two years before Holst died. He can hardly be held responsible for Holst's finances.

It may be disappointing that the movie world doesn't take enough trouble to advertise the rich sources of some of its composers' works, but those that want to know will find out and give credit - not that Holst will benefit either way.


----------



## eugeneonagain

MatthewWeflen said:


> I've listened to both the Planets suite and John Williams' Star Wars scores quite a bit. I agree they're tonally similar in spots, but I would not be able to point to passages that sound similar (like Jaws and Dvorak 9-4). Could you elaborate?


It doesn't need analysis. The story is so old now it should be common knowledge. George Lucas used The Planets as a temp track for the film, tasked John Williams to write 'original' music like it for the soundtrack. Williams produces said sountrack, which due to his steeping in other film music like that of Korngold, Herrmann etc, also has stylistic and elemental borrowings.

The End.

Not quite.... Some of the elements in the soundtrack are phrases and ideas that crop up in so many other pieces of music that it has become a small youtube industry announcing and 'analysing' the latest work from which the Star Wars themes have been lifted.

John Williams: talented composer/arranger who freely uses extant material.


----------



## Bulldog

KenOC said:


> In the 2016-17 season and among US orchestras, John Williams was the 2nd most-performed living composer (after John Adams).


There goes the neighborhood.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Charlatan's a bit strong....

And besides, others have a much greater reputation for .....ahem........."borrowing"


----------



## DavidA

David Phillips said:


> Gustav Holst lived a life of genteel poverty teaching and composing until he died of overwork at the age of 59. John Williams rips off ideas from The Planets and makes a million bucks. How can that be right?


Beethoven rips ideas for his C minor concerto off Mozart. Is that right? 
Wagner took his Tristan chord from Liszt. Is that right?
Because music is derivative doesn't make it wrong. You can hear parts of Mahler, etc in the Planets but that doesn't make it wrong. Bad luck on Holst that he came at the wrong time but no fault of Williams he happens to have a genius for writing film music.


----------



## Alfacharger

Alex Ross had a great article about this subject.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/listening-to-star-wars


----------



## Red Terror

Alfacharger said:


> Alex Ross had a great article about this subject.
> 
> https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/listening-to-star-wars


Williams is an immensely talented soundtrack composer. I enjoy his work within the context of cinema, but outside of that, it bores me rather quickly.


----------



## Xisten267

*John Williams: worthy addition to the canon or charlatan?*

If this was a poll, my vote would be for "worthy addition to the canon". I really like the John William's compositions I know. I think he's the greatest reference as a living classical composer in the genre of movie soundtracks.


----------



## Bulldog

I'll go as far to say that Williiams might be a worthy addition to the film music canon.


----------



## Bill Cooke

Personally I love John Williams' music in all its stages, from his start scoring Irwin Allen TV shows and 1960s sex comedies (back when he was in "Mancini Jazz" mode and went by the name "Johnny") to his glory period of the 1970s and 1980s, when he revitalized the big, leitmotif-driven orchestral score. His music has given millions of people joy for decades, and while you can glean where he gets some of his inspiration (British composers and Prokofiev being major influences), he clearly has a style and "voice" of his own. A John Williams score is unmistakable from anyone else's music, regardless of influences.

His concert pieces are nice and musically interesting, but it's his film music that the man will be remembered for: the relentless two-note shark motif in JAWS; the rousing, sweeping march of SUPERMAN; the impressionistic terror and wonder of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND... the list goes on. 

Those who follow Williams know there's a lot more to him than STAR WARS and HARRY POTTER. If you want to hear something really unorthodox and modern, I recommend you seek out his score for Robert Altman's IMAGES.


----------



## Enthusiast

I don't think he is a charlatan but neither is he a classical composer. This thread should be moved!


----------



## larold

I like Williams but I don't find his music either as comprehensively fetching as Jerry Goldsmith or as memorable tunefully as Bernard Herrmann or Miklos Rozsa. I can't say there is any of his music I've ever desired to hear at home though I've heard it in the concert hall and at halftime at football games.

One thing I do agree on is he should be considered among modern serious musicians and score-writers. When I hear about some of the nonsense people think is great classical music in the 21st century I wonder how anyone can except film scoring from that genre. 

Film music is one of the few contemporary repertoire items that connects with concert goers. Much music written since 1950 was by composers that didn't care if audiences mattered. Audiences, in turn, rejected their music. They accept film music, some even ask for it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DavidA said:


> Beethoven rips ideas for his C minor concerto off Mozart. Is that right? Wagner took his Tristan chord from Liszt. Is that right?


The conception of 'plagiarism' in music was different back then. It was more like their way of honoring or complimenting the ones they referenced. I read that Johann Nepomuk Hummel was the first to come up with the idea of 'copyright' in music in history.

also about Tristan Chord-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tristan_chord
Martin Vogel points out the "chord" in earlier works by Guillaume de Machaut, Carlo Gesualdo, J.S. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, or Louis Spohr (Vogel 1962, p. 12, cited in Nattiez 1990, p. 219) as in the following example from the first movement of Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 18:


----------



## Jacck

Williams is mildly overrated, Zimmer is massively overrated, Goldsmith and Poledouris are underrated, Morricone is rated right. Williams borrowed heavily for the Star Wars - not only the Kings Row, but also Tchaikovsky 1. symphony, Strauss 2nd symphony
for example here is the Force theme


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Enthusiast said:


> I don't think he is a charlatan but neither is he a classical composer. This thread should be moved!


How does Williams fail to meet the definition of classical composer? Is it on time frame or on content? Because if it's time frame we have to excise everyone after Beethoven. If it's on content, then we have to excise everyone who composed for orchestras?

I don't see how Williams is essentially different than someone who composed an overture for an opera in the 19th century.


----------



## Enthusiast

^^^ Sorry but I don't understand your question (time frame? Beethoven? content = orchestra?). I assume you are saying that Williams is a classical composer? I can't see any reason to consider him as such but am happy to be enlightened.


----------



## WildThing

MatthewWeflen said:


> I don't see how Williams is essentially different than someone who composed an overture for an opera in the 19th century.


You do understand the difference between opera and film, and that Rossini or anyone else didn't just compose overtures, right?


----------



## MatthewWeflen

WildThing said:


> You do understand the difference between opera and film, and that Rossini or anyone else didn't just compose overtures, right?


An opera is a stage play with music both sung by actors and performed by an orchestra.

A film is a stage play recorded on celluloid or digital that can (but also may not) feature music both sung by actors and performed by an orchestra.

Composing orchestral music for the latter seems essentially similar to composing orchestral music for the former. Sure, Williams is not writing libretti, but then, neither did many operatic composers.

Thank you for your condescension.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Enthusiast said:


> ^^^ Sorry but I don't understand your question (time frame? Beethoven? content = orchestra?). I assume you are saying that Williams is a classical composer? I can't see any reason to consider him as such but am happy to be enlightened.


I don't understand your intimation that Williams' music should not be considered as a piece with "classical." I was trying to interpret your vague post. Would you please enlighten me as to your reasoning?

I was trying to give some of my reasoning. Here is more: Unless "classical" is being narrowly construed as orchestral music composed between 1730 and 1820, It sure seems to me like "classical" would be the category to place most of Williams' ouvre into. His music very strongly resembles the orchestral compositions of the genre most people construe as "classical."


----------



## WildThing

MatthewWeflen said:


> An opera is a stage play with music both sung by actors and performed by an orchestra.
> 
> A film is a stage play recorded on celluloid or digital that can (but also may not) feature music both sung by actors and performed by an orchestra.
> 
> Composing orchestral music for the latter seems essentially similar to composing orchestral music for the former. Sure, Williams is not writing libretti, but then, neither did composers like Wagner.
> 
> Thank you for your condescension.


No, I don't think you have the distinctions down there at all. And Wagner did write his own libretti...?

You'd have a much better case comparing Williams to other classical composers who wrote film music that has been accepted in the canon. Like Prokofiev.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

WildThing said:


> No, I don't think you have the distinctions down there at all. And Wagner did write his own libretti...?
> 
> You'd have a much better case comparing Williams to other classical composers who wrote film music that has been accepted in the canon. Like Prokofiev.


Already amended the Wagner mention. I was thinking of Strauss.

Please enlighten me as to how I have gotten the distinction between opera and film wrong. What distinctions am I missing?


----------



## mbhaub

Just yesterday I attended a concert with Gil Shaham playing the Brahms violin concerto, but before that he played the John Williams theme from Schindler's List. Fit the program perfectly. It's beautifully written piece, the scoring fantastic. It may have started out as film music, but it has taken on a life of its own in the classical arena. The "serious", atonal composers who can't get their music played must just be insanely jealous.


----------



## WildThing

MatthewWeflen said:


> Already amended the Wagner mention. I was thinking of Strauss.
> 
> Please enlighten me as to how I have gotten the distinction between opera and film wrong. What distinctions am I missing?


In an opera thr music is the primary vehicle of expression. The music in an opera has an entirely different function than the music of John Williams does in a film. It's a story told through music rather than accompanied by music or using music to set a mood. Again, I think your argument would be stronger if you stuck to comparisons with music like Lieutenant Kije or incidental music written for a play, like Grieg's music for Peer Gynt that are considered to be classical music.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

WildThing said:


> In an opera thr music is the primary vehicle of expression. The music in an opera has an entirely different function than the music of John Williams does in a film. It's a story told through music rather than accompanied by music or using music to set a mood. Again, I think your argument would be stronger if you stuck to comparisons with music like Lieutenant Kije or incidental music written for a play, like Grieg's music for Peer Gynt that are considered to be classical music.


Your point seems very abstruse. If Williams' music is being proposed as similar to Grieg's Peer Gynt suites then it is classical, but if it is being proposed as similar to Rossini's William Tell Overture or Wagner's Tannhauser overture, then it is not?

Who cares _what _use the music was put to after its composition? Is Beethoven's Fifth diminished by being used in a DiGiorno pizza commercial? (Saw this last night, ugh.)

Williams composed music that is best played by the London Symphony Orchestra, reading off of sheets of music, conducted by someone holding a baton. How is this not "classical?"


----------



## WildThing

MatthewWeflen said:


> Your point seems very abstruse. If Williams' music is being proposed as similar to Grieg's Peer Gynt suites then it is classical, but if it is being proposed as similar to Rossini's William Tell Overture or Wagner's Tannhauser overture, then it is not?


I never said that. I'm actually on your side, believe it or not, as to whether John Williams' music could be considered classical. But Rossini and Wagner were not composers of overtures, and their art is a very different one from that of Williams.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

WildThing said:


> I never said that. I'm actually on your side, believe it or not, as to whether John Williams' music could be considered classical. But Rossini and Wagner were not composers of overtures, and their art is a very different one from that of Williams.


So you were critiquing my argument. OK. Perhaps Peer Gynt suites is a better example, though I still stand by the functional similarity between, say, the title sequence of "Superman The Movie" and an overture like Tannhauser or William Tell. It's a piece of music that plays before a longer entertainment and previews the emotional contents within, yes?

I never said Rossini or Wagner composed _only _overtures. Obviously they composed full operas. But they DID also compose overtures, did they not? Or is there about to be a scandal in the classical music world?


----------



## Jacck

MatthewWeflen said:


> So you were critiquing my argument. OK. Perhaps Peer Gynt suites is a better example, though I still stand by the superficial similarity between, say, the title sequence of "Superman The Movie" and an overture like Tannhauser or William Tell. It's a piece of music that plays before a longer entertainment and previews the emotional contents within, yes?
> 
> I never said Rossini or Wagner composed _only _overtures. Obviously they composed full operas. But they DID also compose overtures, did they not? Or is there about to be a scandal in the classical music world?


People are afraid that if they allowed movie music into the classical territory, then it would flood and dilute it with much trash. I kind of agree. There are many more bad soundtracks than there are good ones. Good ones are those that you can listen to as stand alone, without seeing the movie. Also, some soundtracks come from the CM tradition (Williams, Goldsmith), but there are also many, that come from electronic music and they do not sound like CM at all. Better leave it as a separate genre and the future generations will tell if the movie music survives or not. I bet the Star Wars music will survive the next 100 years. I am more concerned about Goldsmith, who was a better composer than Williams


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Jacck said:


> People are afraid that if they allowed movie music into the classical territory, then it would flood and dilute it with much trash. I kind of agree. There are many more bad soundtracks than there are good ones. Good ones are those that you can listen to as stand alone, without seeing the movie. Also, some soundtracks come from the CM tradition (Williams, Goldsmith), but there are also many, that come from electronic music and they do not sound like CM at all. Better leave it as a separate genre and the future generations will tell if the movie music survives or not. I bet the Star Wars music will survive the next 100 years. I am more concerned about Goldsmith, who was a better composer than Williams


Oh, I love me some Jerry Goldsmith. His Star Trek "The Motion Picture" and "First Contact" scores are among my very favorites.

I guess I'm not worried? Record stores (for as long as those continue existing) are always going to categorize movie music as such. I think the quality will prove out over time. There's a lot of trash "classical" music that no longer gets played.


----------



## Jacck

MatthewWeflen said:


> Oh, I love me some Jerry Goldsmith. His Star Trek "The Motion Picture" and "First Contact" scores are among my very favorites.
> 
> I guess I'm not worried? Record stores (for as long as those continue existing) are always going to categorize movie music as such. I think the quality will prove out over time. There's a lot of trash "classical" music that no longer gets played.


I have been listening to CM for some 2 years, but to sountracks for some 15 years, so I guess I have some knowledge of the music. I own several dozens of Goldsmith soundtracks. He composed some weaker ones, but the overall quality of his soundtracks is very high. Often his music is the only good thing about some of the movies.


----------



## Enthusiast

MatthewWeflen said:


> I don't understand your intimation that Williams' music should not be considered as a piece with "classical." I was trying to interpret your vague post. Would you please enlighten me as to your reasoning?
> 
> I was trying to give some of my reasoning. Here is more: Unless "classical" is being narrowly construed as orchestral music composed between 1730 and 1820, It sure seems to me like "classical" would be the category to place most of Williams' ouvre into. His music very strongly resembles the orchestral compositions of the genre most people construe as "classical."


Sorry to seem vague but I really couldn't see any reason to think of Williams as a classical composer (in the broadest sense of the word). So it seemed like you should give reasons why we should. He excels at writing film music. There's nothing wrong with that but it isn't classical music. He doesn't make music go somewhere over time, nor does he excel at miniatures. There are some classical composers who wrote (great) classical music for films (Prokofiev, certainly, and probably Walton) but that is not Williams. He is not original enough and his music just doesn't stand up without the film. If for some reason you need to consider Williams as a classical composer then go ahead. I mean, does it matter? Either way I'll not be joining you in that if you can't convince me of your case.

By the way, the types of instrument has nothing to do with what is and what isn't classical music and the use of otherwise or an orchestra is totally irrelevant.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Enthusiast said:


> Sorry to seem vague but I really couldn't see any reason to think of Williams as a classical composer (in the broadest sense of the word). So it seemed like you should give reasons why we should. He excels at writing film music. There's nothing wrong with that but it isn't classical music. He doesn't make music go somewhere over time, nor does he excel at miniatures. There are some classical composers who wrote (great) classical music for films (Prokofiev, certainly, and probably Walton) but that is not Williams. He is not original enough and his music just doesn't stand up without the film. If for some reason you need to consider Williams as a classical composer then go ahead. I mean, does it matter? Either way I'll not be joining you in that if you can't convince me of your case.
> 
> By the way, the types of instrument has nothing to do with what is and what isn't classical music and the use of otherwise or an orchestra is totally irrelevant.


I can't say I really care at this point when it comes to convincing anyone.

I am fascinated, however, by definitions and arguments over the same. If you'll indulge me, what _does _define classical music? And can you name a piece that meets these definitional criteria but uses no orchestral instruments?


----------



## Xisten267

Enthusiast said:


> Sorry to seem vague but I really couldn't see any reason to think of Williams as a classical composer (in the broadest sense of the word). So it seemed like you should give reasons why we should. He excels at writing film music. There's nothing wrong with that but it isn't classical music. He doesn't make music go somewhere over time, nor does he excel at miniatures. There are some classical composers who wrote (great) classical music for films (Prokofiev, certainly, and probably Walton) but that is not Williams. He is not original enough and his music just doesn't stand up without the film. If for some reason you need to consider Williams as a classical composer then go ahead. I mean, does it matter? Either way I'll not be joining you in that if you can't convince me of your case.
> 
> By the way, the types of instrument has nothing to do with what is and what isn't classical music and the use of otherwise or an orchestra is totally irrelevant.


As I understand it, classical is a way of doing things in music. Anyone can compose in the classical style, having the _know how_ this is. There are film soundtracks based on jazz, rock, country etc. and also classical. The composers that create their music in the classical style, be that music used for incidental pieces, opera overtures or movie soundtracks, are therefore classical composers in my opinion. Who is a great composer and who is not is another matter.

John Williams is no less a classical composer than Yoshimatsu or Prokofiev for me.


----------



## Enthusiast

MatthewWeflen said:


> I can't say I really care at this point when it comes to convincing anyone.
> 
> I am fascinated, however, by definitions and arguments over the same. If you'll indulge me, what _does _define classical music? And can you name a piece that meets these definitional criteria but uses no orchestral instruments?


There have been several threads about what defines classical music. I'll try to find one tomorrow. Your second question relies on what instruments are to be considered _orchestral _instruments. In general orchestras do not have pianos - so any piano sonata - but in fact almost any instrument you can think of has been included in an orchestra by someone including organs, electric guitars, synthesisers etc.


----------



## Enthusiast

Allerius said:


> As I understand it, classical is a way of doing things in music. Anyone can compose in the classical style, having the _know how_ this is. There are film soundtracks based on jazz, rock, country etc. and also classical. The composers that create their music in the classical style, be that music used for incidental pieces, opera overtures or movie soundtracks, are therefore classical composers in my opinion. Who is a great composer and who is not is another matter.
> 
> John Williams is no less a classical composer than Yoshimatsu or Prokofiev for me.


I am not aware of any _notable _piece by Williams that is written as classical music. He might have written some but it is not the reason he is known. I suggest that _basing_ a film score on jazz or rock is not the same thing as producing a jazz or rock film score. I suppose a rock film score could be written but I am trying hard to think how an improvised form could be used as a film score but there might be a way. But, yes, there are film scores that _sound like _jazz or rock ... or (in Williams's case) old romantic classical music. This is not the same thing as them being jazz or rock or classical music.

I should make clear that I do not consider assigning the term "classical" music to a piece is a way of saying it is superior. It is, as you say, about a way of doing things. To me Williams composes effective film music that is in no way classical. I also feel his music is not very interesting or meaningful but am trying to forget that as that is not what we are discussing.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Allerius said:


> John Williams is no less a classical composer than Yoshimatsu or Prokofiev for me.


No less a composer in the classical idiom or no less of a composer?


----------



## KenOC

Enthusiast said:


> Sorry to seem vague but I really couldn't see any reason to think of Williams as a classical composer (in the broadest sense of the word).


John Williams has actually written quite a few pieces for concert and chamber music performance. Although some find their ways into orchestral programs each year, none are wildly popular. But popularity has little to do with whether he is a "classical composer," which he obviously is.

His list of "classical" works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Williams#Concert_works


----------



## DavidA

Jacck said:


> People are afraid that if they allowed movie music into the classical territory,* then it would flood and dilute it with much trash.* I kind of agree. There are many more bad soundtracks than there are good ones. Good ones are those that you can listen to as stand alone, without seeing the movie. Also, some soundtracks come from the CM tradition (Williams, Goldsmith), but there are also many, that come from electronic music and they do not sound like CM at all. Better leave it as a separate genre and the future generations will tell if the movie music survives or not. I bet the Star Wars music will survive the next 100 years. I am more concerned about Goldsmith, who was a better composer than Williams


Yes but when you consider the trash some 'serious' composers of today write, then John Williams is king. I was hearing a piece b y some modern composer on the radio the other day. Entertainment value zero (though that might be a plus for some!). Hopeless. Give me Williams any day.


----------



## Haydn70

Enthusiast said:


> I am not aware of any _notable _piece by Williams that is written as classical music. He might have written some but it is not the reason he is known. I suggest that _basing_ a film score on jazz or rock is not the same thing as producing a jazz or rock film score. I suppose a rock film score could be written but I am trying hard to think how an improvised form could be used as a film score but there might be a way. But, yes, there are film scores that _sound like _jazz or rock ... or (in Williams's case) old romantic classical music. This is not the same thing as them being jazz or rock or classical music.
> 
> I should make clear that I do not consider assigning the term "classical" music to a piece is a way of saying it is superior. It is, as you say, about a way of doing things. To me Williams composes effective film music that is in no way classical. I also feel his music is not very interesting or meaningful but am trying to forget that as that is not what we are discussing.


KenOC's response to one of your posts is spot on. Why don't you take the time to check the link KenOC included in his post...you will see that Williams has written a considerable amount of concert music.

Whether or not you like this concert music is irrelevant and if you or hipster music critics who hate contemporary tonal music find it not to be "notable" is also irrelevant. John Williams is a composer of classical music.

And I am someone who doesn't particularly like his film or concert music.


----------



## Enthusiast

^^^ I don't know but I bet that none of those pieces would have attracted attention (or performance?) if he were not already famous. Paul McCartney has written classical pieces for concert performance as well but, um, the results were not good! I hope I can say _that _without fear of upsetting anyone.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Enthusiast said:


> But, yes, there are film scores that _sound like _jazz or rock ... or (in Williams's case) old romantic classical music. This is not the same thing as them being jazz or rock or classical music.


This is the part I am having diffuculty with, I think. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, isn't it a duck? A lesser duck if you like, but still a duck?

How does one make music that sounds like jazz, but isn't jazz? Or paint a painting that looks like cubism, but isn't cubism?


----------



## Haydn70

Enthusiast said:


> ^^^ I don't know but I bet that none of those pieces would have attracted attention (or performance?) if he were not already famous. Paul McCartney has written classical pieces for concert performance as well but, um, the results were not good! I hope I can say _that _without fear of upsetting anyone.


Once again, in judging whether or not Williams is a classical composer, it is irrelevant why his concert music has attracted attention and performances. In addition to getting numerous performances he has been commissioned many times.

In your effort to denigrate Williams at all costs you are resorting to empty arguments.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Enthusiast said:


> Paul McCartney has written classical pieces for concert performance as well but, um, the results were not good! I hope I can say _that _without fear of upsetting anyone.


I actually thought his set of piano pieces called 'A Leaf' were quite good. I think he has a very good sense of how to write for the piano.
I suspect that the line of reasoning you are taking on this is running in reverse: that 'attempts' at classical music by people like McCartney are de facto substandard because they are too associated with another idiom.


----------



## Haydn70

eugeneonagain said:


> I actually thought his set of piano pieces called 'A Leaf' were quite good. I think he has a very good sense of how to write for the piano.
> I suspect that the line of reasoning you are taking on this is running in reverse: that 'attempts' at classical music by people like McCartney are de facto substandard because they are too associated with another idiom.


RE: McCartney's "classical" music, it is well known that:

1. He has no formal training in composition...and no informal training for that matter as he cannot read or write music

2. He hands off melodies (and sometimes probably chord progressions) to trained composers who actually realize the music.

He is NOT a composer of classical music.

And however the creative pie is sliced up, the results are substandard...awful, in fact.


----------



## eugeneonagain

ArsMusica said:


> RE: McCartney's "classical" music, it is well known that:
> 
> 1. He has no formal training in composition...and no informal training for that matter as he cannot read or write music
> 
> 2. He hands off melodies (and sometimes probably chord progressions) to trained composers who actually realize the music.
> 
> He is NOT a composer of classical music.
> 
> And however the creative pie is sliced up, the results are substandard...awful, in fact.


I have no interest in your definitions. And if you had read the notes of the piece I mentioned you'd know that he wrote every note. Not having 'formal training' (although he actually spent years working with George Martin who WAS a classical musician and arranger/composer, and who rated McCartney highly) is not the key factor.

There is no room for elitist clubbism in classical music. So hop it.


----------



## Haydn70

eugeneonagain said:


> I have no interest in your definitions. And if you had read the notes of the piece I mentioned you'd know that he wrote every note. Not having 'formal training' (although he actually spent years working with George Martin who WAS a classical musician and arranger/composer, and who rated McCartney highly) is not the key factor.
> 
> There is no room for elitist clubbism in classical music. So hop it.


And I have no interest in your hipster musical egalitarianism. So hop it.


----------



## Haydn70

eugeneonagain said:


> I have no interest in your definitions. And if you had read the notes of the piece I mentioned you'd know that he wrote every note. Not having 'formal training' (although he actually spent years working with George Martin who WAS a classical musician and arranger/composer, and who rated McCartney highly) is not the key factor.
> 
> There is no room for elitist clubbism in classical music. So hop it.


And I find it laughable that you believe that McCartney wrote every note of 'A Leaf' simply because it says so in the notes.


----------



## eugeneonagain

ArsMusica said:


> And I find it laughable that you believe that McCartney wrote every note of 'A Leaf' simply because it says so in the notes.


I find it laughable that you consider only 'formally trained' musicians to be 'proper' musicians. If you had checked you'd know that McCartney had piano lessons from an acquaintance of Jane Asher's mother who was a teacher at the Guildhall School of Music.

What's the matter, is it that you were formally trained and yet have produced nothing of value? Does this make you begrudge McCartney any success?


----------



## eugeneonagain

ArsMusica said:


> And I have no interest in your hipster musical egalitarianism. So hop it.


Hipster? Where do you come up with this tripe?


----------



## Haydn70

eugeneonagain said:


> Hipster? Where do you come up with this tripe?


The same place you came up with this desperate _ad hominem_ tripe:

"What's the matter, is it that you were formally trained and yet have produced nothing of value? Does this make you begrudge McCartney any success?"


----------



## Haydn70

ArsMusica said:


> The same place you came up with this desperate _ad hominem_ tripe:
> 
> "What's the matter, is it that you were formally trained and yet have produced nothing of value? Does this make you begrudge McCartney any success?"


All the more desperate and worthless in that you do not have the slightest idea who I am and what I have produced.


----------



## eugeneonagain

That's why it was in the form of a question. 

Quoting yourself too. Very stylish.


----------



## KenOC

Gentlepeople, we seem to be straying from the subject...


----------



## bharbeke

John Williams has written an amazing number of high-quality film scores and other compositions. Many of them can be and are played by the same ensembles that play music that is agreed by all to fit the classical definition.

Regarding any claims of plagiarism or being a charlatan, I can only say that if it were easy to become a household name in film composing, more people would be doing it. He has plenty of skills in composing, orchestrating, and conducting.


----------



## Sid James

I don't see any reason to call John Williams a charlatan. His music is already played in concert halls, both as suites and the increasingly popular (and lucrative) practice of whole scores accompanied by the film on screen. 

He's an amazingly diverse composer, his teachers included Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco and while studying at Julliard he played piano in jazz clubs. His collaboration with Spielberg is one of the most fruitful musical partnerships ever, yielding a rich variety of scores. He is among the few today who composes in the old way - with paper and pencil at a piano, and he does his own orchestrations. This isn't easy, with limited time given to complete a whole film score, which is roughly eight weeks. He's basically gold standard in his field, has won over a dozen Oscars and is in the league of other legends such as Nino Rota, Elmer Bernstein and Jerry Goldsmith.

As for borrowing, cribbing or outright stealing, its not what you take, its how you use it that counts. Countless composers did it. I'm currently reading a biography of Handel, and his travels in Italy where a rich source where he appropriated many tunes heard - and later he cannibalised his own music, another common practice since - but nobody can doubt his individuality and ultimately greatness. Same to be said of others, including Brahms, Vaughan Williams and Stravinsky. In the film industry this is quite openly done, when Dmitri Tiomkin accepted his Oscar he facetiously thanked all the dead composers for ghost writing his music. I think its obvious that the Star Wars main title is a deliberate quote from Holst's Mars, a direct homage a la Brahms in his first symphony of Beethoven's ninth.

Nowadays you often get a composer's original film score on disc with a bonus track of the dead composer he based the main theme on. I don't know if its been done with Williams, but remember it on Michael Nyman's Carrington soundtrack, which included a movement from Schubert's Quintet in C.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> Goldsmith [...] Often his music is the only good thing about some of the movies.


A curious thing to say. If Goldsmith is the great film composer he is said to be, how come the movies are poor? It might say something about his choice of movies ("My mediocre piece will shine in comparison to this cr**!")

I don't happen to think that about Goldsmith, but it seems to be implied by your argument.



Jacck said:


> People are afraid that if they allowed movie music into the classical territory,


"Allowed"? No one need give permission. Music is what it is, regardless of the arguments we have here over it.

When Star Wars was released in the UK in 1978, I went to see it 6 times in total. I didn't go because of Williams' score (though it played its part in the appeal of the film) - I wasn't going to a concert to see a piece with its own life and its own purpose, its own beginning, development, variation and end. I went to see a film, where the musical cues were subservient to the visuals.

For me, that is what marks out film music from "classical" music: it has no purpose other than to fit the visuals. "Classical", on the other hand, is its own purpose. It is complete in itself, needing no other explanation or support. (Opera is, to my mind, a legitimate branch of classical, but it has something in common with film music, and less in common with pure classical than some claim.)


----------



## Enthusiast

KenOC said:


> John Williams has actually written quite a few pieces for concert and chamber music performance. Although some find their ways into orchestral programs each year, none are wildly popular. But popularity has little to do with whether he is a "classical composer," which he obviously is.
> 
> His list of "classical" works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Williams#Concert_works


Just to be clear, I am only saying that those works are not what he is known for. I don't know them but I speculated that they would not have attracted attention were it not for the fact that he is already famous. The reason I am arguing this is because we are discussing what sort of music he is known for.


----------



## Enthusiast

MatthewWeflen said:


> This is the part I am having diffuculty with, I think. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, isn't it a duck? A lesser duck if you like, but still a duck?
> 
> How does one make music that sounds like jazz, but isn't jazz? Or paint a painting that looks like cubism, but isn't cubism?


I'm sorry you are having difficulty. Music can _sound like _something without being that thing. As I have explained, jazz should involve improvisation and film music can't easily do so. When we say a film score sounds like jazz we mean it has the sound of one or other of the noted jazz styles. That is not the same thing as being jazz. This seems obvious to me.


----------



## DavidA

Funny I had Mahler's second symphony on yesterday. My eight year-old grandson said to me, "Is that Star Wars, Grandpa?" :lol:


----------



## eugeneonagain

Enthusiast said:


> I'm sorry you are having difficulty. Music can _sound like _something without being that thing. As I have explained, jazz should involve improvisation and film music can't easily do so. When we say a film score sounds like jazz we mean it has the sound of one or other of the noted jazz styles. That is not the same thing as being jazz. This seems obvious to me.


Does this mean e.g. that all bebop played now by actual jazz musicians is not really bebop because it apes the sound of music that fizzled out around the mid-1960s? Are they just going through the motions in a pastiche?


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> ^^^ I don't know but I bet that none of those pieces would have attracted attention (or performance?) if he were not already famous. Paul McCartney has written classical pieces for concert performance as well but, um, the results were not good! I hope I can say _that _without fear of upsetting anyone.


Let's face it even a writer of the greatest ever musical, Bernstein, didn't exactly pull up too many trees with his classical pieces.


----------



## Enthusiast

ArsMusica said:


> Once again, in judging whether or not Williams is a classical composer, it is irrelevant why his concert music has attracted attention and performances. In addition to getting numerous performances he has been commissioned many times.
> 
> In your effort to denigrate Williams at all costs you are resorting to empty arguments.


Firstly, and with some exasperation, I am not seeking to denigrate Williams. Indeed, compared with some people here my "position" is relatively positive about him. I am merely talking about whether we should consider him a classical composer. If you equate that with quality then that is your thinking, not mine. You can be a good or a bad classical composer.

It sounds like he has written some music that might be described as classical but I persist in saying that he is known to be a composer of film music and that is what we are mostly discussing here. I am of the opinion that his film music is not classical music.


----------



## Enthusiast

eugeneonagain said:


> Does this mean e.g. that all bebop played now by actual jazz musicians is not really bebop because it apes the sound of music that fizzled out around the mid-1960s? Are they just going through the motions in a pastiche?


I don't think so - some practitioners still play bebop with original and personal improvisations. But, we are straying into questions of quality which I am eager to avoid. The quality question applied to Williams is a much bigger question and not one that I would participate in. My view has been that he writes effective film music. That is the limit of my opinion on the matter!


----------



## Enthusiast

DavidA said:


> Let's face it even a writer of the greatest ever musical, Bernstein, didn't exactly pull up too many trees with his classical pieces.


I am not sure I understand you ("pull up trees" is an idiom I am unfamiliar with). But Bernstein was a serious composer and he was also a classical composer. He is widely known as such.


----------



## Enthusiast

Can I push this question back to those who are telling us that Williams' film music is classical music. Why do you think that? In what way is it classical? Is it just because it is orchestral?


----------



## ManateeFL

*Redeeming Film Music from the Avant-Garde*

*by Roger Scurton*

Useful article.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

https://leonardbernstein.com/lectur...oung-peoples-concerts/what-is-classical-music

Bernstein comparing classical to more improvisational forms like rock or jazz:
_ The real difference is that when a composer writes a piece of what's usually called classical music, he puts down the exact notes that he wants, the exact instruments or voices that he wants to play or sing those notes -even the exact number of instruments or voices; and he also writes down as many directions as he can think of, to tell the players or singers as carefully as he can everything they need to know about how fast or slow it should go, how loud or soft it should be, and millions of other things to help the performers to give an exact performance of those notes he thought up. _

Bernstein talking about the ethos of the "classical" period:
_That's what classical music really means: music written in a time when perfect form and balance and proportion are what everybody is looking for -music which tries more than anything else to have a perfect shape - like a beautiful ancient Greek vase. _

So there are two strains here. As I was saying sooooo many posts ago, if you're going to claim that Williams isn't a composer of classical music because he wrote after Beethoven, then fine, we're going to have to train ourselves to call Schubert a composer of "Romantic Music" and so on.

But few people use the term "classical" in this way, so it seems obstinately pedantic to try.

The common usage of classical music seems to me to describe "music that _sounds like_ Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, etc."

Here's the dictionary definition that Google returns:

_serious or conventional music following long-established principles rather than a folk, jazz, or popular tradition.
(more specifically) music written in the European tradition during a period lasting approximately from 1750 to 1830, when forms such as the symphony, concerto, and sonata were standardized._

Now, dictionaries strive to record common usage. And I think from what we see here, the dictionary is in agreement with me - music that sounds like something most people agree is "classical" but doesn't sound like jazz, folk, rock, rap, hip-pop, etc.

So what makes music _sound like _ "classical?" I think most people would say that it is played by instruments traditionally held to be in orchestras - strings, brass, woodwinds, percussion. Does Williams' ouvre meet this criterion? Certainly.

If we want to go further than that, what types of compositions _sound like _classical ones? Certainly symphonies, but also concertos, string ensembles, overtures, piano sonatas. Waltzes a la J. Strauss? Probably. Tone poems a la R. Strauss? Maybe. Does Williams' music sound like any or all of these? I would say yes, and I think the average person on the street would say yes as well.


----------



## Enthusiast

^^^ I suspect you are trolling me.

Certainly you are not reading what I have written. You just go off on another riff about how pedantic it would be to reserve the term "classical music" to music composed in the classical era. Well, obviously! Duh! Do you really think I or anyone else is arguing for that? Really? Why?

Then you go into what the music sounds like again seeming to say that if it sounds like classical it is classical. But why are you hung up on sound or instrumentation? At the risk of over-simplifying, what is missing is structure and musical argument.

You repeat yourself but not in response to what I or anyone else has written. "Sounds like classical" is not the same as "is classical". Or do you think it is? Just because Williams uses an orchestra in his film scores doesn't make him a classical composer. Just because the people playing the film music are classically trained doesn't make the music classical.

And I am not saying that he is any less than he would be if he _was _a classical composer. I happen to think his film music would be truly dreadful classical music but that isn't the reason why I feel he is not a classical composer.


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> I am not sure I understand you ("pull up trees" is an idiom I am unfamiliar with). But Bernstein was a serious composer and he was also a classical composer. He is widely known as such.


What I am meaning is that his classical compositions don't impress me too much. I wonder just how seriously they would be taken if he hadn't written such great musicals.


----------



## Enthusiast

^^^ Ah, OK. I am trying not to get into questions about the quality of music because the thread is about what it is that makes music "classical". I don't think an answer to that question can be about quality. You can have bad classical music. But I see where you are coming from. I don't know Bernstein's music well enough to comment on it but it could be that his reputation as a classical composer has been bolstered by his reputation with musicals. I did hear Bernstein's 2nd symphony a while ago and quite liked it. Not enough to buy it or anything like that.


----------



## millionrainbows

I liked his arrangement of "Simple Gifts" that was played at Barack Obama's inauguration by Itzhak Perlman and his colleagues. Anybody remember that?


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Enthusiast said:


> ^^^ I suspect you are trolling me.
> 
> Certainly you are not reading what I have written. You just go off on another riff about how pedantic it would be to reserve the term "classical music" to music composed in the classical era. Well, obviously! Duh! Do you really think I or anyone else is arguing for that? Really? Why?
> 
> Then you go into what the music sounds like again seeming to say that if it sounds like classical it is classical. But why are you hung up on sound or instrumentation? At the risk of over-simplifying, what is missing is structure and musical argument.
> 
> You repeat yourself but not in response to what I or anyone else has written. "Sounds like classical" is not the same as "is classical". Or do you think it is? Just because Williams uses an orchestra in his film scores doesn't make him a classical composer. Just because the people playing the film music are classically trained doesn't make the music classical.
> 
> And I am not saying that he is any less than he would be if he _was _a classical composer. I happen to think his film music would be truly dreadful classical music but that isn't the reason why I feel he is not a classical composer.


I don't see how you could accuse me of trolling when I am answering your questions in good faith and trying to back up my responses. You asked for an explanation of why I would consider Williams' music classical. So I offered a definition of "classical music" and indicated why I think Williams' ouvre fits the definition (irrespective of quality).

Can you please finally answer the question of how YOU define classical music? Why Williams' ouvre should NOT be counted as classical? What is it specifically that disqualifies his work from being grouped in the same category? What "structure" are you referring to? What is a "musical argument," and how is Williams not making them? How can music that _sounds like _classical not be classical? What is it that would make this so?

The reason I keep bringing up the dating issue with the label is that you refuse to offer an alternative rubric for eliminating Williams from the category. As such, excluding him based on time period seems to only reasonable fallback.


----------



## millionrainbows

Enthusiast said:


> Sorry to seem vague but I really couldn't see any reason to think of Williams as a classical composer (in the broadest sense of the word). So it seemed like you should give reasons why we should. He excels at writing film music. There's nothing wrong with that but it isn't classical music. He doesn't make music go somewhere over time, nor does he excel at miniatures. There are some classical composers who wrote (great) classical music for films (Prokofiev, certainly, and probably Walton) but that is not Williams. He is not original enough and his music just doesn't stand up without the film. If for some reason you need to consider Williams as a classical composer then go ahead. I mean, does it matter? Either way I'll not be joining you in that if you can't convince me of your case.
> 
> By the way, the types of instrument has nothing to do with what is and what isn't classical music and the use of otherwise or an orchestra is totally irrelevant.


This does seem vague. Enthusiast, you seem to be driving this point into the ground. It is apparent that you don't consider Williams to be a classical composer, but your criteria seems more _emotionally_ based than anything.


----------



## Enthusiast

MatthewWeflen said:


> Can you please finally *answer the question of how YOU define classical music*? Why Williams' ouvre should NOT be counted as classical? What is it specifically that disqualifies his work from being grouped in the same category? What "structure" are you referring to? What is a "musical argument," and how is Williams not making them? How can music that _sounds like _classical not be classical? What is it that would make this so?
> 
> The reason I keep bringing up the dating issue with the label is that you refuse to offer an alternative rubric for eliminating Williams from the category. As such, excluding him based on time period seems to only reasonable fallback.


The answer was in the third paragraph of my post - the last sentence:


> At the risk of over-simplifying, what is missing is structure and musical argument.


----------



## Art Rock

Enthusiast said:


> The answer was in the third paragraph of my post - the last sentence: At the risk of over-simplifying, what is missing is structure and musical argument.


Could you explain to me (a listener without any theoretical knowledge) why Williams' Theme from Schindler's list is not classical and Massenet's Meditation from Thais is? Not trolling, genuinely curious.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Enthusiast said:


> The answer was in the third paragraph of my post - the last sentence: At the risk of over-simplifying, what is missing is structure and musical argument.


I don't know what you mean by those terms. I asked what they meant previously. Perhaps you possess jargon that I do not. Will you do me the kindness of explaining them? What _is_ a musical argument? And is there a "structure" that marks something as classical in such a way as to comprehend all of symphony, concerto, string ensemble, tone poem, and waltz, but to exclude the title music from Superman The Movie?


----------



## Luchesi

MatthewWeflen said:


> I am listening to John Williams presently. I always enjoy his music, and it certainly enhances whatever movie I may be watching with his score. I am wondering what people here think of his ouvre.
> 
> Are his compositions as interesting or complex as some of the all time greats? Is he a lesser light, though still comparable to an overture composer like a Rossini or a popular musician like J. Strauss? Is he a hack/ ripoff artist?
> 
> For my part, I think he is probably closest to the second option, but is a great "gateway" musician to get people into classical.


"..is a great "gateway" musician to get people into classical."

I've heard this before. Do you know of people who have followed this path to CM? Did you?

I think people grow into CM from a few favorites which are simple, melodic classical pieces. JW can help with introducing difficult modern music, but he's not the best film composer for that.

If you learn to like gimmicky mechanisms always returning you to sugary sweet tonal resolutions, when and how will you learn to appreciate Bach? But Bach wasn't the "gateway" to absolute music for me like he is for so many piano students. Mozart was. And I think it was because my ears needed to mature. This is a key problem (pun intended). I was subconsciously searching for the pure basics of serious music. Can John Williams help with that? Yes, every piece of music helps a little.

Everyone's path is different, but I've known people who almost developed a passion for CM when introduced to Emerson Lake and Palmer or Rick Wakeman, but then they were left out on a limb (because what their musical mind is trying to make logical sense of is mostly gimmicks and exaggerated tricks).





Rick Wakeman 6 Wives of Henry VIII

CM has to be clever but it also has to have a serious foundation. So, pop songs and jazz interpretations are easy to separate from CM, but film music is more difficult to compartmentalize.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Luchesi said:


> "..is a great "gateway" musician to get people into classical."
> 
> I've heard this before. Do you know of people who have followed this path to CM? Did you?


My gateway to classical was through movies and Star Trek (and some times Star Trek movies).

Movies like Star Wars, Star Trek TMP, and Superman The Movie had thrilling music. I wanted to listen to it more. Luckily, my dad had LPs of the film soundtracks. So we often listened to them while playing board games. I would say this music got me accustomed to the orchestral sound.






Watching Star Trek introduced me to more "hard" classical, specifically Mozart's "Eine Kleine Natchmusik" and Brahms Sextet in B-flat major 2nd movement (op. 18). These pieces were featured in specific scenes of the TNG show, and whetted my appetite to hear more from those composers. I bought my first Brahms symphony cycle and his sextets after hearing the music on the show.











I was also exposed to Copland in some of the historical documentaries I watched frequently in the 90s as a kid. And so I purchased a Copland collection as well.

Those were the big influences before my current "deep dive."

PS: All of the above-linked music is "classical."


----------



## Luchesi

MatthewWeflen said:


> I don't know what you mean by those terms. I asked what they meant previously. Perhaps you possess jargon that I do not. Will you do me the kindness of explaining them? What _is_ a musical argument? And is there a "structure" that marks something as classical in such a way as to comprehend all of symphony, concerto, string ensemble, tone poem, and waltz, but to exclude the title music from Superman The Movie?


I like to point out that people in TC will say that they don't need to learn music theory, they don't have time, they don't think that it will help. In fact some folks fear it might hurt their joy of music. And yet these very same people we'll answer your questions about film music vs classical music correctly. It's a heartening development for a fuddy-duddy, pedagogic pianist like me.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Luchesi said:


> I like to point out that people in TC will say that they don't need to learn music theory, they don't have time, they don't think that it will help. In fact some folks fear it might hurt their joy of music. And yet these very same people we'll answer your questions about film music vs classical music correctly. It's a heartening development for a fuddy-duddy, pedagogic pianist like me.


So what's the answer?


----------



## Luchesi

Matthew, "Those were the big influences before my current "deep dive.""

Thanks for sharing that. I've taught a lot of young people and adult beginners and I've never seen that. It reminds me of the effect that classical clips in the old cartoons had on a generation who watched a lot of it. There was little else for kids…


----------



## Luchesi

I'm working


MatthewWeflen said:


> So what's the answer?


It's a deep subject and there will be many nay-sayers, but yes. ...because it's more of a foolproof approach.

Many people are just lucky and have the right experiences at the right time in their youth or their young adulthood to pursue the theory and the history and the long development of dissonance and later composers' accomplishments with that foundation from physics.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Luchesi said:


> Matthew, "Those were the big influences before my current "deep dive.""
> 
> Thanks for sharing that. I've taught a lot of young people and adult beginners and I've never seen that. It reminds me of the effect that classical clips in the old cartoons had on a generation who watched a lot of it. There was little else for kids…


I am sure that even if I hadn't been playing classical music with my children present (their current favorites: Beethoven Sym. 5, William Tell Overture, L'Arlesienne No. 2 "Farandole"), they would certainly have strong memories of "What's Opera Doc?" and Superman.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Luchesi said:


> It's a deep subject and there will be many nay-sayers, but yes. ...because it's more of a foolproof approach.
> 
> Many people are just lucky and have the right experiences at the right time in their youth or their young adulthood to pursue the theory and the history and the long development of dissonance and later composer's accomplishments with that foundation from physics.


I mean to the question "Is John Williams' music classical?"


----------



## Luchesi

MatthewWeflen said:


> I mean to the question "Is John Williams' music classical?"


Would he say it's CM?


----------



## Luchesi

MatthewWeflen said:


> I am sure that even if I hadn't been playing classical music with my children present (their current favorites: Beethoven Sym. 5, William Tell Overture, L'Arlesienne No. 2 "Farandole"), they would certainly have strong memories of "What's Opera Doc?" and Superman.


Familiarizing children with the tonal relationships in Western music is a crucial part of their later appreciation (hopefully) of serious music. What do you think is the intent of John Williams music? What do you think he thinks the intent is? Is it an attempt at expressing human thoughts and the reality we see?


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Luchesi said:


> Would he say it's CM?


He seems to regard the distinction as immaterial.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2002/feb/04/artsfeatures



> So is he a frustrated Beethoven forced to earn a living in a battery-hen world?
> 
> Williams will have none of it. "I think of myself as a film composer," he says in his measured, professorial way. "I'm not a frustrated concert composer, and the concert pieces I've done have been a small part of my work. What I've sought there is instruction, variation from the demands of film and relief from its restrictions."
> 
> The composer is 70 this year, as productive as ever and apparently beyond ego. That must come when you have won five Oscars and been nominated 30 or so times. But he accepts that traditionalists see film scores as a very inferior form of classical music. "We have to be hopeful," he says, "that if there is a musical genius in the future, that individual is someone who has a connection with film and doesn't regard the old division between fine arts and media arts as rigidly as we do."


----------



## Luchesi

MatthewWeflen said:


> He seems to regard the distinction as immaterial.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/film/2002/feb/04/artsfeatures


He knows the difference. He's lived the difference. Fine art and media art's attractiveness.

Long essays can be written about this academic outlook. Text books on aesthetics and the history of music. I enjoy talking about it.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Luchesi said:


> Familiarizing children with the tonal relationships in Western music is a crucial part of their later appreciation (hopefully) of serious music. What do you think is the intent of John Williams music? What do you think he thinks the intent is? Is it an attempt at expressing human thoughts and the reality we see?







This is the best source I could find in which he discusses his thoughts about Superman in particular. He calls it a motif, and the music theatrical and fun.

It sounds like his goal in this piece was to make music that thrilled and entertained people.

While I certainly think Beethoven was trying to address the human condition in the 9th, did every other composer write from the same kind of motive? Was Mozart's "Marriage of Figaro" overture supposed to be anything but fun?


----------



## Enthusiast

Art Rock said:


> Could you explain to me (a listener without any theoretical knowledge) why Williams' Theme from Schindler's list is not classical and Massenet's Meditation from Thais is? Not trolling, genuinely curious.


I'm afraid I don't know either piece. Sorry. It might be that the one is a part of a larger and more ambitious whole while the other is merely a theme used in a piece of film music (which lacks and doesn't need the independent coherence that Thais - not a work I know - would need). If I knew the pieces I might also see differences in the way the two (both presumably very short) are structured.

BTW - I also lack technical knowledge but I find with classical music that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts and that the satisfaction and enjoyment I get from classical music is significantly influenced what the composer does with his/her ideas over the span of the work (and smaller units within that). Sorry I can't explain it better - but do you not recognise what I am talking about from your listening?


----------



## Luchesi

MatthewWeflen said:


> This is the best source I could find in which he discusses his thoughts about Superman in particular. He calls it a motif, and the music theatrical and fun.
> 
> It sounds like his goal in this piece was to make music that thrilled and entertained people.
> 
> While I certainly think Beethoven was trying to address the human condition in the 9th, did every other composer write from the same kind of motive? Was Mozart's "Marriage of Figaro" overture supposed to be anything but fun?


Thanks. I'll watch it.
As for the poetic philosophy in the Ninth or the fun and frivolity in Figaro, students of music see that as just icing on the cake. It's not as much of an accomplishment as the innovations of every kind in the music. Schiller and playwrights haven't given us anything to equal the enduring value of the music of the Ninth or Figaro. Why is that? Where is the lofty value and universality in film music?

added;
OK, I watched it. "...not take itself seriously." That's what we talk about. Of course, he's an expert, he's inspired, but is music under the large category entertainment or is it under the category of human accomplishment in the arts? Many people just use it as it is for them, with their experience, which usually means entertainment.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Luchesi said:


> Thanks. I'll watch it.
> As for the poetic philosophy in the Ninth or the fun and frivolity in Figaro, students of music see that as just icing on the cake. It's not as much of an accomplishment as the innovations of every kind in the music. Schiller and playwrights haven't given us anything to equal the enduring value of the music of the Ninth or Figaro. Why is that? Where is the lofty value and universality in film music?


It seems as though his "Schindler's List" perhaps has reached that status of universality and lofty value.

But are those endemic to "classical music?" Is that your claim?

I know for my part that my emotional state can run the gamut when listening to the contents of my classical collection. I feel very different listening to Mozart's Marriage of Figaro than I do listening to Beethoven's Ninth. Heck, even comparing his 8th to the 9th. In the 8th it seems like Beethoven was trying to write something fun, not to say something weighty.

But isn't "fun" a part of the human condition? Hope? Thrills? Anguish? Fear? Mourning?

I am happily willing to admit that most (though not all) of Williams' film music lives in the Thrills/Hope/Fear wheelhouse. But doesn't Dvorak's 9th? Or Beethoven's 6th storm movement? William Tell?


----------



## Luchesi

MatthewWeflen said:


> It seems as though his "Schindler's List" perhaps has reached that status of universality and lofty value.
> 
> But are those endemic to "classical music?" Is that your claim?
> 
> I know for my part that my emotional state can run the gamut when listening to the contents of my classical collection. I feel very different listening to Mozart's Marriage of Figaro than I do listening to Beethoven's Ninth. Heck, even comparing his 8th to the 9th. In the 8th it seems like Beethoven was trying to write something fun, not to say something weighty.
> 
> But isn't "fun" a part of the human condition? Hope? Thrills? Anguish? Fear? Mourning?
> 
> I am happily willing to admit that most (though not all) of Williams' film music lives in the Thrills/Hope/Fear wheelhouse. But doesn't Dvorak's 9th? Or Beethoven's 6th storm movement? William Tell?


People will connect titles, or words they've read or a movie with a musical work.

Okay you've hit upon something that is helping me. Whenever I've had this discussion in the past I never realized that people consider what humans perceive of as being universal. I'm a researcher at a geophysical lab and I work with the scientific method, so I don't think of humans as being a yardstick for universality. I think my prejudice seeps in to my opinions about top class music, because other people don't think that way at all..
Alright, I don't want you to think I'm an ivory tower eccentric. 
I've been discussing this subject for many decades and it's usually fun. I actually give a recital every Tuesday night with other musicians and after the performance we teach some music theory and gives some classical music examples - trying to keep it related to what they know from their pop songs etc.. Again, we could write long essays about this, but I really think the distinction between CM and every other music is the intent the composer has and his serious attempt to develop music beyond what the past generation taught him in his younger years. The problem (or the crisis) is that we're at the end of what's recognizable in music, it's become an academic specialty and so there's little room into the future to bring the audience along toward more complicated vistas, IMO.


----------



## Bwv 1080

I love John Williams, one of the greatest guitar players of all time


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Luchesi said:


> People will connect titles, or words they've read or a movie with a musical work.
> 
> Okay you've hit upon something that is helping me. Whenever I've had this discussion in the past I never realized that people consider what humans perceive of as being universal. I'm a researcher at a geophysical lab and I work with the scientific method, so I don't think of humans is being a yardstick for universality. I think my prejudice seeps in to my opinions about top class music, because other people don't think that way at all..
> Alright, I don't want you to think I'm an ivory tower eccentric.
> I've been discussing this subject for many decades and it's usually fun. I actually give a recital every Tuesday night with other musicians and after the performance we teach some music theory and gives him classical music examples - trying to keep it related to what they know from their pop songs etc.. Again, we could write long essays about this, but I really think the distinction between CM and every other music is the intent the composer has and his serious attempt to develop music beyond what the past generation taught him in his younger years. The problem (or the crisis) is that we're at the end of what's recognizable in music, it's become an academic specialty and so there's little room into the future to bring the audience along toward more complicated vistas, IMO.


I come from a philosophy background (and taught it for nine years in college as well), so debates about the essential natures of things are my cup of tea. I also strive for plain language as much as is possible.

It seems to be that the essentials of classical music lie mainly in how it sounds and in what instruments are used. Criteria such as deeper meanings and motivations seem either vague (what's meaningful to one may not be to another) or overbroad (isn't John Lennon trying to say something deep with "Imagine?" -- a song I kind of despise for its treacly nature, btw).

Of course, there is an inherent vagueness to the term "classical" as well. It is freighted with so much cultural baggage. We have "classical" architecture and sculpture, "classical" music, and so on. It's one reason I found Bernstein's discussion interesting - he seemed to be drawing a parallel between beauty in classical music and beauty in classical Greek sculpture. But "beauty" is quite vague.


----------



## Guest

Ask the question, "What purpose is served by defining classical music? Why the need to define it?"


----------



## Bulldog

MatthewWeflen said:


> I come from a philosophy background (and taught it for nine years in college as well), so debates about the essential natures of things are my cup of tea.


I come from a "make the money" background and have practiced it all my adult life. Given that the world of classical music needs an influx of money (or its various substitutes), it is no surprise that symphony orchestras program Williams and others who are at the fringe of classical music. The cash registers need to keep ringing, or it's lights out.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Bulldog said:


> I come from a "make the money" background and have practiced it all my adult life. Given that the world of classical music needs an influx of money (or its various substitutes), it is no surprise that symphony orchestras program Williams and others who are at the fringe of classical music. The cash registers need to keep ringing, or it's lights out.


I am interested in the phrase "fringe of classical music." What do you mean by that?


----------



## Luchesi

MatthewWeflen said:


> I come from a philosophy background (and taught it for nine years in college as well), so debates about the essential natures of things are my cup of tea. I also strive for plain language as much as is possible.
> 
> It seems to be that the essentials of classical music lie mainly in how it sounds and in what instruments are used. Criteria such as deeper meanings and motivations seem either vague (what's meaningful to one may not be to another) or overbroad (isn't John Lennon trying to say something deep with "Imagine?" -- a song I kind of despise for its treacly nature, btw).
> 
> Of course, there is an inherent vagueness to the term "classical" as well. It is freighted with so much cultural baggage. We have "classical" architecture and sculpture, "classical" music, and so on. It's one reason I found Bernstein's discussion interesting - he seemed to be drawing a parallel between beauty in classical music and beauty in classical Greek sculpture. But "beauty" is quite vague.


Yes, we should keep this simple. If you ask any composer, Are you composing classical music or something else?. If they say that it is 'something else' - then can you still label it as classical music, because in your opinion, and in your experience, it sounds like what classical music has sounded like to you in the past?

I have to assume that anybody who studies the development of musical harmony down through the centuries and what the great composers accomplished with those harmonic tools and the developing acceptance of dissonance, they'll label CM and other types of music into the correct categories. If we don't care about that and we say "categories" huh what?? I can say I want my CM category to include film music. It's my categories. ...But as I mentioned before there is a pitfall.

As you know, science is all about categorizing and reducing and identifying and finding explanatory mechanisms. So for me, categories are important for understandings -- and therefore they're quite strict.

The subject is too big to talk about the derivation of intervals down through history and what the great minds did with those intervals to express an artistic view of reality.


----------



## Bulldog

MatthewWeflen said:


> I am interested in the phrase "fringe of classical music." What do you mean by that?


Some consider the film music of Williams to be classical, others don't. Just trying to be objective.


----------



## Larkenfield

A thrilling performance of the iconic John William's _Star Wars Suite_ by the Danish National Symphony Orchestra with its great sense of fantasy and wonder that Williams skillfully captured. Music starts at 5'09"... beautifully performed, perhaps one of the greatest most ambitious, well-done movie scores of all time-certainly one of the most successfull-because of its soaring themes and superb orchestration that he did himself. It's superb.


----------



## Arent

MatthewWeflen said:


> It seems as though his "Schindler's List" perhaps has reached that status of universality and lofty value.


Certainly, if by "lofty value" you mean "kitsch".


----------



## Arent

Larkenfield said:


> A thrilling performance of the classic John William's _Star Wars Suite_ by the Danish National Symphony Orchestra with its great sense of fantasy and wonder


Does the music have a "great sense of fantasy and wonder" or is it that we have heard it many times when watching a movie that is generally acknowledged to have a great sense of fantasy and wonder, even apart from its score? Is it possible that the music of a serviceable hack takes on rosy overtones when it's connected in our brains with the storytelling of brilliant film-makers like Lucas and Spielberg?


----------



## Enthusiast

MatthewWeflen said:


> I don't know what you mean by those terms. I asked what they meant previously. Perhaps you possess jargon that I do not. Will you do me the kindness of explaining them? What _is_ a musical argument? And is there a "structure" that marks something as classical in such a way as to comprehend all of symphony, concerto, string ensemble, tone poem, and waltz, but to exclude the title music from Superman The Movie?


OK but come now? I do not have technical music knowledge and even when I do know some jargon I don't use it because I don't know what it means. But you have listened to quite a lot of classical music, I believe? So you know that even the most episodic pieces (not a technical term - merely the pieces that seem to you to be episodic) of classical music add up to something that is more than the sum of the episodes - take a Strauss tone poem: do you not get a sense that it is a whole work, that the parts are related and _go somewhere_? The "go somewhere" can be achieved by a composer in very many different ways but you will always find it in a classical piece of any length greater than a few minutes. I do not think that Williams's music transcends the limitations of film music - that it is composed as mere accompaniment for a drama that is totally independent of it (the films would be watchable and nearly as enjoyable without the music). He does it well. But he doesn't do more than that.

Secondly, the thematic material he produces (the melody, harmony and rhythm) is so unoriginal that it promises little or nothing in repayment of true classical treatment (some systematic way of developing the material).

He is an effective composer of film music and that is something that many - including many classical composers - never achieve. But I don't think we gain anything by considering his music as something that it is not. It sends out the wrong messages about what classical music is so that it may repel those who would genuinely enjoy great classical music while attracting attention to _relatively unimportant _ (unimportant to the essence of what classical music is) aspects - like the instrumentation and the sounds of an orchestra - and even then only in a very derivative unoriginal form.


----------



## Arent

Enthusiast said:


> OK but come now? I do not have technical music knowledge and even when I do know some jargon I don't use it because I don't know what it means. But you have listened to quite a lot of classical music, I believe? So you know that even the most episodic pieces (not a technical term - merely the pieces that seem to you to be episodic) of classical music add up to something that is more than the sum of the episodes - take a Strauss tone poem: do you not get a sense that it is a whole work, that the parts are related and _go somewhere_? The "go somewhere" can be achieved by a composer in very many different ways but you will always find it in a classical piece of any length. I do not think that Williams's music transcends the limitations of film music - that it is composed as mere accompaniment for a drama that is totally independent of it (the films would be watchable and nearly as enjoyable without the music). He does it well. But he doesn't do more than that.
> 
> Secondly, the thematic material he produces (the melody, harmony and rhythm) is so unoriginal that it promises little or nothing in repayment of true classical treatment (some systematic way of developing the material).
> 
> He is an effective composer of film music and that is something that many - including many classical composers - never achieve. But I don't think we gain anything by considering his music as something that it is not. It sends out the wrong messages about what classical music is so that it may repel those who would genuinely enjoy great classical music while attracting attention to _relatively unimportant _ (unimportant to the essence of what classical music is) aspects - like the instrumentation and the sounds of an orchestra - and even then only in a very derivative unoriginal form.


Indeed. The essence of much of (not all) Western classical music from the classical to modern era is its form and structure. It develops its material in an organic, driving way. Film music takes structureless, colorful blobs and plonks them down for emotional effect. John Williams does this, his job, very well. But even then, as pointed out above, the blobs of color he plonks down on the canvas are not his original creation, he took the overall palette wholesale from Wagner, Strauss, Holst et al.


----------



## DavidA

Bulldog said:


> I come from a "make the money" background and have practiced it all my adult life. Given that the world of classical music needs an influx of money (or its various substitutes), it is no surprise that symphony orchestras program Williams and others who are at the fringe of classical music. The cash registers need to keep ringing, or it's lights out.


I don't think we ought to look down on Willians for making money. The greats like Bach, Mozart and Beethoven never exactly put money on the back burner


----------



## DavidA

MatthewWeflen said:


> I mean to the question "Is John Williams' music classical?"


Is music could fill a London promenade concert. It has the disadvantage to some of being entertaining so they disparage it on those grounds but it is superbly written and full of good tunes. It is what we would go like a classical music but the best of it certainly deserves a place in the canon - it is certainly far better to listen to than the screechings and wailings of some of the avant-garde types, whose goal in writing music appears to be to turn people off of it


----------



## eugeneonagain

DavidA said:


> Is music could fill a London promenade concert. It has the disadvantage to some of being entertaining so they disparage it on those grounds but it is superbly written and full of good tunes. *It is what we would go like a classical music but the best of it certainly deserves a place in the canon* - it is certainly far better to listen to than the screechings and wailings of some of the avant-garde types, whose goal in writing music appears to be to turn people off of it


Why have you turned this into yet another tirade against the 'avant-garde types'? Also, check the bolded part above. What does it even mean?


----------



## Enthusiast

DavidA said:


> Is music could fill a London promenade concert. It has the disadvantage to some of being entertaining so they disparage it on those grounds but it is superbly written and full of good tunes. It is what we would go like a classical music but the best of it certainly deserves a place in the canon - it is certainly far better to listen to than the screechings and wailings of some of the avant-garde types, whose goal in writing music appears to be to turn people off of it


Lots of music that is not classical gets the proms treatment these days. It is part of the BBC demonstrating that it is not elitist.

But, shame on you for your put down of my position, especially as I have taken more time than I have available explaining what it is: you are better than that! Anyway, if you want a caricature put-down of where I am coming from you have gone in the wrong direction. My position comes from my elitist love of "the canon". I would have said the same stuff only stronger 10 or 15 years ago when my opinion on most contemporary music was almost as negative as (if less certain than) yours and, if anything, my acquaintance with the contemporary has made me more open in my thinking and more inclined to allow Williams into the inner sanctum ... except that I am no longer so invested in an inner sanctum and don't think it matters at all that Williams is not a classical composer. I fear that people who believe it is classical music - or even "worthwhile classical music"! - are contributing to a misunderstanding of what classical music is and why it is so important. They do it a huge disservice. It has nothing to do with high flown atmospheric passages of orchestral tunes-smithing.


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> Lots of music that is not classical gets the proms treatment these days. It is part of the BBC demonstrating that it is not elitist.
> 
> But, shame on you for your *put down of my position,* especially as I have taken more time than I have available explaining what it is: you are better than that! Anyway, if you want a caricature put-down of where I am coming from you have gone in the wrong direction. My position comes from my elitist love of "the canon". I would have said the same stuff only stronger 10 or 15 years ago when my opinion on most contemporary music was almost as negative as (if less certain than) yours and, if anything, my acquaintance with the contemporary has made me more open in my thinking and more inclined to allow Williams into the inner sanctum ... except that I am no longer so invested in an inner sanctum and don't think it matters at all that Williams is not a classical composer. I fear that people who believe it is classical music - or even "worthwhile classical music"! - are contributing to a misunderstanding of what classical music is and why it is so important. *They do it a huge disservice.* It has nothing to do with high flown atmospheric passages of orchestral tunes-smithing.


Frankly I can't see what on earth you are talking about. I haven't 'put down' your position - just stated my own. Sorry if it upsets you! And how on earth can a guy who writes music people want to hear and into the bargain causes hundreds of musicians - many of them belonging to classical orchestras - do music a 'huge disservice'? I have not the 'elitist' view of classical music and welcome people like Williams who at least get people to enjoy the lighter sort of good music. And that's what the best of his music is - very good indeed of its type.


----------



## Enthusiast

^^^ To assume a motive for a position that is different to (and more stupid than) the one claimed by the position's author is to put down. If you didn't know that it might explain how so many of your contributions here lead to unnecessary arguments. And, in any case, my position is not that Williams doesn't have a place or is not good at what he does. My position throughout this thread has merely been that what he does is not classical music and appears in a very bad light if it is put forward as classical music.


----------



## Bulldog

DavidA said:


> I don't think we ought to look down on Willians for making money.


My posting had nothing to do with Williams making money, and everything to do with an orchestra making money. Williams is programmed for financial reasons, not for the quality of his music.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Bulldog said:


> My posting had nothing to do with Williams making money, and everything to do with an orchestra making money. Williams is programmed for financial reasons, not for the quality of his music.


Ok, if he is a plagiarist and his music is not quality material, so the music of the people he borrows from - Brahms, Wagner, Holst, Shostakovich etc is also garbage, right? :tiphat:
Let's be realistic - if people like it and it sounds good, it's not that bad, despite being unoriginal. 99.9 % of the people will take it over the atonal "geniuses" that are already almost forgotten aside from certain academic circles.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Enthusiast said:


> OK but come now? I do not have technical music knowledge and even when I do know some jargon I don't use it because I don't know what it means. But you have listened to quite a lot of classical music, I believe? So you know that even the most episodic pieces (not a technical term - merely the pieces that seem to you to be episodic) of classical music add up to something that is more than the sum of the episodes - take a Strauss tone poem: do you not get a sense that it is a whole work, that the parts are related and _go somewhere_? The "go somewhere" can be achieved by a composer in very many different ways but you will always find it in a classical piece of any length greater than a few minutes. I do not think that Williams's music transcends the limitations of film music - that it is composed as mere accompaniment for a drama that is totally independent of it (the films would be watchable and nearly as enjoyable without the music). He does it well. But he doesn't do more than that.
> 
> Secondly, the thematic material he produces (the melody, harmony and rhythm) is so unoriginal that it promises little or nothing in repayment of true classical treatment (some systematic way of developing the material).
> 
> He is an effective composer of film music and that is something that many - including many classical composers - never achieve. But I don't think we gain anything by considering his music as something that it is not. It sends out the wrong messages about what classical music is so that it may repel those who would genuinely enjoy great classical music while attracting attention to _relatively unimportant _ (unimportant to the essence of what classical music is) aspects - like the instrumentation and the sounds of an orchestra - and even then only in a very derivative unoriginal form.


These things (i.e. "going somewhere" and "transcending") seem like value judgments to me as opposed to differences in structure. The opening credit music of "Superman" or "Star Wars" is an overture. Pure and simple. Are they _as good as_ Tannhauser or William Tell or Marriage of Figaro? Personally I think not, but they're not different _in kind._ They are orchestral music that previews the themes of the coming theatrical presentation.

As far as music being separable from its accompanying visual entertainment, I think this is also a value judgment. Many people listen to John Williams film scores independent of the movies, deeming the music nourishing enough. Others don't. There are those who will argue the same for Wagner's ring cycle, though, that the music is inseparable from the experience of watching the performance.

To whom are these messages about "what classical music is" being communicated, and to what end? If people pay sixty bucks to go listen to a John Williams suite at the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, is that a bad thing? Those people are way more likely to come back and listen to something of higher _quality_, because they discover they like that _kind of music. _

I have indeed listened to a lot of classical music at this point. By my count I have ~160 (or more?) albums worth of it, all of which I've listened to at least once (and a good 20-30 I've listened to dozens of times, perhaps even hundreds). I most definitely agree that Beethoven's symphonies are _better than_ John Williams' film scores, from my viewpoint. But then, they're not trying to do the same things. Neither are Strauss' tone poems, Philip Glass' etudes, or Mozart's overtures. I enjoy John Williams as a light breather, in the same way I enjoy "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik," "Farandole," or "William Tell Overture."


----------



## Larkenfield

Arent said:


> Does the music have a "great sense of fantasy and wonder" or is it that we have heard it many times when watching a movie that is generally acknowledged to have a great sense of fantasy and wonder, even apart from its score? Is it possible that the music of a serviceable hack takes on rosy overtones when it's connected in our brains with the storytelling of brilliant film-makers like Lucas and Spielberg?


It's for each person to answer such a cynically put question. I suppose if one had never seen the movies, this particular suite might have been interpreted as perhaps a lullaby or possibly music for meditation? I rather doubt it. It has a certain power of energy. It's program music just like Berlioz's _Symphonie fantastique_ has a program and many other works that were programmatic in nature... Everyone has their own reactions to such music with its known program, but to imagine that there's no lifeforce here, no energy of wonder, no thrill of excitement, nothing epic or imaginative, even if they didn't like it, is rather cynical and hard to believe.


----------



## Enthusiast

MatthewWeflen said:


> These things (i.e. "going somewhere" and "transcending") seem like value judgments to me as opposed to differences in structure. The opening credit music of "Superman" or "Star Wars" is an overture. Pure and simple. Are they _as good as_ Tannhauser or William Tell or Marriage of Figaro? Personally I think not, but they're not different _in kind._ They are orchestral music that previews the themes of the coming theatrical presentation.
> 
> As far as music being separable from its accompanying visual entertainment, I think this is also a value judgment. Many people listen to John Williams film scores independent of the movies, deeming the music nourishing enough. Others don't. There are those who will argue the same for Wagner's ring cycle, though, that the music is inseparable from the experience of watching the performance.
> 
> To whom are these messages about "what classical music is" being communicated, and to what end? If people pay sixty bucks to go listen to a John Williams suite at the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, is that a bad thing? Those people are way more likely to come back and listen to something of higher _quality_, because they discover they like that _kind of music. _
> 
> I have indeed listened to a lot of classical music at this point. By my count I have ~160 (or more?) albums worth of it, all of which I've listened to at least once (and a good 20-30 I've listened to dozens of times, perhaps even hundreds). I most definitely agree that Beethoven's symphonies are _better than_ John Williams' film scores, from my viewpoint. But then, they're not trying to do the same things. Neither are Strauss' tone poems, Philip Glass' etudes, or Mozart's overtures. I enjoy John Williams as a light breather, in the same way I enjoy "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik," "Farandole," or "William Tell Overture."


Whatever the reason I don't think we are going to be able to communicate. I can't imagine why you feel "going somewhere" is a value judgement. It is a simple description of one aspect of what classical music does. If I had said "going somewhere interesting" that might have been a value judgement. I am left uncertain what you get out of music.

I don't doubt that many people enjoy listening to Williams's music as pure music. That's fine but they should not think they are listening to classical music. I can't imagine that that would matter to them but if it does I would recommend them to go to works that are unambiguously at the heart of classical music. If and when they tire of that (it would probably be after getting to know 1000s of works well) they might reach a Williams score. But I don't think they would believe they were listening to classical music.

I would engage with you in more detail if I saw hope of communication between us but I really don't. I am not the only one here who has tried to address this structure and musical development matter but it is not reaching you. Sorry.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Enthusiast said:


> Whatever the reason I don't think we are going to be able to communicate. I can't imagine why you feel "going somewhere" is a value judgement. It is a simple description of one aspect of what classical music does. If I had said "going somewhere interesting" that might have been a value judgement. I am left uncertain what you get out of music.
> 
> I don't doubt that many people enjoy listening to Williams's music as pure music. That's fine but they should not think they are listening to classical music. I can't imagine that that would matter to them but if it does I would recommend them to go to works that are unambiguously at the heart of classical music. If and when they tire of that (it would probably be after getting to know 1000s of works well) they might reach a Williams score. But I don't think they would believe they were listening to classical music.
> 
> I would engage with you in more detail if I saw hope of communication between us but I really don't. I am not the only one here who has tried to address this structure and musical development matter but it is not reaching you. Sorry.


I agree that our communication is fruitless, but disagree as to the reason. You keep mentioning things like "structure" and "musical development" and "musical argument" but have refused to answer repeated queries as to what structures/developments/arguments you mean and how they differ with respect to John Williams' ouvre versus "real classical music."

Can you provide one solid example to illustrate your claim? What is a "structure" that is endemic to all classical music (I'll even allow multiple kinds of structures, since I'm apparently such a liberal interpreter of the term "classical music") but which is absent in all of Williams' compositions?

Surely in the billions of hours of YouTube videos you can find one solid example to post here. Even a reference in your music collection, since we probably have many, many overlapping pieces.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ As you must surely know there is no one structure employed by classical composers ... they develop and invent them all the time. If you are not aware of them and seek a guide to how they work in a given piece you will need to consult someone who is much more knowledgeable about the technical side of music than I am. All I know if I _feel _them when they are there and I search for them when I listen to a new piece, sometimes taking several hearings before getting there. If they are not there or I fail to detect them then I miss them and the music doesn't work for me. I think most classical music fans are more or less the same in their need for structure and development in a piece of music. So, for me (with my lack of technical knowledge) it is down to feeling. It does exist - I have verified it 100s of time with musicians - but I will only have ordinary common English to describe it with and, as we don't have the empathy and as you seem not to recognise the concept, I do not think our conversation can go anywhere. As I said, sorry.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I would be at a loss to explain how the functions of the music of John Williams and e.g. the overtures of Franz von Suppe differ so greatly. To my mind programme music in the orchestral style and film music very often share the same ground. 

I can think of many other kinds of music which is much more derivative and disposable than Williams's output and yet which would be 'allowed' to shelter under the umbrella of 'classical music'.

I don't want to throw stones at John Williams because he writes good music. If the discussion is about film music I'd much rather discuss how film music has been ruined by Hans Zimmer and his banal, forgettable conveyor belt output.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

So that I might put my money where my mouth is so to speak, I submit the following examples and defy anyone to tell me how these are different in kind (not in subjective quality):











They are both played by orchestras comprised of brass, strings, woodwinds, and percussion. They are both composed in sheet music with multiple instrumental lines. They are both conducted. They are both preludes to dramas that introduce musical leitmotifs. Ergo, by the transitive property, since the former is "classical music," the latter is also.


----------



## Luchesi

MatthewWeflen said:


> These things (i.e. "going somewhere" and "transcending") seem like value judgments to me as opposed to differences in structure. The opening credit music of "Superman" or "Star Wars" is an overture. Pure and simple. Are they _as good as_ Tannhauser or William Tell or Marriage of Figaro? Personally I think not, but they're not different _in kind._ They are orchestral music that previews the themes of the coming theatrical presentation.
> 
> As far as music being separable from its accompanying visual entertainment, I think this is also a value judgment. Many people listen to John Williams film scores independent of the movies, deeming the music nourishing enough. Others don't. There are those who will argue the same for Wagner's ring cycle, though, that the music is inseparable from the experience of watching the performance.
> 
> To whom are these messages about "what classical music is" being communicated, and to what end? If people pay sixty bucks to go listen to a John Williams suite at the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, is that a bad thing? Those people are way more likely to come back and listen to something of higher _quality_, because they discover they like that _kind of music. _
> 
> I have indeed listened to a lot of classical music at this point. By my count I have ~160 (or more?) albums worth of it, all of which I've listened to at least once (and a good 20-30 I've listened to dozens of times, perhaps even hundreds). I most definitely agree that Beethoven's symphonies are _better than_ John Williams' film scores, from my viewpoint. But then, they're not trying to do the same things. Neither are Strauss' tone poems, Philip Glass' etudes, or Mozart's overtures. I enjoy John Williams as a light breather, in the same way I enjoy "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik," "Farandole," or "William Tell Overture."


Explore JsB's vast output which all came from the naive harmonic tools of his time.

The development you can follow in Mozart's and Haydn's symphonies and Haydn's keyboard sonatas, from early to mature.

The musical education you'll get by appreciating the development you can follow in LvB's 3 periods of his quartets and sonatas and symphonies etc.

What Schubert and Chopin did revering the earlier masterpieces and what they accomplished in new forms with the earlier ideas

This is one slice of CM (which takes a lifetime to explore). You won't find such a deep, weighty collection of value in the film music category, and if you stereotype film music or pop orchestrations (or the pretentious progressive rock bands offering itheir "bigger and grander adaptations" of famous clasical pieces) as CM then you might never delve into the available value.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Luchesi said:


> This is one slice of CM (which takes a lifetime to explore). You won't find such a deep, weighty collection of value in the film music category, and if you stereotype film music or pop orchestrations (or the pretentious progressive rock bands offering itheir "bigger and grander adaptations" of famous clasical pieces) as CM then you might never delve into the available value.


OK, but couldn't the same argument be made of certain types of (widely recognized) classical music against other types of classical music? I have seen the same argument on this site advanced against "Romantic" classical music, that it is a melodramatic sugar rush that deadens the senses to the beauties of "Baroque" classical music.


----------



## Luchesi

MatthewWeflen said:


> So that I might put my money where my mouth is so to speak, I submit the following examples and defy anyone to tell me how these are different in kind (not in subjective quality):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are both played by orchestras comprised of brass, strings, woodwinds, and percussion. They are both composed in sheet music with multiple instrumental lines. They are both conducted. They are both preludes to dramas that introduce musical leitmotifs. Ergo, by the transitive property, since the former is "classical music," the latter is also.


Some early critic said that the Star Wars phenomenon appeals to the child in us and so the music had to be enrapturing and dazzling to the child in us also. An old person would find both the impossible scenes in the movies and the musical flareups to be too childish to sit through. She was one critic out of step with all the praisers.


----------



## Luchesi

MatthewWeflen said:


> OK, but couldn't the same argument be made of certain types of (widely recognized) classical music against other types of classical music? I have seen the same argument on this site advanced against "Romantic" classical music, that it is a melodramatic sugar rush that deadens the senses to the beauties of "Baroque" classical music.


Yes, you shouldn't stop at the famous warhorses. Many people do. I've assumed that their ears are at an early stage of hearing music in which they want continual familiarity.

I know it's difficult and I know it takes a lot of time and I know we are very distracted in our modern lives. But when a person gets older and other entertainment activities fall away (if they do) the time invested in surveying the great outputs will become their always-reliable sources of treasure. There's really that much to it!

The old pianists (and conductors) whose famous names we know, Horowitz, Arrau, Serkin and now Barenboim were intrigued by the volume of value until their dying day. Works they had played so many times in their lives held even greater mystery each time - according to what they said in interviews. So even in their older years the pains and risks of injury was worth all the effort.


----------



## Bulldog

BabyGiraffe said:


> Ok, if he is a plagiarist and his music is not quality material, so the music of the people he borrows from - Brahms, Wagner, Holst, Shostakovich etc is also garbage, right? :tiphat:


You're on the wrong track. I said nothing about the quality of his music or whether he is a plagiarist. My comment was that his music is programmed to bring in money for the orchestras.


----------



## Luchesi

Can we imagine Horowitz or Glenn Gould playing a score from John Williams in a concert? Why not? Is it just snobbishness?

People in the 60s said that the output of the Beatles might be a gateway for young people toward the appreciation of CM. You can follow a curious development in their songs, and they did include some classical references - they were inspired by some classical works. I guess it's true compared to other rock bands of the time..


----------



## Luchesi

Luchesi said:


> Can we imagine Horowitz or Glenn Gould playing a score from John Williams in a concert? Why not? Is it just snobbishness?
> 
> People in the 60s said that the output of the Beatles might be a gateway for young people toward the appreciation of CM. You can follow a curious development in their songs, and they did include some classical references - they were inspired by some classical works. I guess it's true compared to other rock bands of the time..


Howard Goodall gives an entertaining video about how the Beatles saved music in the early 60s. Of course he's looking back as too young of a person. It's only academic.


----------



## Enthusiast

eugeneonagain said:


> I would be at a loss to explain how the functions of the music of John Williams and e.g. the overtures of Franz von Suppe differ so greatly. To my mind programme music in the orchestral style and film music very often share the same ground.
> 
> I can think of many other kinds of music which is much more derivative and disposable than Williams's output and yet which would be 'allowed' to shelter under the umbrella of 'classical music'.
> 
> I don't want to throw stones at John Williams because he writes good music. If the discussion is about film music I'd much rather discuss how film music has been ruined by Hans Zimmer and his banal, forgettable conveyor belt output.


I'm afraid I barely know von Suppe's overtures and I have no idea who Zimmer is. For me there are two ways which, when combined, make it foolish to call Williams's music "classical" (and that is what we are discussing here - we are not talking about whether he is a good film music composer which might have been a more interesting thread subject). One is the business of structure and development and the other is the material - the melody+harmony+rhythm - and I think his music fails as classical music in both of these. I acknowledge that some light or poor quality short classical pieces fail the structure and development test as badly. But Williams also fails the test concerning the quality of his material. If we think of him as a classical composer then we expose his material to standards that it will fail to meet. His musical ideas are simply too derivative and uninteresting. I think it is kinder and more fair to think of him as a good film music composer than a (very) bad classical composer. I am arguing for his own good! And also because I get fed up with our media giants trying to improve classical audience numbers by hiding real classical music from them.


----------



## Larkenfield

Bulldog said:


> You're on the wrong track. I said nothing about the quality of his music or whether he is a plagiarist. My comment was that his music is programmed to bring in money for the orchestras.


That's a surmise, speculation, and assumption. All that anyone can say is that his music was programmatic to the films and that he was hired to do the scores. It cannot be proven that he was only concerned about money and that he was not a top-flight composer when his music is now being played in major concert halls around the world by top-flight orchestras.

The money he received was a commissioned salary, and no one hires a composer to be a failure at it. Some of his scores are played now because the orchestras and the audiences find value in the themes and brilliant orchestrations and that his music is highly evocative of the imagination, the thrill of exhilarating adventure and wonder.

Program music has existed for more than 200 years, but it may come as a surprise to some listeners that it's still being written. Maybe somebody would like to list all the composers who've never received commissions or a salary. Aaron Copeland and Shostakovich certainly did. There have been many CM composers who were not concerned about the labels and the boundary line between classical music and film scores, and yet those who haven't composed anything are offended because they want to label everything and put it into a nice pigeonhole. Just like anything else in music, one can only go score by score, recording by recording, piece by piece and respond to its value or its apparent lack of it. In the meantime, there are film scores that are still very much alive, thriving and thrilling after more than 40 years, and can still be heard live.


----------



## Enthusiast

^^ I think you are getting him wrong, Larkenfield. He is not ascribing motives to Williams. His target is concern promoters and orchestra managers. He is just suggesting a reason (the right one, I think) for why they programme Williams's music for classical ensembles' concerts. Or am I getting you wrong?


----------



## KenOC

Enthusiast said:


> ...But Williams also fails the test concerning the quality of his material. If we think of him as a classical composer then we expose his material to standards that it will fail to meet. His musical ideas are simply too derivative and uninteresting.


Pure opinion, and simply a matter of taste (yours, that is). Obviously there are plenty of people who feel otherwise.


----------



## KenOC

Bulldog said:


> You're on the wrong track. I said nothing about the quality of his music or whether he is a plagiarist. My comment was that his music is programmed to bring in money for the orchestras.


I trust you're not suggesting that orchestras program music that people _don't_ want to hear...


----------



## Enthusiast

KenOC said:


> Pure opinion, and simply a matter of taste (yours, that is). Obviously there are plenty of people who feel otherwise.


Umm, yes. Isn't that one of the things we do here? On this occasion it is an opinion that is very widely held among classical fans. If you disagree with it that is fine with me.


----------



## Enthusiast

KenOC said:


> I trust you're not suggesting that orchestras program music that people _don't_ want to hear...


People? Pop music brings bigger audiences than classical music. We _know _that.


----------



## WildThing

Many people on the forum don't like Johann Strauss waltzes for their supposed lack of substance. They still fall under the classical umbrella.

If concert suites of Williams' film music are programmed and played by symphony orchestras, and audiences continue to enjoy them and pay to hear them, his music is going to join the canon. Despite anyone's opinion of them.


----------



## Bulldog

KenOC said:


> I trust you're not suggesting that orchestras program music that people _don't_ want to hear...


I was talking about the motivation of those who decide the program. I have nothing to say about what people want to hear except that not all people want to hear the same music.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

WildThing said:


> Many people on the forum don't like Johann Strauss waltzes for their supposed lack of substance. They still fall under the classical umbrella.
> 
> If concert suites of Williams' film music are programmed and played by symphony orchestras, and audiences continue to enjoy them and pay to hear them, his music is going to join the canon. Despite anyone's opinion of them.


Is there a way I can double like a post?


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Leonard Bernstein wrote orchestral symphonies, operas, and a film score. Are the former two classical music but the latter is not? If so, why?


----------



## KenOC

Bulldog said:


> I was talking about the motivation of those who decide the program. I have nothing to say about what people want to hear except that not all people want to hear the same music.


You wrote, "My comment was that his music is programmed to bring in money for the orchestras."

That was a fair comment, especially as most orchestras are struggling financially. I would think that those programming concerts have two primary objectives in mind with respect to earned revenues:

First, preserve the existing audience, from season ticket buyers on down. That means avoiding music that a substantial portion of those people would dislike or find offensive.

Second, attract new ticket buyers, if at all possible, and grow the audience. That means programming new works, different from the usual fare.

In that context, programming John Williams may make a lot of sense. A suite of music from Close Encounters is unlikely to offend the existing audience and might bring in people new to the venue.


----------



## DavidA

Bulldog said:


> My posting had nothing to do with Williams making money, and everything to do with an orchestra making money. Williams is programmed for financial reasons, not for the quality of his music.


Oh so it's wrong for an orchestral musician to make money then? People pay for what they want to hear. Maybe Williams pays for some of the avant-gard horrors that drive people away from classical music.


----------



## DavidA

MatthewWeflen said:


> Leonard Bernstein wrote orchestral symphonies, operas, and a film score. Are the former two classical music but the latter is not? If so, why?


Frankly Bernstein's attempts at 'classical music' just don't hack it. West Side story is another matter though.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Enthusiast said:


> I'm afraid I barely know von Suppe's overtures and I have no idea who Zimmer is. For me there are two ways which, when combined, make it foolish to call Williams's music "classical" (and that is what we are discussing here - we are not talking about whether he is a good film music composer which might have been a more interesting thread subject). One is the business of structure and development and the other is the material - the melody+harmony+rhythm - and I think his music fails as classical music in both of these. I acknowledge that some light or poor quality short classical pieces fail the structure and development test as badly. But Williams also fails the test concerning the quality of his material. If we think of him as a classical composer then we expose his material to standards that it will fail to meet. His musical ideas are simply too derivative and uninteresting. I think it is kinder and more fair to think of him as a good film music composer than a (very) bad classical composer. I am arguing for his own good! And also because I get fed up with our media giants trying to improve classical audience numbers by hiding real classical music from them.


Well I think you are wrong and I don't see the central point in your argument at all. How can you not know Von Suppe's overtures? They are something akin to Strauss waltzes as popular classics! And Hans Zimmer?! Are you having me on or something?
You said before you have no knowledge of musical theory, but you are now commenting on structure and development and asserting something about Williams's music which is patently false.

His idiom is most certainly 'classical' and it uses all the language of classical music and the ethos of its construction. It may or may not be great art music, but that is a matter of taste and will be a quarrel about definitions. With regard to the final sentence, I'd wager that more people have drifted into classical music on the back of music like that of Williams than by perusing concert hall programmes.


----------



## Enthusiast

eugeneonagain said:


> Well I think you are wrong and I don't see the central point in your argument at all. How can you not know Von Suppe's overtures? They are something akin to Strauss waltzes as popular classics! And Hans Zimmer?! Are you having me on or something?
> You said before you have no knowledge of musical theory, but you are now commenting on structure and development and asserting something about Williams's music which is patently false.


Well, I really don't know that music and I don't know Zimmer. Its true. I don't know many celebrities, either, or even very well known pop songs. My taste in popular music is quite extreme - I know a lot of Nick Cave and Bob Dylan but nothing from the Top 20! - and I have no access through any social contacts to more popular culture. I'm not putting it down - it's just the way it is. I have often said that I have no idea what is going on technically in a piece of music but I am quite well tuned to its impact .. and I miss it when it is not there. Mock me if you will - there are many people with "proper musical knowledge" who do - but it is the way I am. I know a lot of music (a huge amount) but only know what it feels like to listen to it - and not how it achieves its results on me. Sorry if I seem to be stepping out of line or if you think I am boasting or lying. I have the right to post my opinions and experiences here and if you want to call me a liar that is just something I will have to put up with.



eugeneonagain said:


> His idiom is most certainly 'classical' and it uses all the language of classical music and the ethos of its construction. It may or may not be great art music, but that is a matter of taste and will be a quarrel about definitions. With regard to the final sentence, I'd wager that more people have drifted into classical music on the back of music like that of Williams than by perusing concert hall programmes.


We disagree. As we already know from earlier clashes - Schubert, contemporary music - our tastes are very different.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

DavidA said:


> Frankly Bernstein's attempts at 'classical music' just don't hack it. West Side story is another matter though.


Oh, I tend to agree on assessments of quality in execution. But in form, I don't see any rational basis for claiming that all three are not "classical music."


----------



## Enthusiast

WildThing said:


> Many people on the forum don't like Johann Strauss waltzes for their supposed lack of substance. They still fall under the classical umbrella.
> 
> If concert suites of Williams' film music are programmed and played by symphony orchestras, and audiences continue to enjoy them and pay to hear them, his music is going to join the canon. Despite anyone's opinion of them.


Strauss waltzes? But they are beautifully made and very catchy. But why mess around on the very edges of classical music to see if Williams can be squeezed in? Why does it matter to some people to call him classical - and especially if all we can get is that he is "just about classical"? Isn't it rather snobbish to make his being considered classical so important?


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> Strauss waltzes? But they are beautifully made and very catchy. But why mess around on the very edges of classical music to see if Williams can be squeezed in? Why does it matter to some people to call him classical - and especially if all we can get is that he is "just about classical"? Isn't it rather snobbish to make his being considered classical so important?


I don';t think John Williams with the millions he has made will be particularly bothered whether we call him 'classical' or not. There is the story of Gershwin asking Stravinsky for some lessons so he could be a better classical composer. When Stravinsky found out how much George was earning he said, "I need lessons off you!"


----------



## eugeneonagain

Enthusiast said:


> Well, I really don't know that music and I don't know Zimmer. Its true. I don't know many celebrities, either, or even very well known pop songs. My taste in popular music is quite extreme - I know a lot of Nick Cave and Bob Dylan but nothing from the Top 20! - and I have no access through any social contacts to more popular culture. I'm not putting it down - it's just the way it is. I have often said that I have no idea what is going on technically in a piece of music but I am quite well tuned to its impact .. and I miss it when it is not there. Mock me if you will - there are many people with "proper musical knowledge" who do - but it is the way I am. I know a lot of music (a huge amount) but only know what it feels like to listen to it - and not how it achieves its results on me. Sorry if I seem to be stepping out of line or if you think I am boasting or lying. I have the right to post my opinions and experiences here and if you want to call me a liar that is just something I will have to put up with.


I don't listen to the top 20 either, not for over 20 years. It's nothing to do with that. If you've seen a film in last ten years or spent any amount of time on the internet (I'm taking this as a given) then you should know Zimmer has probably 'composed' the "score".
I'm not 'mocking' you, I'm telling you that your technical appraisal is wrong and matters of taste do not enter into it. I'm not stopping you posting your opinions, but if they do not come up to scratch, that's hardly the fault of the critic is it? Who called you a liar?



Enthusiast said:


> We disagree. As we already know from earlier clashes - Schubert, contemporary music - our tastes are very different.


I like contemporary music. Schubert...well that doesn't need repeating (I'll leave that to Schubert).


----------



## Bulldog

DavidA said:


> Oh so it's wrong for an orchestral musician to make money then?


No. What is wrong is for you to misrepresent what I say. You've done it twice now - please stop.


----------



## Enthusiast

eugeneonagain said:


> I don't listen to the top 20 either, not for over 20 years. It's nothing to do with that. If you've seen a film in last ten years or spent any amount of time on the internet (I'm taking this as a given) then you should know Zimmer has probably 'composed' the "score".
> 
> I like contemporary music. Schubert...well that doesn't need repeating (I'll leave that to Schubert).


We have had two engagements recently in which your flounced off in response to something I posted - one of them was about contemporary music but I don't remember which music but you clearly felt very strongly against something that I liked and valued. Boulez, maybe.

I usually wait for films to reach TV and even then rarely find myself enjoying a popular mainstream film made in the last 10 or 15 years. It isn't my medium, I guess. Not at the moment, anyway. I use the internet but not to watch films or clips or to game so that maybe why I have missed Zimmer. Or maybe I just didn't notice him enough to check who it was. But, genuinely, I don't know the name unless he also makes walking frames for the old and infirm.



> I'm not 'mocking' you, I'm telling you that your technical appraisal is wrong and matters of taste do not enter into it. I'm not stopping you posting your opinions, but if they do not come up to scratch, that's hardly the fault of the critic is it? Who called you a liar?


And you decide on what is "up to scratch"? Because you can read music or have some musical training? No. It doesn't work like that. The music is for us, the audience, and it is what we make of it. If we detect structure and development (even if it is hidden in Schubertian repetition) and if this is involved in the impact it has on us ... then it is there. Technical knowledge might mislead you so that you miss it even though most listeners feel it (as might happen through misunderstanding how Schubert's music works). And as it happens I do come from a musical family and am expressing opinions that I know many musicians would more or less agree with.

When you said 


> You said before you have no knowledge of musical theory, but you are now commenting on structure and development and asserting something about Williams's music which is patently false.


you were effectively calling me a liar.

Let it be. If you want to claim Williams as a classical composer then go ahead, do so. You are in the audience, too.


----------



## DavidA

Bulldog said:


> No. What is wrong is for you to misrepresent what I say. You've done it twice now - please stop.


Misrepresent? I just commented on what you said. If you don't mean that then say what you actually meant rater than how it appears in your post.


----------



## KenOC

Enthusiast said:


> ...But why mess around on the very edges of classical music to see if Williams can be squeezed in?


Of course it's not up to us to decide, or to squeeze for that matter. As of the 2016-17 season, John Williams was the second most-programmed living composer in US concerts - and that's not counting pops concerts! While he could fade in time, as of right now his status as a composer of classical music is secure if we define classical music as what's played at classical music concerts.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Enthusiast said:


> When you said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said before you have no knowledge of musical theory, but you are now commenting on structure and development and asserting something about Williams's music which is patently false
> 
> 
> 
> you were effectively calling me a liar.
Click to expand...

Atrocious. No I wasn't, I was considering you not competent to pass judgement. Not the same thing at all. However, after deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote, I would be well within my rights.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Wait, wait, wait... Who had a bad word to say about Schubert?!?


----------



## eugeneonagain

MatthewWeflen said:


> Wait, wait, wait... Who had a bad word to say about Schubert?!?


I did. Many of them. It is wise not to go back there because it ends up with my posts being removed.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I mean, he's no John Williams...


----------



## Phil loves classical

If we're comparing Schubert to J Williams, I would take Schubert. I loved Williams' Superman and Star Wars music, and he can orchestrate (or have others orchestrate) and write a great theme, but he can't really develop the music that Schubert could. The 'overtures' contain pretty much all the themes in the movies tacked on end to end. But to look for more is a bit disappointing in the film music. This is supposedly a highlight of the album, but is just a repeating theme in different octaves, and one different key.






I heard a couple of his concert works like this one, which is quite alright. But hardly canonic or repertoire material.


----------



## Bulldog

DavidA said:


> Misrepresent? I just commented on what you said. If you don't mean that then say what you actually meant rater than how it appears in your post.


Your ability to understand a simple sentence is questionable.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I was joking 

_In my opinion_, Schubert is the superior composer.


----------



## Luchesi

KenOC said:


> Of course it's not up to us to decide, or to squeeze for that matter. As of the 2016-17 season, John Williams was the second most-programmed living composer in US concerts - and that's not counting pops concerts! While he could fade in time, as of right now his status as a composer of classical music is secure if we define classical music as what's played at classical music concerts.


Yes, he will fade with time. He'll be a curiosity. Because there's no 'there' there.


----------



## NLAdriaan

If you require the acoustic symphony orchestra as an instrument and write your own music for them, I guess this music would qualify for 'classical' music. There is no Taliban who sets the rules for what is classical music and what isn't (although there are quite some people who love to play such a moral role). When the symphony orchestra as an instrument became en vogue and most symphonic music was written, it was modern (or even avantgarde) music or just friendly entertainment (Mozart). Now that these days are gone, we call the same music classic. The discussion of what is 'classical' music or not, is not of any importance, not to say useless. 

So much for my view on this issue.

How about John Williams the composer (not to be confused with his namesake, the great acoustic guitarplayer). I think he wrote great music, worthwile to be played apart from the movie it was created for. Film music (music specifically composed for a film) has brought us many great symphonic compositions. Funny however that this music is played in the concert hall much more in the US than here in Europe. The establishment (who likes to decide on the repertoire of orchestra's) in Europe clearly wants to distance itself from something ordinary as film music . I would love to hear the music from 'Catch me if you can', in concert. It will be difficult for European orchestras to give it that swing and still sharp as a knife rhythm. Before John Williams there were at least two great composers who wrote masterly music for the acoustic symphonic orchestra: Bernard Herrmann and Carl Stalling. Hitchcock and Looney tunes would not have had the same strength without it, just as Star Wars and Steven Spielberg.

And finally, films happily used existing music to support their images. Mahler's adagietto for one, but Bach, Schubert and many others have been used in the film theatre.


----------



## Luchesi

NLAdriaan said:


> If you require the acoustic symphony orchestra as an instrument and write your own music for them, I guess this music would qualify for 'classical' music. There is no Taliban who sets the rules for what is classical music and what isn't (although there are quite some people who love to play such a moral role). When the symphony orchestra as an instrument became en vogue and most symphonic music was written, it was modern (or even avantgarde) music or just friendly entertainment (Mozart). Now that these days are gone, we call the same music classic. The discussion of what is 'classical' music or not, is not of any importance, not to say useless.
> 
> So much for my view on this issue.
> 
> How about John Williams the composer (not to be confused with his namesake, the great acoustic guitarplayer). I think he wrote great music, worthwile to be played apart from the movie it was created for. Film music (music specifically composed for a film) has brought us many great symphonic compositions. Funny however that this music is played in the concert hall much more in the US than here in Europe. The establishment (who likes to decide on the repertoire of orchestra's) in Europe clearly wants to distance itself from something ordinary as film music . I would love to hear the music from 'Catch me if you can', in concert. It will be difficult for European orchestras to give it that swing and still sharp as a knife rhythm. Before John Williams there were at least two great composers who wrote masterly music for the acoustic symphonic orchestra: Bernard Herrmann and Carl Stalling. Hitchcock and Looney tunes would not have had the same strength without it, just as Star Wars and Steven Spielberg.
> 
> And finally, films happily used existing music to support their images. Mahler's adagietto for one, but Bach, Schubert and many others have been used in the film theatre.


What does film music come from, and what is its intent by its creator - as it's intially conceived? Will it ever be like a Mozart symphony or a late quartet of Beethoven? What is it for you?


----------



## Enthusiast

NLAdriaan said:


> If you require the acoustic symphony orchestra as an instrument and write your own music for them, I guess this music would qualify for 'classical' music. There is no Taliban who sets the rules for what is classical music and what isn't (although there are quite some people who love to play such a moral role).


So that's it. Anything written for an orchestra must be classical. So all those records that used to play in lifts of Beatles classics (wow - the same word, even) played by this or that orchestra - they must be classical, too. And string quartets - a famous medium for classical music - presumably anything written for a string quartet is classical, too. This probably includes a lot of actual pop songs. And then there is the piano .... . My word! Nearly all music is classical.

Now, no-one is playing Taliban. We are just expressing our opinions. If some people don't like mine they are welcome to say so and to say why (i they want). But to call me a dictator because I have a different view to them - _that _is dictatorial!


----------



## Enthusiast

KenOC said:


> Of course it's not up to us to decide, or to squeeze for that matter. As of the 2016-17 season, John Williams was the second most-programmed living composer in US concerts - and that's not counting pops concerts! While he could fade in time, as of right now his status as a composer of classical music is secure if we define classical music as what's played at classical music concerts.


So popularity defines what is and what isn't classical? Umm. OK.

What I would like to see is for someone who believes that Williams is a classical composer to say why it matters to think of him as such. Does that change his music? Does it make it better or worse? What is wrong with just saying "I like/dislike his music" and perhaps give reasons and examples? Is it because the thread would have to be moved to the non-classical area of the forum? Or is it some more important reason in the world out there.

I love classical music. A lot. And I think that nearly all of my absolute favourite pieces (the ones that take me over completely; the ones that astound me etc) are in fact classical. But there are very many jazz, folk and rock pieces and albums that I love more than a great many classical pieces that I love. Classical can't mean "the best" even if includes what are, for you, the best pieces.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Luchesi said:


> What does film music come from, and what is its intent by its creator - as it's intially conceived? Will it ever be like a Mozart symphony or a late quartet of Beethoven? What is it for you?


For me, music in essence is an artful expression, a (one sided) mean of communication, just like books, plays, opera, dance, musicals and, of course, film. It is storytelling, with or without words/images/sounds. Since the end of silent movies, the combination of music and film became an art form in its own right.

I guess in most cases, music used in films is not particularly interesting in itself, as it just means nothing without the images. In some cases the music is stronger and carries the film and exists in its own right. In case you can actually listen to the music without the images, the music can exist.

Jaws without John Williams, Psycho without Bernard Herrmann, would mean almost nothing.

To me, each art-form can have a similar impact. I happen to like both music and films a lot. In a movie theatre, I always sit there until the end of the titles (mostly with one or two others, to see which music and which interpretations were used.

It is already pretty unusual (because of economical reasons) to have music especially composed for a film, let alone to have the soundtrack recorded by a symphonic orchestra. We may be thankful to the likes of Hitchcock, Spielberg and George Lucas that they have invested in new orchestral music and gave Bernard Herrmann and John Williams a stage. Also, in a huge number of films, existing (also classical) music is used. Kubrick used a lot of classical music (Bartok, Beethoven, R.Strauss etc). I recently watched Roma (the Oscar winning Netflix production), where Berlioz Symf. Fantastique was used.

Will this music be immortal? I don't know. Is it important? Strawinsky's sacre was intended as ballet music and will probably outlive his Symphonies. John Williams or Bernard Herrmann could well be played in the future. It seems in fact quite arbitrary which music survives. And film composers also can survive with the film itself. Star Wars fully reaches my young kids, as when I take them on an educational trip to Bach's St. Matthew Passion, they are completely bored


----------



## Enthusiast

eugeneonagain said:


> Atrocious. No I wasn't, I was considering you not competent to pass judgement. Not the same thing at all. However, after deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote, I would be well within my rights.


So there you are: we both feel insulted by the other. And all we needed to do if harbour doubts about the other's competence!


----------



## NLAdriaan

Enthusiast said:


> ...My word! Nearly all music is classical.
> 
> Now, no-one is playing Taliban. We are just expressing our opinions. If some people don't like mine they are welcome to say so and to say why (i they want). But to call me a dictator because I have a different view to them - _that _is dictatorial!


Yep, eventually all music automatically becomes classical music

There always are people who love to play Taliban, ie dictating or parroting totalitarian views, closed minds, sacred cows, define what others should think and can't handle other viewpoints, let alone some downplay. And sometimes you may also run into them here, as in other social media

Personally, I don't think this is about us (who are right) against them (who are wrong) and fortunately we don't discuss world peace  However, we could compare Prokofiev and Nino Rota as to their respective music to War & Peace? Anyone?


----------



## Larkenfield

*Classical Composers, Art Music, and Film Scores*

Orchestral scores, music transcribed for the orchestra, developed during the late silent era. Orchestral film scores based on original compositions were rare in the United States, but there are some famous international examples (not all of which, unfortunately, have survived): Camille Saint-Saëns's (1835-1921)_ L'Assassinat du duc de Guise _ (1908), Arthur Honegger's (1892-1955) _Napoléon_ (1929), Dmitri Shostakovich's (1906-1975_) Novyy Vavilon_ (The New Babylon, 1927), Erik Satie's (1866-1925) _Entr'acte_ (1924), and Edmund Meisel's (1894-1930) _Bronenosets Potyomkin_ (Battleship Potemkin, 1925), blamed for causing riots at the German premiere and banned. Most orchestral scores, however, were compiled from existing sources, largely nineteenth-century Western European art music. The first American orchestral score, generally acknowledged as _The Birth of a Nation_ (1915), was a compilation by Joseph Carl Breil (1870-1926) and the film's director, D. W. Griffith, raiding such classics as Richard Wagner's (1813-1883) _Ride of the Valkyries_, from his opera _Die Walkure_, and Edvard Grieg's _In the Hall of the Mountain King_, from his _Peer Gynt suite no. 1._

Wagnerian opera and Wagner's theory of the _Gesamtkunstwerk _(total artwork) were early influences on accompanists. Wagner argued that music in opera should not be privileged over other elements and should be composed in accordance with the dramatic needs of the story. Accompanists envisioned film music as performing the same function. Especially influential was Wagner's use of the_ leitmotif_, an identifying musical passage, often a melody, associated through repetition with a particular character, place, emotion, or even abstract idea. Silent film accompanists often used the leitmotif to unify musical accompaniment, and during the period of film's transformation into a narrative form, leitmotifs became an important device for clarifying the story and helping audiences keep track of characters.

http://www.filmreference.com/encyclopedia/Independent-Film-Road-Movies/Music-MUSIC-IN-SILENT-FILM.html#ixzz5gofj35pL


----------



## eugeneonagain

Enthusiast said:


> So there you are: we both feel insulted by the other. And all we needed to do if harbour doubts about the other's competence!


My word you are being dishonest. I clearly never called you a liar and I didn't hide the fact I was saying you were not a competent judge, because that's not something to be hidden.

Now you are pretending insults have been equally traded. Abysmal.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Larkenfield said:


> ...Wagnerian opera and Wagner's theory of the _Gesamtkunstwerk _(total artwork) were early influences on accompanists...


Interesting to think about. Had Wagner lived in our days, would he have become a George Lucas?

Is there a fundamental difference between Star Wars and Die Ring? I don't think so. How about you?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Phil loves classical said:


> If we're comparing Schubert to J Williams, I would take Schubert. I loved Williams' Superman and Star Wars music, and he can orchestrate (or have others orchestrate) and write a great theme, but he can't really develop the music that Schubert could. The 'overtures' contain pretty much all the themes in the movies tacked on end to end. But to look for more is a bit disappointing in the film music. This is supposedly a highlight of the album, but is just a repeating theme in different octaves, and one different key.


This is like catnip! Change the names about and it makes more sense. The suggestion that Schubert 'develops' material as compared to Williams is laughable. That man was all themes and repeats.

I'd gladly have Williams replace Schubert in the pantheon of 'great composers' and see Schubert fall into deserved obscurity where he belongs as a hack and incompetent tunesmith.


----------



## eugeneonagain

NLAdriaan said:


> Is there a fundamental difference between Star Wars and Die Ring? I don't think so. How about you?


Less additional marketing for a start. I've not yet found any Siegfried action figures manufactured by Mattel.


----------



## Enthusiast

eugeneonagain said:


> My word you are being dishonest. I clearly never called you a liar and I didn't hide the fact I was saying you were not a competent judge, because that's not something to be hidden.
> 
> Now you are pretending insults have been equally traded. Abysmal.


Actually, _I_ feel it was generous of me. But forget it. I've had enough. You have been going for me for quite a while now.


----------



## Enthusiast

Larkenfield said:


> *Classical Composers, Art Music, and Film Scores*
> 
> Orchestral scores, music transcribed for the orchestra, developed during the late silent era. Orchestral film scores based on original compositions were rare in the United States, but there are some famous international examples (not all of which, unfortunately, have survived): Camille Saint-Saëns's (1835-1921)_ L'Assassinat du duc de Guise _ (1908), Arthur Honegger's (1892-1955) _Napoléon_ (1929), Dmitri Shostakovich's (1906-1975_) Novyy Vavilon_ (The New Babylon, 1927), Erik Satie's (1866-1925) _Entr'acte_ (1924), and Edmund Meisel's (1894-1930) _Bronenosets Potyomkin_ (Battleship Potemkin, 1925), blamed for causing riots at the German premiere and banned. Most orchestral scores, however, were compiled from existing sources, largely nineteenth-century Western European art music. The first American orchestral score, generally acknowledged as _The Birth of a Nation_ (1915), was a compilation by Joseph Carl Breil (1870-1926) and the film's director, D. W. Griffith, raiding such classics as Richard Wagner's (1813-1883) _Ride of the Valkyries_, from his opera _Die Walkure_, and Edvard Grieg's _In the Hall of the Mountain King_, from his _Peer Gynt suite no. 1._
> ..................


Good stuff, Larkenfield. To be clear I am not arguing that film music can never be classical music. Clearly it can. In a more rational and calmer thread I would be interested in exploring whether the quality of the film (as "art") influences the likelihood that its music is art music (or classical music).


----------



## eugeneonagain

Enthusiast said:


> Actually, _I_ feel it was generous of me. But forget it. I've had enough. You have been going for me for quite a while now.


Then you are delusional and I hope anyone reading skips back in the thread to see how you have twisted the discussion. That paranoia of imagining people constantly launching attacks is no diversion either. Neither is the act of 'rising above it'.

My advice is to not write silly things in posts if you don't want to be taken to task for it.


----------



## Antares

Enthusiast said:


> In a more rational and calmer thread I would be interested in exploring whether the quality of the film (as "art") influences the likelihood that its music is art music (or classical music).


I think so, especially in the case of Sergio Leone's seminal spaghetti westerns, and the amazing scores that Ennio Morricone wrote for them.


----------



## Enthusiast

eugeneonagain said:


> Then you are delusional and I hope anyone reading skips back in the thread to see how you have twisted the discussion. That paranoia of imagining people constantly launching attacks is no diversion either. Neither is the act of 'rising above it'.
> 
> My advice is to not write silly things in posts if you don't want to be taken to task for it.


No. People are not constantly making attacks on me. You seem inclined that way at the moment but aggression can often be part of your style. Of course anyone else can go back through this silly spat if they want to but do you really imagine everyone is watching closely and judging you? I'm sure they just find it tiresome and stay away (as I have done when you have been spatting with others).

I posted nothing that was silly but I did post something that you disagreed with and, as is your wont, you feel that any opinion that disagrees with your own must be nonsense. My advice to you is to sort yourself out. You used to post interestingly and respectfully but not now. What _happened _to you?


----------



## NLAdriaan

eugeneonagain said:


> Less additional marketing for a start. I've not yet found any Siegfried action figures manufactured by Mattel.











Not by Mattel, but I give you Wotan


----------



## Byron

Enthusiast said:


> Strauss waltzes? But they are beautifully made and very catchy. But why mess around on the very edges of classical music to see if Williams can be squeezed in? Why does it matter to some people to call him classical - and especially if all we can get is that he is "just about classical"? Isn't it rather snobbish to make his being considered classical so important?


While I happen to share your general dislike of Williams' film music (or at least, can enjoy it in the context of a film, but get very little to nothing out of it taken out of that context, and would never attend a concert just to hear it) and share your high regard for the fine craftsmanship of a Strauss waltz, there are others who disagree. Roger Scruton has written that "One thing is certain, which is that the most successful film music today exhibits a quite extraordinary level of competence. Melody, harmony, voice-leading and orchestration are all as good and professional as can be. John Williams' Harry Potter scores and Howard Shore's evocative music for The Lord of the Rings exhibit a mastery of harmonic sequences, polyphonic organisation and orchestral effect that would be the envy of many a composer for the concert hall."

I also agree with many of your points in an earlier post where you pointed out how many sequences of his film music lack much inherent structure and simply exist as a running commentary to the visuals on screen. However I don't believe this in itself precludes it from being considered classical; the canon is constantly evolving and works made with highly divergent structures and purpose are already a part of it. Indeed, when presented in a concert hall Williams' music is already restructured into suites with themes that contrast or transition into one another.

In the end, there may be no point in labelling his music as classical, but all thats true of any music as all labels are imperfect. There are a few factors which lend to his film music being labelled as classical which are far from snobbish and which set it apart from jazz or rock music. As has been pointed out, Williams is a classical composer with classical training who has written abstract concert works, so he is a musician who is already working in the context of the classical tradition and his film music is written in that idiom. In fact, many make the claim that in his film music he is a little _too_ aware of that tradition, with some themes and melodies perhaps being derivative of the works of past masters.

In the end though, I agree with the premise that eventually whether his music joins the canon depends on its long term durability among audiences of classical music. If the inherent value of the concert versions of his film music can survive and transcend the films they were written for, much like Sergei Prokofiev's or William Walton's film music where few who enjoy the music have seen the films they were written for and have any reference for their original context, then it will eventually come to be regarded as a worthy addition to the classical canon. If it is so closely linked in association to the films it is written for that in time as the audiences for the films shrink, the audience for his music disappears, then it will become apparent that his music doesn't hold the same kind of inherent value.


----------



## Byron

NLAdriaan said:


> Is there a fundamental difference between Star Wars and Die Ring? I don't think so. How about you?


Errr, yes? There are plenty of fundamental differences.


----------



## Larkenfield

Enthusiast said:


> Good stuff, Larkenfield. To be clear I am not arguing that film music can never be classical music. Clearly it can. In a more rational and calmer thread I would be interested in exploring whether the quality of the film (as "art") influences the likelihood that its music is art music (or classical music).


No worries. Members can argue on one side or another until they exhaust themselves and circle back to their starting point with nothing gained. I consider it a non-issue, another example of how labels that try to pigeonhole composers into one limited genre can create a mess out of something very simple: that there are classical composers who have successfully written for the cinema, and film composers who have successfully been played in concert halls without seeking the privilege. It was the public who demanded to hear them. It just happened. It's part of the history of the music. For me, the question has been whether film scores can be considered on the level of art, or is so-called art an exclusive privilege of the CM community? Of course film scores can be considered on the level of art just like any other genre of music that obviously varies widely in quality. But the point is lost because the critics can only see both genres competing with each other rather than complementing each other in the theaters and concert halls of the world. I consider it a shame that both cannot be appreciated, each on their own terms, when quality and genius have been known to overlap on both sides for more than 100 years.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Enthusiast said:


> ... I would be interested in exploring whether the quality of the film (as "art") influences the likelihood that its music is art music (or classical music).


Seems difficult to find out what film would qualify as art. A story well told, art? Is the Godfather art, I would say no? Nino Rota's soundtrack however definitely is. Tex Avery cartoons to me define as art, and the soundtracks of Scott Bradley qualify as well. With Hitchcock, Kubrick, Spielberg, I don't know. A film by Tarkovsky, definitely art. But the music I couldn't remember it.

Good news though for our object of discussion here, a month from now this recording will be released:









If the German yellow label releases your music, you're in:tiphat:


----------



## MatthewWeflen

NLAdriaan said:


> View attachment 113741
> 
> 
> If the German yellow label releases your music, you're in:tiphat:


This criterion works for me!


----------



## Enthusiast

Byron said:


> While I happen to share your general dislike of Williams' film music (or at least, can enjoy it in the context of a film, but get very little to nothing out of it taken out of that context, and would never attend a concert just to hear it) and share your high regard for the fine craftsmanship of a Strauss waltz, there are others who disagree. Roger Scruton has written that "One thing is certain, which is that the most successful film music today exhibits a quite extraordinary level of competence. Melody, harmony, voice-leading and orchestration are all as good and professional as can be. John Williams' Harry Potter scores and Howard Shore's evocative music for The Lord of the Rings exhibit a mastery of harmonic sequences, polyphonic organisation and orchestral effect that would be the envy of many a composer for the concert hall."
> 
> I also agree with many of your points in an earlier post where you pointed out how many sequences of his film music lack much inherent structure and simply exist as a running commentary to the visuals on screen. However I don't believe this in itself precludes it from being considered classical; the canon is constantly evolving and works made with highly divergent structures and purpose are already a part of it. Indeed, when presented in a concert hall Williams' music is already restructured into suites with themes that contrast or transition into one another.
> 
> In the end, there may be no point in labelling his music as classical, but all thats true of any music as all labels are imperfect. There are a few factors which lend to his film music being labelled as classical which are far from snobbish and which set it apart from jazz or rock music. As has been pointed out, Williams is a classical composer with classical training who has written abstract concert works, so he is a musician who is already working in the context of the classical tradition and his film music is written in that idiom. In fact, many make the claim that in his film music he is a little _too_ aware of that tradition, with some themes and melodies perhaps being derivative of the works of past masters.
> 
> In the end though, I agree with the premise that eventually whether his music joins the canon depends on its long term durability among audiences of classical music. If the inherent value of the concert versions of his film music can survive and transcend the films they were written for, much like Sergei Prokofiev's or William Walton's film music where few who enjoy the music have seen the films they were written for and have any reference for their original context, then it will eventually come to be regarded as a worthy addition to the classical canon. If it is so closely linked in association to the films it is written for that in time as the audiences for the films shrink, the audience for his music disappears, then it will become apparent that his music doesn't hold the same kind of inherent value.


That is a good wise post. I, meanwhile, am happy to learn that I disagree with Roger Scruton!


----------



## Enthusiast

NLAdriaan said:


> Seems difficult to find out what film would qualify as art. A story well told, art? Is the Godfather art, I would say no? Nino Rota's soundtrack however definitely is. Tex Avery cartoons to me define as art, and the soundtracks of Scott Bradley qualify as well. With Hitchcock, Kubrick, Spielberg, I don't know. A film by Tarkovsky, definitely art. But the music I couldn't remember it.


I would be happy to consider The Godfather as art films - or at least as masterpieces (with all the usual hedges about the 3rd film) - but I agree it would involve some discussion to get to a definition of what we mean by the term etc. And then we might need to same for the scores that accompany them. All that would involve a separate thread and certainly not one that I am qualified to play any leading role in.


----------



## Gordontrek

How in the world did I let this thread get so far without noticing it!
I doubt that I can add anything new to the discussion, but I certainly think there is no doubt that Williams's popular scores are going to enter canon whether the stuffy academics want them to or not. Orchestras program the heck out of the most widely loved classics from years past, and there is no reason to assume Star Wars and Close Encounters won't join that list generations from now. They already are programmed a ton, the only step remaining is for them to shed their "pops concert" stigma and become standard concert hall works. In terms of popularity they blow most if not all classical music out of the water, and Williams is probably the closest thing we've had to a classical "superstar" in a long time. In the coming generations, when film becomes less of a new thing and more of an "ancient" art form, Williams's music is going to be widely programmed. It will be seen as no different than performing opera suites like Carmen.


----------



## Antares

NLAdriaan said:


> Seems difficult to find out what film would qualify as art. A story well told, art? Is the Godfather art, I would say no? Nino Rota's soundtrack however definitely is. Tex Avery cartoons to me define as art, and the soundtracks of Scott Bradley qualify as well. With Hitchcock, Kubrick, Spielberg, I don't know. A film by Tarkovsky, definitely art. But the music I couldn't remember it.


*Lawrence of Arabia* is most definitely considered art, in the film world. And Jarre's score is mesmerizing, and captures the mood of the film perfectly.


----------



## Haydn70

I found an interesting interview with Andre Previn wherein he relates a conversation he had with Williams. Here is the excerpt:

"He's [Williams] an old friend … and so talented. I keep saying, "John, stop it with Star Wars!" And he said, "Let me ask you a question: Your first opera, Streetcar, was a success everywhere. And [the second opera] Brief Encounter was not. Are you ever going to write another one?" I'm writing it now.

I asked, "Don't you feel like gambling on your talent?" And he said no."

Link to the interview: https://www.philly.com/philly/enter...john-stop-it-with-the-star-wars-20171012.html


----------



## Guest

I get the impression there are two conversations going on here, one circular, one just bad tempered, and anyone who has any point to make germane to this non-argument is ignored.

I ask again - what does it matter whether Williams' music is admitted to the hallowed halls of CM? It matters not how good his films scores are, or whether anyone else's film scores are "art". They are film scores, written for a singular purpose. Many of JW's scores do an excellent job. They don't need deification as "CM", as if CM is the only valid musical artform. Film scores are a valid musical artform in their own right.

Period.


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> They don't need deification as "CM", as if CM is the only valid musical artform...


Absolutely, as I've been saying about Avant-garde for years.


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> ...They are film scores, written for a singular purpose. Many of JW's scores do an excellent job. They don't need deification as "CM", as if CM is the only valid musical artform. Film scores are a valid musical artform in their own right.
> 
> Period.


I'm afraid that logic won't wash. It ignores the existence of overlapping categories. A simple substitution will show this.

"...They are piano sonatas, written for a singular purpose. Many of LvB's sonatas do an excellent job. They don't need deification as "CM", as if CM is the only valid musical artform. Piano sonatas are a valid musical artform in their own right."

"Period." :tiphat:


----------



## Bulldog

NLAdriaan said:


> Jaws without John Williams, Psycho without Bernard Herrmann, would mean almost nothing.


Actually, I think both movies would have been better without any music, especially Jaws.


----------



## Larkenfield

JW & LSO - _The Five Sacred Trees - Concerto for Bassoon_ w/Judith LeClair. It's not film music and beautifully written for the instrument. I imagine there will be a lot of dedicated label-makers who never take a chance on it. Meanwhile, the world goes on.


----------



## Luchesi

NLAdriaan said:


> For me, music in essence is an artful expression, a (one sided) mean of communication, just like books, plays, opera, dance, musicals and, of course, film. It is storytelling, with or without words/images/sounds. Since the end of silent movies, the combination of music and film became an art form in its own right.
> 
> I guess in most cases, music used in films is not particularly interesting in itself, as it just means nothing without the images. In some cases the music is stronger and carries the film and exists in its own right. In case you can actually listen to the music without the images, the music can exist.
> 
> Jaws without John Williams, Psycho without Bernard Herrmann, would mean almost nothing.
> 
> To me, each art-form can have a similar impact. I happen to like both music and films a lot. In a movie theatre, I always sit there until the end of the titles (mostly with one or two others, to see which music and which interpretations were used.
> 
> It is already pretty unusual (because of economical reasons) to have music especially composed for a film, let alone to have the soundtrack recorded by a symphonic orchestra. We may be thankful to the likes of Hitchcock, Spielberg and George Lucas that they have invested in new orchestral music and gave Bernard Herrmann and John Williams a stage. Also, in a huge number of films, existing (also classical) music is used. Kubrick used a lot of classical music (Bartok, Beethoven, R.Strauss etc). I recently watched Roma (the Oscar winning Netflix production), where Berlioz Symf. Fantastique was used.
> 
> Will this music be immortal? I don't know. Is it important? Strawinsky's sacre was intended as ballet music and will probably outlive his Symphonies. John Williams or Bernard Herrmann could well be played in the future. It seems in fact quite arbitrary which music survives. And film composers also can survive with the film itself. Star Wars fully reaches my young kids, as when I take them on an educational trip to Bach's St. Matthew Passion, they are completely bored


We should just ask any living film music composer if any of his scores are classical music. They know as well or better than the rest of us. Would it be a frivolous question? Would they just laugh?


----------



## KenOC

Our own KUSC, "the largest non-profit classical music station in the country" per Wiki, has just cast its vote in this matter. In its pledge drive, now wrapping up, it offers in exchange for a $12 per month pledge four classical CDs: One CD of choral music by Morten Lauridsen (including his hit _O Magnum Mysterium_) and _three _CDs of John Williams' movie music!


----------



## Bulldog

KenOC said:


> Our own KUSC, "the largest non-profit classical music station in the country" per Wiki, has just cast its vote in this matter. In its pledge drive, now wrapping up, it offers in exchange for a $12 per month pledge four classical CDs: One CD of choral music by Morten Lauridsen (including his hit _O Magnum Mysterium_) and _three _CDs of John Williams' movie music!


If it works - great. Personally, I find it discouraging.


----------



## Larkenfield

KenOC said:


> Our own KUSC, "the largest non-profit classical music station in the country" per Wiki, has just cast its vote in this matter. In its pledge drive, now wrapping up, it offers in exchange for a $12 per month pledge four classical CDs: One CD of choral music by Morten Lauridsen (including his hit _O Magnum Mysterium_) and _three _CDs of John Williams' movie music!


Ken, I heard that same broadcast tonight on KUSC. Well done. The Lauridsen sounded terrific too and the CD offered as a gift for subscribing was going like hotcakes. I consider KUSC one of the finest 24/7 classical music stations in the country with intelligent and well-informed hosts. I sometimes listen to it on Apple TV.


----------



## Larkenfield

Luchesi said:


> We should just ask any living film music composer if any of his scores are classical music. They know as well or better than the rest of us. Would it be a frivolous question? Would they just laugh?


Who said this? "I think of myself as a film composer... I'm not a frustrated concert composer, and the concert pieces I've done have been a small part of my work. What I've sought there is instruction, variation from the demands of film and relief from its restrictions." By "concert composer" he means classical composer-and he's apparently perfectly fine with the description.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> I'm afraid that logic won't wash. It ignores the existence of overlapping categories. A simple substitution will show this.
> 
> "...They are piano sonatas, written for a singular purpose. Many of LvB's sonatas do an excellent job. They don't need deification as "CM", as if CM is the only valid musical artform. Piano sonatas are a valid musical artform in their own right."
> 
> "Period." :tiphat:


I think it's your logic that's at fault, Ken. Explain to me the purpose of a piano sonata and how that purpose is comparable to the purpose of a film score. What do you mean by "categories" and in what way do piano sonatas and film scores overlap in that categorisation?


----------



## Iota

Larkenfield said:


> JW & LSO - _The Five Sacred Trees - Concerto for Bassoon_ w/Judith LeClair.


To be honest, you might have just posted the above rather proof-rich pudding, in the first message, thereby nipping any doubts about the reach of JW's compositional identity in the bud.
There are surely few in this murky-boundaried universe who would argue that the above is not classical. It would comfortably sit alongside any number of BBC Proms commissions, imo. It seems to me he's just a talented fellow with many strings to his bow.

He certainly seems no charlatan either, a passage starting just before 15.00 above e.g, struck me as particularly well-crafted.

Glad to have heard it btw, thanks for posting.


----------



## Luchesi

Larkenfield said:


> Who said this? "I think of myself as a film composer... I'm not a frustrated concert composer, and the concert pieces I've done have been a small part of my work. What I've sought there is instruction, variation from the demands of film and relief from its restrictions." By "concert composer" he means classical composer-and he's apparently perfectly fine with the description.


Lark, after five years or more of chatting with you I know that you know what's important about classical music or recital music or concert music or art music or absolute music or serious music. The function and purpose and creation process of film music is different, and we can separate and contrast those differences.

It's not that one group is above the other. Classical music has all the development through time and the interrelated efforts of composers etc.. Film music is usually more attractive, if only superficially, more immediate for its audience, and tailor-made for its purposes (an important ingredient in the cinema arts).

So since one is not above the other in artistic excellence, I only debate this labeling because it's confusing and it can be limiting for a new CM fan. Obviously I don't worry about people like you.. But anything that derails or limits the long term appreciation of CM is of concern to me. Maybe it shouldn't be I don't know.. but what I've seen among my friends has been somewhat sad.


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> I get the impression there are two conversations going on here, one circular, one just bad tempered, and anyone who has any point to make germane to this non-argument is ignored.
> 
> I ask again - what does it matter whether Williams' music is admitted to the hallowed halls of CM? It matters not how good his films scores are, or whether anyone else's film scores are "art". They are film scores, written for a singular purpose. Many of JW's scores do an excellent job. They don't need deification as "CM", as if CM is the only valid musical artform. Film scores are a valid musical artform in their own right.
> 
> Period.


"...what does it matter whether Williams' music is admitted to the hallowed halls of CM?"

People have been told by well-informed and well-intentioned music lovers that film scores are surprisingly like classical music. So the rock enthusiast, for example, is getting a little older and he decides he wants some more grown-up sounds or maybe he wants to tip his toe into classical music he's heard about, whatever the reasons in his journey. He's delighted by some film scores, easy to follow, and he buys the CDs, starts a collection, BUT then he quickly gets tired of it, the large melodies, the catchy orchestral techniques, and he's not improving his listening skills (if that was a problem). Well, then he tries some Brahms or Mahler or Shostakovich and it's immediately not for him.. Too few resolutions, where's the payoff? Too complex to the ear. Boring because he's not following it, he's not prepared.

You see soundtrack recordings at a friend's house, but they rarely go on to invest time and effort in classical music, IMO.


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> "...what does it matter whether Williams' music is admitted to the hallowed halls of CM?"
> 
> People have been told by well-informed and well-intentioned music lovers that film scores are surprisingly like classical music.


Well, they are like...and yet, obviously not the same. So what does that have to do with _whether it is necessary to decide _whether film scores are or aren't CM?


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> Well, they are like...and yet, obviously not the same. So what does that have to do with _whether it is necessary to decide _whether film scores are or aren't CM?


It's not necessary to decide because it's already been decided. The main specialty venues for classical music, concerts and FM radio, have both included John Williams in their programming for some time without much complaint or even discussion. Why did they do this? It could only be that they thought their audiences wanted to hear this music and accepted its presence on a CM venue.


----------



## tdc

Its not really a big issue to me. While I think generally film scores will lack the depth and development of music considered to be proper classical, there is plenty of film music I like. Many of the film composers are very versatile, great improvisers and have an excellent knowledge of many different styles of music. If some of these write some music that becomes well liked enough to be performed in classical music venues, good for them. It doesn't mean I have to attend these concerts if I don't wish to, and I've never based my listening on what is considered to be in the 'canon' anyway.


----------



## Luchesi

KenOC said:


> It's not necessary to decide because it's already been decided. The main specialty venues for classical music, concerts and FM radio, have both included John Williams in their programming for some time without much complaint or even discussion. Why did they do this? It could only be that they thought their audiences wanted to hear this music and accepted its presence on a CM venue.


Dumbing down, like in so many other subjects these days with the omnipresent media and marketing, -- science, education, the classics of literature, religious ideas. You can probably think of others.

If we think of classical music as merely entertaining activity then I would vote for the body of Beatles songs (with the later Lennon, Harrison and McCartney solo albums) as being light classical, if expertly orchestrated. At least there's a related collection there with a developmental continuity.


----------



## DavidA

Iota said:


> To be honest, you might have just posted the above rather proof-rich pudding, in the first message, thereby nipping any doubts about the reach of JW's compositional identity in the bud.
> There are surely few in this murky-boundaried universe who would argue that the above is not classical. *It would comfortably sit alongside any number of BBC Proms commissions, imo.* It seems to me he's just a talented fellow with many strings to his bow.
> 
> He certainly seems no charlatan either, a passage starting just before 15.00 above e.g, struck me as particularly well-crafted.
> 
> Glad to have heard it btw, thanks for posting.


Must confess many of the proms commissions I have heard do not sit comfortably with me. Just make me hasten to turn off the radio


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> It's not necessary to decide because it's already been decided. The main specialty venues for classical music, concerts and FM radio, have both included John Williams in their programming for some time without much complaint or even discussion. Why did they do this? It could only be that they thought their audiences wanted to hear this music and accepted its presence on a CM venue.


It has been "decided" in this instance, but that's not the point that is being argued. Stop shifting the goalposts. Earlier, you were arguing the overlap between piano sonatas and film scores. Perhaps you'd like to address that question?


----------



## KenOC

Luchesi said:


> Dumbing down, like in so many other subjects these days with the omnipresent media and marketing, -- science, education, the classics of literature, religious ideas...


Speaking only for myself: If I wanted to rid the classical canon of works that "dumb it down," I wouldn't start with the music of John Williams. Oh no. There are other far more target-rich areas... :devil:


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> It has been "decided" in this instance, but that's not the point that is being argued. Stop shifting the goalposts. Earlier, you were arguing the overlap between piano sonatas and film scores. Perhaps you'd like to address that question?


Please read again what I wrote. I was simply saying that your argument against including film music in CM could apply as easily to piano sonatas (or any other genre).


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Please read again what I wrote. I was simply saying that your argument against including film music in CM could apply as easily to piano sonatas (or any other genre).


Please read again what you wrote. I'm simply saying that what you said was illogical.


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> Well, they are like...and yet, obviously not the same. So what does that have to do with _whether it is necessary to decide _whether film scores are or aren't CM?


Because they're different categories of music. Without even mentioning the intellectual achievements by composers in music theory period after period, with classical music you can learn where the works came from and where they were going into the future. The historical dimension is there. And learn about the motivations, paralleled in all the arts.

Film music is the result of a project to fit music to scenes in a film.


----------



## KenOC

Luchesi said:


> Film music is the result of a project to fit music to scenes in a film.


Where does that leave 19th century music to accompany scenes in plays or masques? Or, for that matter, any "story telling" music like the Coriolan Overture? Not "classical music"?


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> Because they're different categories of music. Without even mentioning the intellectual achievements by composers in music theory period after period, with classical music you can learn where the works came from and where they were going into the future. The historical dimension is there. And learn about the motivations, paralleled in all the arts.
> 
> *Film music is the result of a project to fit music to scenes in a film*.


I know. I argued that some time ago. We agree that they are not the same, despite the similarities. What I'm trying to find out is why those who argue about classification are so insistent on its importance - that film music must belong to CM or, alternatively, it mustn't.


----------



## Luchesi

KenOC said:


> Speaking only for myself: If I wanted to rid the classical canon of works that "dumb it down," I wouldn't start with the music of John Williams. Oh no. There are other far more target-rich areas... :devil:


You mean program music or overtures which were like film music, or opera music filled with motifs? Extra-musical bits of business?


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> I know. I argued that some time ago. We agree that they are not the same, despite the similarities. What I'm trying to find out is why those who argue about classification are so insistent on its importance - that film music must belong to CM or, alternatively, it mustn't.


Like I said, it's subtle, but I've seen that classification hurt people. It's inaccurate (we agree) and it's confusing. These friends of mine thought they were actually learning what's valuable in classical music..


----------



## Luchesi

KenOC said:


> Where does that leave 19th century music to accompany scenes in plays or masques? Or, for that matter, any "story telling" music like the Coriolan Overture? Not "classical music"?


You can cut out all the incidental music, it wouldn't hurt the category of CM.


----------



## WildThing

MacLeod said:


> I know. I argued that some time ago. We agree that they are not the same, despite the similarities. What I'm trying to find out is why those who argue about classification are so insistent on its importance - that film music must belong to CM or, alternatively, it mustn't.


No one is arguing that it must. Simply that it can be both.


----------



## Guest

WildThing said:


> No one is arguing that it must. Simply that it can be both.


I'm not going to go back and find the posts of those who argue that it must - but they're there, and have been regulars in other threads on the same issue.


----------



## WildThing

MacLeod said:


> I'm not going to go back and find the posts of those who argue that it must - but they're there, and have been regulars in other threads on the same issue.


Hmm. I must have missed those. The thrust of the discussion has been whether or not his music _could_ be considered classical music, particularly since it is programmed in classical venues -- and if not, _why _ not, considering the other examples of film music, music for the theater, theater music, and "light" classics which already fall under the umbrella of classical. A fair question and reason for discussion, and one removed from whether it has to be or gains anything from being labelled classical music.


----------



## Luchesi

WildThing said:


> Hmm. I must have missed those. The thrust of the discussion has been whether or not his music _could_ be considered classical music, particularly since it is programmed in classical venues -- and if not, _why _ not, considering the other examples of film music, music for the theater, theater music, and "light" classics which already fall under the umbrella of classical. A fair question and reason for discussion, and one removed from whether it has to be or gains anything from being labelled classical music.


Then you have an applicable definition of classical music?


----------



## WildThing

Luchesi said:


> Then you have an applicable definition of classical music?


There is no black and white definition, obviously. But post #191 among others has given some reasons why it's not unreasonable to apply the label in the case of Williams.


----------



## Luchesi

WildThing said:


> There is no black and white definition, obviously. But post #191 among others has given some reasons why it's not unreasonable to apply the label in the case of Williams.


This seems funny to me. There's no new and appropriate definition for classical music so we use CM. JW's film music already has an appropriate label. Funny, huh?


----------



## WildThing

Luchesi said:


> This seems funny to me. There's no new and appropriate definition for classical music so we use CM. JW's film music already has an appropriate label. Funny, huh?


Nothing funny in the slightest. Prokofiev's music for Lieutenant Kije is also, as a point of fact, film music. And it is classical music. More than one label can apply. Trent Reznor's scores for films are film music. They are also electronic music. Amazing how that works.


----------



## KenOC

Odd that Shostakovich hasn't been mentioned. He wrote a boatload of movie music. Not much of it is heard these days, but there are exceptions like the Romance from _The Gadfly_. I haven't heard any complaints about that being under the CM umbrella.

BTW Shostakovich was nominated for an Oscar in 1961 for his score to the movie _Khovanshchina_.


----------



## DavidA

WildThing said:


> Nothing funny in the slightest. *Prokofiev's music for Lieutenant Kije *is also, as a point of fact, film music. And it is classical music. More than one label can apply. Trent Reznor's scores for films are film music. They are also electronic music. Amazing how that works.


I think there is a point here that classical composers like Prokofiev, R V-W, Walton, Shostakovich, etc, wrote film music but here we have Williams who writes film music and also tries his hand at more serious music. Where the two meet I do not know. I think a lot of the argument here is about semantics.


----------



## Luchesi

WildThing said:


> Nothing funny in the slightest. Prokofiev's music for Lieutenant Kije is also, as a point of fact, film music. And it is classical music. More than one label can apply. Trent Reznor's scores for films are film music. They are also electronic music. Amazing how that works.


Two labels for the same work. OK Take your choice. Or take both. Expand the categories. Ask people what they mean by classical music, because you won't know, except in the case of a few film score standouts.

Why do this?


----------



## WildThing

DavidA said:


> I think there is a point here that classical composers like Prokofiev, R V-W, Walton, Shostakovich, etc, wrote film music but here we have Williams who writes film music and also tries his hand at more serious music. Where the two meet I do not know. I think a lot of the argument here is about semantics.


Considering he is a classically trained musician, I agree, it does sound like semantics.


----------



## Luchesi

DavidA said:


> I think there is a point here that classical composers like Prokofiev, R V-W, Walton, Shostakovich, etc, wrote film music but here we have Williams who writes film music and also tries his hand at more serious music. Where the two meet I do not know. I think a lot of the argument here is about semantics.


I think this argument is about the next generation. I've taught children for many years, they have no innate sense of categories, and then, they get bored or overwhelmed or lost or frustrated.

Even if they don't long agree, they at least need to know what the categories are, or were. They need to be supported in their learning.


----------



## Luchesi

KenOC said:


> Odd that Shostakovich hasn't been mentioned. He wrote a boatload of movie music. Not much of it is heard these days, but there are exceptions like the Romance from _The Gadfly_. I haven't heard any complaints about that being under the CM umbrella.
> 
> BTW Shostakovich was nominated for an Oscar in 1961 for his score to the movie _Khovanshchina_.


We don't want to confuse people and call them film composers. Prokofiev and Shostakovich. That would be wrong.


----------



## Guest

WildThing said:


> Hmm. I must have missed those. The thrust of the discussion has been whether or not his music _could_ be considered classical music, particularly since it is programmed in classical venues -- and if not, _why _ not, considering the other examples of film music, music for the theater, theater music, and "light" classics which already fall under the umbrella of classical. A fair question and reason for discussion, and one removed from whether it has to be or gains anything from being labelled classical music.


I think the fairly robust exchanges between Enthusiast and MatthewWeflen suggested to me that it was certainly important to them that film music is or is not categorised.


----------



## Larkenfield

Luchesi said:


> Because they're different categories of music. Without even mentioning the intellectual achievements of composers in music theory period after period, with classical music you can learn where the works came from and where they were going into the future. The historical dimension is there. And learn about the motivations, paralleled in all the arts.
> 
> Film music is the result of a project to fit music to scenes in a film.


 There are always the exceptions to the rule with different composers rather than the one-size-fits-all and everyone composes everything the exact same way according to the label making critics who may not always understand the individual creative process. For instance, Bruckner counted out, numbered how many bars he wanted a phrase or a work to have in his scores and then he filled in the empty bars. So he wrote his music to fit in a framework. Imagine that? And of course, some composers have written their music for a film before it was even made, which shoots the normal way that film music is considered to be written to hell. Just like in all of music, one can only take one work at a time, one score at a time, one composer at a time, if one wants to understand the creative process rather than the sweeping generalities and assumptions that illuminate nothing and may not always apply.

Simon Rattle on the architecture of Bruckner's music and how he composed:


----------



## Larkenfield

Luchesi said:


> Because they're different categories of music. Without even mentioning the intellectual achievements of composers in music theory period after period, with classical music you can learn where the works came from and where they were going into the future. The historical dimension is there. And learn about the motivations, paralleled in all the arts.
> 
> Film music is the result of a project to fit music to scenes in a film.


 There are always the exceptions to the rule with different composers rather than the one-size-fits-all and everyone composes everything the exact same way according to the label making critics who may not always understand the individual creative process. For instance, Bruckner in his 9th Symphony counted out, numbered how many bars he wanted a movement to have and then he filled in the empty bars. So he wrote his music to fit in a framework. And of course, some composers have written their music for a film before it was even made, which shoots the normal way that film music is considered to be written to hell. Just like in all of music, one can only take one work at a time, one score at a time, one composer at a time, if one wants to understand the creative process rather than the sweeping generalities about genres that may fall short and illuminate little.

https://www.classicalmpr.org/story/2014/11/05/film-score-picture

Simon Rattle on the architecture of Bruckner's music and how he composed within a framework:


----------



## Luchesi

Larkenfield said:


> There are always the exceptions to the rule with different composers rather than the one-size-fits-all and everyone composes everything the exact same way according to the label making critics who may not always understand the individual creative process. For instance, Bruckner in his 9th Symphony counted out, numbered how many bars he wanted a phrase or a work to have in his scores and then he filled in the empty bars. So he wrote his music to fit in a framework. And of course, some composers have written their music for a film before it was even made, which shoots the normal way that film music is considered to be written to hell. Just like in all of music, one can only take one work at a time, one score at a time, one composer at a time, if one wants to understand the creative process rather than the sweeping generalities about genres that may fall short and illuminate little.
> 
> https://www.classicalmpr.org/story/2014/11/05/film-score-picture
> 
> Simon Rattle on the architecture of Bruckner's music and how he composed within a framework:


Thanks, there's a lot of good information in those references. I assume JW works on a film in the same way nowadays. I wonder if he prefers it to the old days.


----------



## Guest

Larkenfield said:


> And of course, some composers have written their music for a film before it was even made, which shoots the normal way that film music is considered to be written to hell.


I'm not sure I understand this, but if I have understood it, it's hardly relevant what the film composer's _method _is, it's the _purpose_ that matters. Composing a symphony is an end in itself. Composing a set of musical cues to accompany 90-120 minutes of a primarily visual artefact is a completely different purpose.

However, I'd be interested in an example of a film score written _for _a movie but _before _the movie was shot.


----------



## Haydn70

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure I understand this, but if I have understood it, it's hardly relevant what the film composer's _method _is, it's the _purpose_ that matters. Composing a symphony is an end in itself. Composing a set of musical cues to accompany 90-120 minutes of a primarily visual artefact is a completely different purpose.
> 
> However, I'd be interested in an example of a film score written _for _a movie but _before _the movie was shot.


Most of Ennio Morricone's score for _Once Upon A Time In America_. From Wikipedia: "The musical score was composed by Leone's longtime collaborator Ennio Morricone. The film's long production resulted in Morricone's finishing the composition of most of the soundtrack before many scenes had been filmed. Some of Morricone's pieces were played on set as filming took place, a technique that Leone had used for _Once Upon a Time in the West_. "Deborah's Theme" was written for another film in the 1970s..."


----------



## Guest

ArsMusica said:


> Most of Ennio Morricone's score for _Once Upon A Time In America_. From Wikipedia: "The musical score was composed by Leone's longtime collaborator Ennio Morricone. The film's long production resulted in Morricone's finishing the composition of most of the soundtrack before many scenes had been filmed. Some of Morricone's pieces were played on set as filming took place, a technique that Leone had used for _Once Upon a Time in the West_. "Deborah's Theme" was written for another film in the 1970s..."


An interesting example. Thanks.

It provokes the question about how the score is then fitted to the movie, and the role played by others in the music team in cutting and pasting it all in place. It's this process, whether the score is written before or after, that subjugates the "score" to the visuals, and is the chief difference between (to borrow Ken's suggestion) a piano sonata written for its own end, and a score written for a separate end.


----------



## Larkenfield

Luchesi said:


> Thanks, there's a lot of good information in those references. I assume JW works on a film in the same way nowadays. I wonder if he prefers it to the old days.


I was surprised to know how Bruckner laid out his score with blank bars and then filled them in within a framework. That's what film composers do in a similar way because of the framework of time. That's why I find generalities about how things are done as interesting at times but incomplete.

There's no standard way that I know of that composers work. I wouldn't know how JW composes, but an opening overture could be written according to his own inspiration and length and then the opening credits could be tailored to him.

Sometimes composers will write cues ahead of time and they're used, edited into specific situations such as romantic or action scenes. It's a skill. The quality of JW's scores when he's not writing film scores, one could easily imagine, are written accordingly without any kind of outward restraints, such as his outstanding Bassoon Concerto that was already posted and mostly ignored.


----------



## Guest

It occurs to me that there may be some ambiguity about what is meant by "score" (and/or soundtrack). What I've been referring to throughout the discussion is the complete soundtrack as presented during the movie. I wonder whether others have had in mind the suite of themes as reshaped and presented on an OST CD?


----------



## Xisten267

eugeneonagain said:


> No less a composer in the classical idiom or no less of a composer?


In the classical idiom.


----------



## Luchesi

Allerius said:


> In the classical idiom.


I wonder if people are saying that because they really really want it to be true? for their own listening..

And then I wonder what JW would think of such an enthusiasm.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Luchesi

Larkenfield said:


> I was surprised to know how Bruckner laid out his score with blank bars and then filled them in within a framework. That's what film composers do in a similar way because of the framework of time. That's why I find generalities about how things are done as interesting at times but incomplete.
> 
> There's no standard way that I know of that composers work. I wouldn't know how JW composes, but an opening overture could be written according to his own inspiration and length and then the opening credits could be tailored to him.
> 
> Sometimes composers will write cues ahead of time and they're used, edited into specific situations such as romantic or action scenes. It's a skill. The quality of JW's scores when he's not writing film scores, one could easily imagine, are written accordingly without any kind of outward restraints, such as his outstanding Bassoon Concerto that was already posted and mostly ignored.


I've composed a few works (I've kept) mostly long ago when I was starting out with the intriguing modern music harmonies. They made it easier not to plagiarize, or maybe I just wasn't that familiar with modern works.

I don't know, but for a composer who has been ill for a long time, and is chronically ill, a framework like that would be a welcome motivation and it could direct the ideas he's had overnight or a few days. You tend to lose good ideas very quickly and they fade away.

I assume that when Chopin was ill he relied upon the sonata form (op 65 Cello Sonata) and a serious conception of the dance forms to keep him busy and focussed composing at the piano. This is such a personal work habit that I don't think anyone's written about it in his case.


----------



## NLAdriaan

MacLeod said:


> However, I'd be interested in an example of a film score written _for _a movie but _before _the movie was shot.


Do you think Bach wrote the music of St Matthews Passion before the 'script' of Henrici was written? Or da Ponte wrote the words after Mozart composed the music. Or Goethe wrote his poetry posthumous after receiving Hugo Wolf's music.

I don't see the relevance of the order of things.


----------



## Larkenfield

MacLeod said:


> .However, I'd be interested in an example of a film score written _for _a movie but _before _the movie was shot.


Here are a few examples of the _before_, including Glass, Leone, Morricone, and Williams:

"Occasionally, a filmmaker will actually edit his or her film to fit the flow of music, rather than have the composer edit their score to the final cut. Director Godfrey Reggio edited his films Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqqatsi based on composer Philip Glass's music. Similarly, the relationship between director Sergio Leone and composer Ennio Morricone was such that the finale of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and the films Once Upon a Time in the West and Once Upon a Time in America were edited to Morricone's score as the composer had prepared it months before the film's production ended.

"In another notable example, the finale of Steven Spielberg's E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial was edited to match the music of his long-time collaborator John Williams: as recounted in a companion documentary on the DVD, Spielberg gave Williams complete freedom with the music and asked him to record the cue without picture; Spielberg then re-edited the scene later to match the music."

So it's apparent that the music isn't always composed to fit the score; it can work the other way around, and other examples could be cited.


----------



## Guest

NLAdriaan said:


> Do you think Bach wrote the music of St Matthews Passion before the 'script' of Henrici was written? Or da Ponte wrote the words after Mozart composed the music. Or Goethe wrote his poetry posthumous after receiving Hugo Wolf's music.
> 
> I don't see the relevance of the order of things.


I've no idea wrt your examples.

The relevance? I assume you've read the rest of the thread from which you should be able to infer the points I've been making about film music usually being cut (or stretched) to fit the visuals, unlike stand alone classical music. It's also true that sometimes movie makers want to collaborate differently with composers, with the music playing a more central role, but that's not the case with most film scores.


----------



## Alfacharger

The future classical concert is here :devil:


----------



## Luchesi

Here's the decline of rock by percentage of album sales.


----------



## KenOC

Rock was 0% of album sales in 2011, 2012, and 2016? I demand an accounting!


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Alfacharger said:


> The future classical concert is here :devil:


I confess the thought occurred to me when I saw this video. I pondered whether I was offended. Ultimately I decided I wasn't. If it puts butts in seats, so much the better for that orchestra.

And it's a nice piece of music (if rather poorly played).


----------



## Luchesi

KenOC said:


> Rock was 0% of album sales in 2011, 2012, and 2016? I demand an accounting!


I was confused about that too. No rock albums (or zero percent) were in the top ten for those years.


----------



## Fabulin

It seems to me that those who think that music merely "sets the mood" and does not tell the story, have never actually taken a dive into Williams' music like they might have done with opera music for example. Storytelling is precisely what his music does.

Most of the plagiarism accusations concern:

1. The first Star Wars (1977), which was heavily temp-tracked, and where one of the goals was precisely to resurrect the great music of old times: Alfred Newman (logo theme has been brought back), Korngold & Rózsa (overture is inspired by their music), Walton (space battle), Stravinsky (slightly whimsical alien world, finale), B. Goodman (old timey cantina), Mendelssohn (walking the isle), a goal which Williams achieved while equalling or surpassing the sources as if it was nothing.

I am yet to hear accusations of mere mood setting and thievery being made against _The Empire Strikes Back_, where Williams this time had to take matters into his own hands, without much temp tracking given to him, and developed his own style. TESB is a superb 2 hours musical journey. Only 2 minutes of the film _in total _are not lead by music. Williams is at the peak of his powers and the third act especially is a microcosm of it's own. I recommend to get the expanded presentation of it.
Try also _The Last Jedi_, nearly 40 years later, and notice the mastery of melody, harmony, counterpoint, colour, and motif planning, if you haven't noticed it earlier.

There was an argument, that in opera the main mean of expression is music, which is not the case in film. Well, unless we are talking George Lucas' "space operas", where music does the heavy lifting. Williams has so far done 9 of them.

2. Hedwig's theme, which was designed by Williams to resemble an owl's call and visualize her flight, while creating an aura of mystery, more than resemble any existing piece of music. That people hear their favourite works says more about their minds than about Williams'. Here an additional analysis of this piece by prof. Frank Lehman of Tufts University, if you are interested https://www.filmmusicnotes.com/john-williams-themes-part-6-of-6-hedwigs-theme-from-harry-potter/

3. Jaws, where that tiny motif which Dvorak once borrowed from a certain opera found it's way back into a world of drama, and was used in truly genius ways. If you ever think that Williams' music to Jaws is not an artistic expression, then you have never heard his account of how, having viewed the footage alone, for the first time, he found it to be a film greater than ever was given to him, and rushed to compose his original ideas, including a beautiful fugue. Have you ever seen the footage to Jaws or E.T. _without _music? There have been presentations in some tribute or award events. The effect is stunning. Without music, there is very little "story" going on.

I recommend to listen to a podcast or two dedicated to his work to appreciate it more. There are two currently going on, _The Baton_, which focuses on nearing the film scores to the audience, and _The Legacy of John Williams_, where various guests are invited, including conductors and other musicians who worked with him.

https://thebatonpodcast.podbean.com/e/episode-41-jaws/

I find it funny how many say that a certain theme of his definitely comes from a classical piece A, B, or C. If all these accusations were true, at times poor Williams would have been at loss whom is he _actually _ "plagiarizing".

The funniest is an accusation of taking a part of Tchaikovsky's symphonic theme and composing a love theme "Han & The Princess" of it (you know, from the same Tchaikovsky who borrowed melodic elements from countless composers and elaborated on them himself). Jokes aside, what is more likely, is that Williams composed it as an extension of Princess Leia's theme from the previous film, which it in fact in one scene follows as a form of narrative. There is also _Across the Stars_, which is orchestrated and vaguely planned like the famous Swan Theme from The Swan Lake, and yet is, in fact, a variation of Williams' own Force Theme.

Quite a bit of knowledge of what was the aim, what were the means, and what is the effect, and of course every major Williams score is an interesting material for many relistens.

There are pearls hidden outside of the pure entertainment as well. Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List feature some worthy music on noble themes.

Where artistic merit and being musically up to date and on par with concert music are concerned, it is hard not to mention _The Close Encounters of the Third Kind_ and _A.I: Artificial Intelligence_.

Very few composers can imitate his style succesfully, and they can never imitate it _at it's best_, whereas he could be Beethoven to their Steibelt and imitate them all if he so desired.

If it quacks 20 concerti like a classical composer, composes dramatic music straight from his heart that adresses whatever he sees (might be a film, why not?) like a classical composer, and sounds no worse than the very best of classical composers, using the same tools they use, what is it?
Hint: _look at my profile picture_.

Of course Williams is a worthy addition to the canon, where Prokofiev's and RVW's film music is.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I'm definitely in the "JW is real classical music" camp. With that said, I find the new Williams/Mutter collaboration just putrid. So overwrought and syrupy.


----------



## Ethereality

Williams is at the very top of classical music in ratings. 2 of his albums are in the Top 20 off all time classical albums, 6 make the Top 200 of all time. Contrast this with _polls_ like the composer polls we host on this forum, which only take into consideration everyone's "favorite," and he's nowhere near the top. Polling is probably the most effective data-gathering mechanism to demonstrate objective consensus in any field, while _ratings_, ranging from 0 to 10, attempt better to mix everyone's knowledge together as though it's equal. What the average person finds, however, is they benefit from better results using the poll system, when they're looking for recommendations in any field, like music, books, films, etc. The reason, and this is good just to know in general, that ratings aren't as effective as polls is that they don't calculate esoteric knowledge as well:

This esoteric knowledge could mean a shared intuition with others, or a more extensive knowledge of musical craft. Consider for instance 2 composers get an average rating of 7/10 by all common people, Johann Sebastian Bach and John Williams. What we tend to find is the former will receive something like numerous 10s and mostly around 6 by common street people, compared to the latter whom is more consistent with everybody around 7. This demonstrates a phenomenon which can more easily be calculated by polls: that much more people have Bach as a _favorite_ composer than John Williams. This is some kind of pseudo-scientific, esoteric objectivism where there's a case happening that a large elite group of people will agree 100% on who the best composer is, and even agree on the top 3, while most people will actually _disagree_ with this, and come to a disagreement on the best composer with each of their different favorites totaling hundreds of thousands of other musicians. Polling is a shortcut way to measure esoteric knowledge, while ratings are better for measuring popular opinion, yet aren't as effective to most people. Someone like Hans Zimmer would probably have a higher public rating than Bach, but not be as many people's favorite.

In any case, thought it might be interesting to know what one pseudo-scientific interpretation (online ratings) gives to Williams albums. The_ Star Wars_ soundtracks place 11th and 14th best in all Classical music. On the contrary, if we hosted a musician poll with every musician in history, Beethoven, Bach and Mozart would come out on top, while Williams might not even make the top 300. Apparently Williams is popular within a _rating_ system.


----------



## Ethereality

Fabulin said:


> I find it funny how many say that a certain theme of his definitely comes from a classical piece A, B, or C. If all these accusations were true, at times poor Williams would have been at loss whom is he _actually _ "plagiarizing".


All the best music throughout time tends to be based on craft and not invention. Williams has a knack for taking a lot of best ideas subconsciously from past composers and making something much more cohesive and listenable. This is the very philosophy that music doesn't need to be composed with notes (as though previous notes discovered by people) but that music can now be composed using a palette of whole ideas previously discovered by people, a palette to invent something new: a _unique_ craft. I think this is becoming more and more true. When a composer like Williams has such a difficult-to-mimick craft in his ability to string old ideas into something so effective in both catchiness and in telling a story, it can be said that he_ is_ a true inventor. He's no longer inventing standalone concepts like previous composers, but inventing a new way of how to put these musical concepts together and more beautifully.

This all comes down to the final aim--creating an aesthetic that is more big-picture and complete. Some might say this can only be achieved within Classical structure. Most composers however, aren't to embrace this perfection in music, but embrace expansion. Expansion gets the feelers and imagination fired up, while composing 'perfect' music is a tedious, pain-staking task. But as I said, all the best composers throughout time were crafters. They painstakingly aimed for this higher aesthetic.


----------



## Guest

Ethereality said:


> Polling is probably the most effective data-gathering mechanism to demonstrate objective consensus in any field,


Subjective consensus. It might help to point to a degree of objectivity, but it's still just a collective of preferences.



Fabulin said:


> There was an argument, that in opera the main mean of expression is music, which is not the case in film. Well, unless we are talking George Lucas' "space operas", where music does the heavy lifting.


If it's the music doing the heavy lifting, it would suggest that the movie is a poor one. I would say that cinema is first and foremost a visual art, so if the cinematographer isn't pulling his weight too, it's not much of a movie.


----------



## Ethereality

MacLeod said:


> Subjective consensus.


I think you might mean objective sampling/consensus? There's no such thing as subjective consensus. There's just objective.

That doesn't make it better than subjective, if that's what you're saying. Objective doesn't mean scientific.


----------



## Guest

Ethereality said:


> Objective is the qualifier, while consensus is the descriptor.
> 
> Subjective would be individual. Universal would be non-preferential.


I'm sorry, I don't understand.


----------



## StevenOBrien

Luchesi said:


> View attachment 113952
> 
> 
> Here's the decline of rock by percentage of album sales.


What's the graph for classical?


----------



## Fabulin

MacLeod said:


> Subjective consensus. It might help to point to a degree of objectivity, but it's still just a collective of preferences.
> If it's the music doing the heavy lifting, it would suggest that the movie is a poor one. I would say that cinema is first and foremost a visual art, so if the cinematographer isn't pulling his weight too, it's not much of a movie.


There is no moral superiority code of filmmaking. Star Wars (1977) was never expected to be Citizen Kane in terms of camerawork or acting. It would have been a modestly popular 1970s cult classic even if mere arranger adapted the old music to the film in a clumsy way. The story is simple, some acting is good, other acting not as good, the creature / costume / vehicle design is very competent, special effects are groundbreaking, and music of quality that no-one expected leads them all. Nothing to be ashamed of. A film planned and edited in such a way that music takes the leading role, depends heavily on music, because such is it's design, not because it's bad. Vistas and long shots of people emoting or people/objects moving are not a bad filmmaking decision. In such films music will have the greatest potential to influence the film's quality. It was a conscious decision of Lucas to create a filmed drama led by music, with the action just happening in a strange fantasy/western/war/space mash, where music is the element creating a binding coherence of everything presented, because of the way it flows, where other objects might be more sharply following one another. George Lucas said that John Williams is the secret sauce of Star Wars. Others say that it is music that is "The Force"; a solid case could be made for that. Had Lucas decided to make a stage opera instead and just film it, we would have Star Wars music + a couple of competent arias and choir pieces: and then I guess you would have no medium-specific philosophical expectations hurt, or whatever is that caused you to say that music elevating the film means a bad film. Why not just a good film, and greater music?


----------



## Guest

Fabulin said:


> There is no moral superiority code of filmmaking.


I don't know what this means. Please elaborate.



Fabulin said:


> Had Lucas decided to make a stage opera instead and just film it, we would have Star Wars music + a couple of competent arias and choir pieces: and then I guess you would have no medium-specific philosophical expectations hurt, or *whatever is that caused you to say that music elevating the film means a bad film. *Why not just a good film, and greater music?


First, I didn't say Star Wars was a bad film, nor did I imply it. And neither you nor I said anything about music 'elevating' a film. You referred its "doing the heavy lifting", by which I took you to mean doing the lion's share of the work, making the most significant contribution to its success). I certainly said that if your assertion is true, then a film _may _not be fulfilling its prime purpose - to give _visual _entertainment (in its widest sense) - and _may _be poor as a consequence.

But, second, I don't agree that the music does the heavy lifting, nor would I underrate the contributions of Taylor, Barry, Dilley and Mollo and their teams. (Or Lucas and the producers themselves). The success of that film was dependent on _all _the parts working together, including Williams' score.


----------



## Fabulin

MacLeod said:


> I don't know what this means. Please elaborate.
> First, I didn't say Star Wars was a bad film, nor did I imply it. And neither you nor I said anything about music 'elevating' a film. You referred its "doing the heavy lifting"


You said that film is primarily a visual art in a way that implies that if music is the main factor of quality, the film must not be that good.
Is doing the heavy lifting not the same as elevating? I thought it means the same.


----------



## Enthusiast

Ethereality said:


> Polling is probably the most effective data-gathering mechanism to demonstrate objective consensus in any field, while _ratings_, ranging from 0 to 10, attempt better to mix everyone's knowledge together as though it's equal.


Actually, polling tells you about averages among those polled (who may or may not have been correctly selected as a representative sample of a larger group). The larger and more typical of the whole population the group is, the more the result of music polls will tend to reflect a strong preference for pop music. Consensus is concerned with consent and represents a result that is not controversial, that all participants can live with. It can be arrived at by discussion - with the result representing the consensus of the group involved in the discussion. Polling will not usually tell you about consensus. As for rating, when applied to music preferences, it is not a measure of knowledge but of average subjective preference among those consulted. Still, ranking might produce more nuanced results than simple voting for a favourite.


----------



## Ethereality

Enthusiast said:


> The larger and more typical of the whole population the group is, the more the result of music polls will tend to reflect a strong preference for pop music.


In a poll on top favorite musician, while you may have the majority of voted-for artists as pop artists, the_ most_ voted for ones will be more classical composers, forming an organized logic. This is the trend, and why this mechanism is used effectively.

As for a true objective system, ideally each vote should be weighted by the amount of musical experience that individual has. Some websites attempt gauging this in some way...

What is your favored mechanism for listing the top musicians of all time?



Enthusiast said:


> Still, ranking might produce more nuanced results than simple voting for a favourite.


It yields a totally different species of result I described. The latter (by simple chance of its mechanism) measures something apparently more esoterically consensual. Probably because "favorite" has much more complex and intrinsic meaning than a number.

There's much more nuance using just favorites, I wouldn't confuse this with the utter lack of nuance of something like Rotten Tomatoes. That doesn't measure critics' favorites. In fact, if critics were actually honest about their favorites, they might lose their job in an embarrassing way. I'm talking about something very different.



Enthusiast said:


> Consensus is concerned with consent and represents a result that is not controversial, that all can live with.


True. I meant census, for that example.


----------



## Guest

Fabulin said:


> You said that film is primarily a visual art in a way that implies that if music is the main factor of quality, the film must not be that good.
> Is doing the heavy lifting not the same as elevating? I thought it means the same.


Heavy lifting means, according to Oxford, "hard work". Yes, things are literally elevated by lifting, but I assumed you were being figurative!

Isn't cinema _primarily _a visual art form? You know - "moving pictures"? It has evolved into something highly sophisticated - at its best - where light, colour, sound, speech, music, emotion, movement, editing work together to create a more complete experience than merely visual.

The first movie where I noticed how music can play a significant part in creating tone is Buster Keaton's _The General_. There are five or six official scores for this film, and at least one unofficial. I prefer to avoid the standard scores as they seem to underline the sentimentality - a common failing for silent movie scores.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_(1926_film)#Versions

Music undoubtedly contributes to the rhythm of movies, not just the emotional tone, and helps both present, punctuate and close movies. But if the score ends up being the best thing about a movie, it's a miss, IMO.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Enthusiast said:


> I suggest that _basing_ a film score on jazz or rock is not the same thing as producing a jazz or rock film score. I suppose a rock film score could be written but I am trying hard to think how an improvised form could be used as a film score but there might be a way.


This is an old post in an old thread, but I wanted to point out that Miles Davis produced such a soundtrack for Louis Malle's Ascenseur pour l'échafaud, which became something of a template for neo-noir jazz scores.


----------



## Enthusiast

Ethereality said:


> In a poll on top favorite musician, while you may have the majority of voted-for artists as pop artists, the_ most_ voted for ones will be more classical composers, forming an organized logic. This is the trend, and why this mechanism is used effectively.
> 
> As for a true objective system, ideally each vote should be weighted by the amount of musical experience that individual has. Some websites attempt gauging this in some way...
> 
> What is your favored mechanism for listing the top musicians of all time?


I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying here. Who are you envisaging participating in the poll? If they are a representative sample of the general population then they will certainly select pop music. The chances of 1% of your sample knowing much about classical music are unlikely to be very great.

Weighting votes according to the extent of musical experience sounds nearly impossible (how to measure this experience).

My favoured mechanism for listing top (= favourite) musicians of all time (I mean aside from not doing so) is probably just to choose for myself. Polls tell me most about the sample who voted.


----------



## Fabulin

MacLeod said:


> Heavy lifting means, according to Oxford, "hard work". Yes, things are literally elevated by lifting, but I assumed you were being figurative!
> 
> But if the score ends up being the best thing about a movie, it's a miss, IMO.


No, I just meant elevating. I am sadly not a native speaker and such nuances still sometimes escape my attention (especially in long posts) As for creating an equivalent of the type of work that Williams did in his type of craft, in some other craft, it is more than hard, because the man is a genius. Lucas can't be blamed for it.

I sympathize with your other points. Early cinema is fascinating to me as well. I had a rare opportunity to watch Eisenstein's October in a university amateur cinema, with a 1966 re-score by Shostakovich. Very impressive! And yet in that case camerawork, visual tricks and historical fidelity of Eisenstein's picture reign supreme over the music as the greatest thing about the film.

When something is done greatly in a Gesamtkunstwerk, other elements might have hard time equalling it. Wagner's music is far greater than his librettos for example, and far greater than even the best of set decorations. Which doesn't mean they are not good; just that music in this particular case is much more significant in creating an effect.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Fabulin said:


> There is no moral superiority code of filmmaking. Star Wars (1977) was never expected to be Citizen Kane in terms of camerawork or acting. It would have been a modestly popular 1970s cult classic even if mere arranger adapted the old music to the film in a clumsy way. The story is simple, some acting is good, other acting not as good, the creature / costume / vehicle design is very competent, special effects are groundbreaking, and music of quality that no-one expected leads them all. Nothing to be ashamed of. A film planned and edited in such a way that music takes the leading role, depends heavily on music, because such is it's design, not because it's bad. Vistas and long shots of people emoting or people/objects moving are not a bad filmmaking decision. In such films music will have the greatest potential to influence the film's quality. It was a conscious decision of Lucas to create a filmed drama led by music, with the action just happening in a strange fantasy/western/war/space mash, where music is the element creating a binding coherence of everything presented, because of the way it flows, where other objects might be more sharply following one another. George Lucas said that John Williams is the secret sauce of Star Wars. Others say that it is music that is "The Force"; a solid case could be made for that. Had Lucas decided to make a stage opera instead and just film it, we would have Star Wars music + a couple of competent arias and choir pieces: and then I guess you would have no medium-specific philosophical expectations hurt, or whatever is that caused you to say that music elevating the film means a bad film. Why not just a good film, and greater music?


I agree the music is what embodies "the force", more than the action. If it was just the action of Skywalker lifting his Tie-fighter out of the swamp in silence to corny music, the effect would have been spoiled, it's the music that affirmed there is something there. When he was gunning through the Death Star, it was only the music that made Luke not using his tracker not seem like a reckless gamble, since the audience can hear it. With Superman, it's the music that reminds us the oaf Clark Kent is Superman. The rising horns and strings adds a lot to the expectation of something is going to happen like when Kent goes into the phone booth. You hear it before you see it.


----------



## ManateeFL

Fabulin said:


> No, I just meant elevating. I am sadly not a native speaker and such nuances still sometimes escape my attention (especially in long posts) As for creating an equivalent of the type of work that Williams did in his type of craft, in some other craft, it is more than hard, because the man is a genius. Lucas can't be blamed for it.
> 
> I sympathize with your other points. Early cinema is fascinating to me as well. I had a rare opportunity to watch Eisenstein's October in a university amateur cinema, with a 1966 re-score by Shostakovich. Very impressive! And yet in that case camerawork, visual tricks and historical fidelity of Eisenstein's picture reign supreme over the music as the greatest thing about the film.
> 
> When something is done greatly in a Gesamtkunstwerk, other elements might have hard time equalling it. Wagner's music is far greater than his librettos for example, and far greater than even the best of set decorations. Which doesn't mean they are not good; just that music in this particular case is much more significant in creating an effect.


You make some good points, but even if John Williams' music is the "best" thing about Star Wars -- a view I entirely disagree with, even if the music is incredibly important in giving weight to the dramatic action -- the musical score for a film is still not analogous to the musical score of an opera.

Listening to an opera on an audio recording while reading the libretto is the primary medium through which many opera fans engage with the artform. Can you imagine Star Wars fans and film buffs listening to a soundtrack of Star Wars with only the music and dialogue and getting anything out of that?


----------



## MatthewWeflen

ManateeFL said:


> You make some good points, but even if John Williams' music is the "best" thing about Star Wars -- a view I entirely disagree with, even if the music is incredibly important in giving weight to the dramatic action -- the musical score for a film is still not analogous to the musical score of an opera.
> 
> Listening to an opera on an audio recording while reading the libretto is the primary medium through which many opera fans engage with the artform. Can you imagine Star Wars fans and film buffs listening to a soundtrack of Star Wars with only the music and dialogue and getting anything out of that?











People do almost precisely that.


----------



## ManateeFL

MatthewWeflen said:


> View attachment 124740
> 
> 
> People do almost precisely that.


I don't think a Star Wars radio drama comes even close to approximating a Star Wars movie though. Can you even imagine Star Wars without any of the iconic images, scenes, characters, special effects, etc. associated with it?

Music is not just the best element of an opera, it is also the most important. It is the main driving force behind the dramatic action of an opera. Not so for a film.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

You said "Can you imagine Star Wars fans and film buffs listening to a soundtrack of Star Wars with only the music and dialogue and getting anything out of that?"

This is that.


----------



## ManateeFL

MatthewWeflen said:


> You said "Can you imagine Star Wars fans and film buffs listening to a soundtrack of Star Wars with only the music and dialogue and getting anything out of that?"
> 
> This is that.


:lol:

True, but only because they have the film as a reference. If there was no Star Wars film, only this radio drama, it would indeed be a different genre. And I'm not sure if it would be a very effective or satisfactory "radio drama" at that, since theres so much about the story telling in Star Wars that relies on visuals.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

ManateeFL said:


> :lol:
> 
> True, but only because they have the film as a reference. If there was no Star Wars film, only this radio drama, it would indeed be a different genre. And I'm not sure if it would be a very effective or satisfactory "radio drama" at that, since theres so much about the story telling in Star Wars that relies on visuals.


I have listened to it, and it is quite enjoyable even without the visuals of the film as a reference. I find that my imagination starts working again and supplies visuals.

Here's the thing - there is a vast plethora of opera music that doesn't "stand on its own." Probably 90%? Think of all the operas that people never listen to any more. They lived or died on their stage shows, and when those shows fell out of common performance, no one cared to listen to the music any more.

OTOH, there is a small selection of opera that inspires people to do just what you've said - to listen to the music abstracted from its visual presentation. Some of it is even abstracted from the dialogue (in the case of releases like "Der Ring Ohne Worter").

Williams' Star Wars music (and much of his other film music) is like that. You don't need to have seen Superman or Indiana Jones to appreciate how amazingly fun the music is.


----------



## Guest

MatthewWeflen said:


> People do almost precisely that.


I'm sure they do. I don't doubt that Williams scores have some value without reference to the visuals, and of course he and the studio stand to benefit from sales of the soundtracks (which are edited and shaped to make them accessible away from the movie.)

- but then it isn't cinema.



MatthewWeflen said:


> Williams' Star Wars music (and much of his other film music) is like that. You don't need to have seen Superman or Indiana Jones to appreciate how amazingly fun the music is.


Well I'm not sure about that, but I can't ever know, since I did see _Star Wars, Superman_ and _Raiders of the Lost Ark _on their original releases in the UK, and now can't 'unsee' the visuals.


----------



## ManateeFL

MatthewWeflen said:


> I have listened to it, and it is quite enjoyable even without the visuals of the film as a reference. I find that my imagination starts working again and supplies visuals.


Yeah...visuals from the movie, correct?



> Here's the thing - there is a vast plethora of opera music that doesn't "stand on its own." Probably 90%? Think of all the operas that people never listen to any more. They lived or died on their stage shows, and when those shows fell out of common performance, no one cared to listen to the music any more.


It's quite the opposite though. Operas live or die on pretty much the strength of the music alone. People want to stage operas for the musical experience, and if the music doesn't justify it, they don't want to stage it. Give me an example of one opera with poor music but engaging story that commands the stage.



> OTOH, there is a small selection of opera that inspires people to do just what you've said - to listen to the music abstracted from its visual presentation. Some of it is even abstracted from the dialogue (in the case of releases like "Der Ring Ohne Worter").


A small selection? Go to the opera forum, and see how much discussion revolves around audio recordings as opposed to live performances or even opera on DVD. Opera fans take in pretty much every opera in existence through an aural medium.



> Williams' Star Wars music (and much of his other film music) is like that. You don't need to have seen Superman or Indiana Jones to appreciate how amazingly fun the music is.


Yes it is fun, and effective for what it does. But Star Wars is not an opera and William's is not an opera composer.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

MacLeod said:


> Well I'm not sure about that, but I can't ever know, since I did see Star Wars, Superman and Indiana Jones on their original releases in the UK, and now can't 'unsee' the visuals.


My kids have not seen Indiana Jones (not till they're 10-12 I think), but they enjoy the music. Therefore, 100% of the sample size in question agrees with me


----------



## Ethereality

Enthusiast said:


> Who are you envisaging participating in the poll? If they are a representative sample of the general population then they will certainly select pop music. The chances of 1% of your sample knowing much about classical music are unlikely to be very great.


You can form a good list of top musicians using the formula:

# of times musician is voted for as favorite ÷ popularity of musician (like number of listens on a radio) = musician's score

You want to divide by popularity because that's the exact value of influence said music already has. Dividing by popularity makes all pop bias/influence even out fairly, and classical composers tend to get the highest scores. There's a simple math to this. As for the sample size, you can never poll everyone, but you can gather data of those who have opinions from all websites.

If a certain rare composer is barely favorited by people, but even _less known_ to anyone, their score will be fairly high. This means the composer is actually potentially great, because their like-to-popularity ratio is high. Thus, any favoriting they receive will be based solely on their average fan response, their low popularity won't effect anything.

Similarly, if a really common musician is favorited by a lot of people, but even more popular than that, their score will be fairly low. That is because they already make up a large sample of the result influence, thus any favoriting they receive will be based solely on their average fan response, not their high popularity.

This method comes up with excellent objective results, as it's based upon objective statistical math.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Yes, I get that. But my question concerned the people who participate in the poll you describe. They are a sample of a wider population. My question concerned who/what this wider population are. And then how does the sample (those who participate in the poll) reflect this wider population? So

- We need to be clear about which people the wider population is supposed to represent. Is it classical music fans or just music fans or ordinary people in Norway or any other grouping? 
- We need to be clear that our sample a _representative _of the wider group - that the proportion of Mozart fans, for example, in the sample mirrors the proportion of Mozart fans in the wider group.

I have not seen any polls that achieve this and therefore do not trust any polls. They can be fun, though.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

I think part of the difficulty in assessing film composers is assessing the nature of the composer's role in the medium they work in. The closest analog is opera, but we understand that opera is a full-on hybrid of music and drama in which the music plays as large a role in rendering that drama as the libretto does. In opera, music's role isn't just for reinforcing underlying emotions, though it certainly does that, but is in large part tasked with carrying the bulk of the emotions, themes, and even pointing us to certain subtleties we'd miss if just reading or watching a play. 

Film is different. Music isn't an innate part of the medium. Film, after all, existed before filmmakers COULD utilize sound or music with their work. If film (of the fictional variety, leaving out documentaries and art-house stuff) is a hybrid medium, it's that of drama and cinematography. The reason we tend to celebrate directors in film is because directors are largely responsible for determining how that drama is narrated with the camera and editing (and even acting, to an extent). This ultimately means that music has much less to do in film than it does in opera, and the vast majority of its use in film is to highlight underlying tonal and emotional elements rather than utilizing the full vocabulary of musical expression to deliver those tonal/emotional elements while creating a unified whole work. 

So given that music's role and use in film is both different and less than that of opera or other classical genres, how should we critique it? If we critique it as a soundtrack by what it adds to the film, then we're using very different standards than what we use for other classical genres including opera. If, however, we extract that soundtrack and critique it on its own, despite its similarities with classical it may not have the depth, complexity, unity, or even coherency of much classical because it wasn't designed as such; it was designed to compliment the film it was made for, and that complimenting typically doesn't demand many of the qualities that we look for in standalone classical works (and may even detract from the film if they possessed them). 

One way to look at the issue is that in opera, the libretto is often written to be fairly "flat" so that the music can have the ability to build a thee-dimensional world from that flat space. Song lyrics are similar in that it's typically better when they're general and malleable so that the musical choices made can dramatically color their meaning and implications. In film, the script, cinematography, editing, and acting build the vast majority of the three dimensional world. If you add to this music that's as rich as that in most opera, it's easy for it to clash because the music is doing too much on top of what's already there. So film music is typically more shade and color rather than whole structures, and it needs to be this way. 

So I guess I ultimately come down on the side of saying that film composing should just be considered its own genre and film composers judged on standards separate from that of classical composers, despite the fact there is often a lot of overlap between what each does. I think John Williams will do just fine being one of the elite composers in his field rather than being just another good one (or average one, depending on who you ask) in the classical field.


----------



## DavidA

When I hear that Williams is worth $100 million it brings to mind the (apocryphal?) story of Gershwin going to Stravinsky for some lessons. When Stravinsky enquired how much Gershwin made a year he remarked, "I need lessons off you!" John Williams writes some great music for the given genre. In doing so he has provided valuable employment to hundreds of musicians who play his music and enjoyment to millions who listen to it. People who despise him are usually failures who despise success.


----------



## mikeh375

Is he worthy of the canon.....yes of course he is.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Oh dear! That clip tells me the opposite. That is not classical music to me, I'm afraid.


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Oh dear! That clip tells me the opposite. That is not classical music to me, I'm afraid.


And what, then, is 'classical music'?


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Really? What do you want me to say that has not been said again and again in these threads? Why didn't I like that particular clip? I can tell you that. There was no invention in it, no telling detail. It was a pastiche but not a knowing one. Or if it was knowing then only cynically so. I have still the rest of a lifetime's listening to explore more of the models that he used - fine music - so why would I want to bother myself with an easily swallowed pastiche? To be honest, I find it ugly and offensive! The man was an amazingly effective composer of film music but on this showing he was not a composer of concertos. I can see why he did it - the demand is there in spades - but I wish that he hadn't. 

I say all this but if you would like to go back through this thread you will find that I have already been roundly castigated for my taste as it relates to Williams. But I'm not sure that I have been called a failure before, so thanks for that. So forgive me if I request that we can move on. I have given my view. I have explained it. I accept that many others who enjoy some classical music also enjoy this sort of thing - and I respect their right to do so. That they want to call it classical music jars with me a little just as my view that it isn't jars with them. It is balanced!


----------



## isorhythm

^It doesn't do much for me either, but I don't know what you'd call it if not classical music.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Umm. No, don't ask me for a name for it!


----------



## jdec

That William's Cello Concerto is definitely classical (of course in the sense o academic, not the period) music to me. It did not do it for me at first listen (years ago), but after some repeated listening from time to time I started to appreciate later on. For me it's a contemporary work worth to listen to. BTW, Williams wrote it at the suggestion of Seiji Ozawa.


----------



## mikeh375

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Oh dear! That clip tells me the opposite. That is not classical music to me, I'm afraid.


Wow, I'm shocked Enthusiast , that is a great concerto imv. and one firmly in the classical tradition. What was it a pastiche of btw?


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Sorry!

A pastiche of generic Romantic orchestral music IMO.


----------



## WildThing

mikeh375 said:


> Wow, I'm shocked Enthusiast , that is a great concerto imv. *and one firmly in the classical tradition.*


Which is the salient point. And that goes for his film music as well: very much rooted in the western art music music tradition. No matter how much one likes it.


----------



## JAS

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Film is different. Music isn't an innate part of the medium. Film, after all, existed before filmmakers COULD utilize sound or music with their work. If film (of the fictional variety, leaving out documentaries and art-house stuff) is a hybrid medium, it's that of drama and cinematography. The reason we tend to celebrate directors in film is because directors are largely responsible for determining how that drama is narrated with the camera and editing (and even acting, to an extent). This ultimately means that music has much less to do in film than it does in opera, and the vast majority of its use in film is to highlight underlying tonal and emotional elements rather than utilizing the full vocabulary of musical expression to deliver those tonal/emotional elements while creating a unified whole work.


This statement is quite mistaken. Scores were written for silent movies, although the need to support an orchestra to play the score generally meant that only the larger houses could afford the luxury. (Saint-Saens wrote a score for a film in 1908: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Assassination_of_the_Duke_of_Guise.) Smaller venues usually had to make do with a pianist or organist. (Edison experimented with attempts to play a recording in synchronization with a film.)

I am not planning on more than this very brief interruption in my self-imposed hiatus, but it is _very_ amusing to see that John Williams is not writing Classical Music, and John Cage and Brian Ferneyhough are, according to some. (And the thrashing that such convenient categorization creates is a hoot.)


----------



## Luchesi

JAS said:


> This statement is quite mistaken. Scores were written for silent movies, although the need to support an orchestra to play the score generally meant that only the larger houses could afford the luxury. (Saint-Saens wrote a score for a film in 1908: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Assassination_of_the_Duke_of_Guise.) Smaller venues usually had to make do with a pianist or organist. (Edison experimented with attempts to play a recording in synchronization with a film.)
> 
> I am not planning on more than this very brief interruption in my self-imposed hiatus, but it is _very_ amusing to see that John Williams is not writing Classical Music, and John Cage and Brian Ferneyhough are, according to some. (And the thrashing that such convenient categorization creates is a hoot.)


Cage and Ferneyhough advanced the art. That's what artists do.


----------



## Enthusiast

WildThing said:


> Which is the salient point. And that goes for his film music as well: very much rooted in the western art music music tradition. No matter how much one likes it.


I don't argue with it being "rooted" in the tradition. No doubt it is.


----------



## Red Terror

Not a worthy addition. He’s a film music composer and his work should be judged within the confines of that genre.

Who’s worthy? Christopher Rouse.


----------



## Fabulin

Luchesi said:


> Cage and Ferneyhough advanced the art. That's what artists do.


Artists _create art_. That's the end of their functional definition.

Besides, Cage didn't "advance" anything. His music is just a mutation.


----------



## Red Terror

DavidA said:


> When I hear that Williams is worth $100 million it brings to mind the (apocryphal?) story of Gershwin going to Stravinsky for some lessons. When Stravinsky enquired how much Gershwin made a year he remarked, "I need lessons off you!" John Williams writes some great music for the given genre. In doing so he has provided valuable employment to hundreds of musicians who play his music and enjoyment to millions who listen to it. People who despise him are usually failures who despise success.


"Despise" is a rather strong word. It's more likely that certain people just don't care for his music unless it is used within the context of film.


----------



## Luchesi

Fabulin said:


> Artists _create art_. That's the end of their functional definition.
> 
> Besides, Cage didn't "advance" anything. His music is just a mutation.


That's an interesting counter. Children create art too. Cage didn't do much that I 'like', and he knew all about that in those inoffensive times.


----------



## Fabulin

Luchesi said:


> That's an interesting counter. Children create art too. Cage didn't do much that I 'like', and he knew all about that in those inoffensive times.


Children can be artists also.


----------



## Red Terror

Fabulin said:


> Children can be artists also.


Yeah, but they smell bad and lack a conscience ... just as most adults.


----------



## Guest

Fabulin said:


> No, I just meant elevating. I am sadly not a native speaker and such nuances still sometimes escape my attention (especially in long posts) As for creating an equivalent of the type of work that Williams did in his type of craft, in some other craft, it is more than hard, because the man is a genius. Lucas can't be blamed for it.
> 
> I sympathize with your other points. Early cinema is fascinating to me as well. I had a rare opportunity to watch Eisenstein's October in a university amateur cinema, with a 1966 re-score by Shostakovich. Very impressive! And yet in that case camerawork, visual tricks and historical fidelity of Eisenstein's picture reign supreme over the music as the greatest thing about the film.
> 
> When something is done greatly in a Gesamtkunstwerk, other elements might have hard time equalling it. Wagner's music is far greater than his librettos for example, and far greater than even the best of set decorations. Which doesn't mean they are not good; just that music in this particular case is much more significant in creating an effect.


Having just watched several short clips on Youtube, what I'm struck by is not the "decline" of the film composer/film score, but the changes over time in the subject matter and mood of movies that have begun to demand a different approach.

Here's a "Top Ten Scores" short where Korngold comes top with his score for _The Sea Hawk_, but there are examples from most decades of great scores for great films (not just in the selected ten, but also those that get honourable mentions.






And then there's a Top Ten Cinematographers, so you can think about one of the other most important contributors to the Gesamtkunstwerk.






Of course, these are just another set of opinions...


----------



## DavidA

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Film is different. Music isn't an innate part of the medium. Film, after all, existed before filmmakers COULD utilize sound or music with their work. If film (of the fictional variety, leaving out documentaries and art-house stuff) is a hybrid medium, it's that of drama and cinematography. The reason we tend to celebrate directors in film is because directors are largely responsible for determining how that drama is narrated with the camera and editing (and even acting, to an extent). This ultimately means that music has much less to do in film than it does in opera, and the vast majority of its use in film is to highlight underlying tonal and emotional elements rather than utilizing the full vocabulary of musical expression to deliver those tonal/emotional elements while creating a unified whole work.
> 
> .


I agree that this is completely mistaken. The music is often an integral part of the movie. Just watch Psycho. The music by Hermann actually makes the movie. I think Howard Goodall says it better than I can.






And where on earth would Jaws have been without Williams' score?


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> I agree that this is completely mistaken. The music is often an integral part of the movie. Just watch Psycho. The music by Hermann actually makes the movie. I think Howard Goodall says it better than I can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where on earth would Jaws have been without Williams' score?


Somewhere else. Unless Hitchcock and Spielberg were to have released them as silent movies, they would have had a score, and to imagine whether they would have been better or worse is fruitless.

All it shows is that Hitchcock and Spielberg knew their onions and that the combination of music and images was highly effective.

The score does not make the movie.


----------



## Ethereality

It seems, those who take the comparative approach will critique Williams for not being original, while those who take a personal approach listening without bias might really enjoy his music and orchestration as achieving a kind of thematic program perfection, sounding better than his direct influences, having substance and a special emotionality to it that is much more weightless and intangible. Individuals, if they choose, can step back from the notion that more obvious areas within a work need to evolve, as Williams evolved his music in many subtler ways like Mozart did with classical. No one was saying Mozart's greatness was about threading together a new era and interpretation, he moreso was about writing epic classical music and amazing melodies of which the foundation was already there. Williams in the same fashion wrote the most catchy themes for film in the past century, sometimes with great style developing out lesser composers' themes. Being a composer is also altogether not necessarily about originality. In Stravinsky's famous words about great composers stealing, valid composition can be about combining different ideas to give great reformation to a school of thought. Williams didn't attempt to stab at Korngold or his contemporaries--instead he took lots of influences of contemporary film and revisited older composer philosophies, like Mahler did with Wagner. It seems there are different interpretations to what people desire from new composers, originality or improving on what's there? Being a good composer can simply be about writing good music hands down, in a new combination. Williams made some upgrades in the quality of his musical approach and orchestration from his direct contemporary influences, so if a composer's quality is about simply great-sounding music, he might fit that bill.


----------



## Enthusiast

Ethereality said:


> It seems, those who take the comparative approach will critique Williams for not being original, while those who take a personal approach _*listening without bias *_might really enjoy his music and orchestration as achieving a kind of thematic program perfection, _*sounding better than his direct influences*_, having substance and a special emotionality to it that is much more weightless and intangible. Individuals, if they choose, can step back from the notion that more obvious areas within a work need to evolve, as _*Williams evolved his music in many subtler ways *_like Mozart did with classical.


Concerning the parts I have highlighted ...

What is this bias you refer to? Is it the bias of not liking his concert music?

Yes, if you really do feel his music is better than his (19th Century) models then it must seem he has achieved something to you. But are you serious?

It is the lack of subtlety and telling detail, detail that enriches the music from being just one big blaah to being something exciting and so apparently full of meaning, that puts me off. But you are finding it there?


----------



## Guest

^^^ "Put off" to the extent that you don't count it as classical music? That's a bit fierce!


----------



## Fabulin

Enthusiast said:


> It is the lack of subtlety and telling detail, detail that enriches the music from being just one big blaah to being something exciting and so apparently full of meaning, that puts me off. But you are finding it there?


I can't believe you sincerly said this about the music of John Williams. Lack of subtlety? Lack of telling detail? Lack of meaning? Have you actually listened to complete scores by this man, or did you just listen to the opening fanfares?


----------



## Guest

^^^ And heaven knows he's good for a fanfare if nowt else!:lol:


----------



## Enthusiast

Fabulin said:


> I can't believe you sincerly said this about the music of John Williams. Lack of subtlety? Lack of telling detail? Lack of meaning? Have you actually listened to complete scores by this man, or just to the opening fanfares?


Yes, I've listened. How else could I post about it? Sorry but I'm not impressed at all. He should stick to what he is good at, IMO. But tell me: where does he stand for you compared to the acknowledged greats of the 19th Century (presumably his models)? I won't ask where he stands compared to contemporaries because I think I know your answer to that one.


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> Yes, I've listened. How else could I post about it? Sorry but I'm not impressed at all. He should stick to what he is good at, IMO. But tell me: where does he stand for you compared to the acknowledged greats of the 19th Century (presumably his models)? I won't ask where he stands compared to contemporaries because I think I know your answer to that one.


Frankly Williams' cello concerto may not be a great work but it's vastly preferable to listen to to some of the awful discordant music I hear written today and whose only merit is to encourage me to pursue my learning by turning the radio off and reading a book instead.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Yes, that is a robust and honest position. Of course, I am sure you acknowledge that tastes vary and that many people (lets not count them!) like that "awful discordant music" a lot. I, for example, do. But if I didn't I think I would stick to the music of earlier periods.


----------



## mikeh375

Enthusiast said:


> Concerning the parts I have highlighted ...
> 
> .............It is the lack of subtlety and telling detail, detail that enriches the music from being just one big blaah to being something exciting and so apparently full of meaning, that puts me off...........


Ah how we all differ. I met many pros who played on his soundtracks and they would often say that it is the subtlety and the detail that sets JW apart (as well as his wonderful studio manner and consideration for the players, especially the brass). I also agree with them, having studied his scores and got to know his concert work quite well. His orchestration is first rate, as is his virtuosic compositional facility. Of course folk will like him or not, but irrespective of opinion, the man has something to say and he says it with terrific skill and aplomb.


----------



## Fabulin

Enthusiast said:


> Yes, I've listened. How else could I post about it? Sorry but I'm not impressed at all. He should stick to what he is good at, IMO. But tell me: where does he stand for you compared to the acknowledged greats of the 19th Century (presumably his models)? I won't ask where he stands compared to contemporaries because I think I know your answer to that one.


Between Tchaikovsky and Wagner


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Yes, that is a robust and honest position. Of course, I am sure you acknowledge that tastes vary and that many people (lets not count them!) like that "awful discordant music" a lot. I, for example, do. But if I didn't I think I would stick to the music of earlier periods.


'Many peopke'? To be honest, I haven't come across them myself


----------



## mikeh375

DavidA said:


> 'Many peopke'? To be honest, I haven't come across them myself


Well here's one David...


----------



## DavidA

mikeh375 said:


> Well here's one David...


One of many?


----------



## Enthusiast

DavidA said:


> 'Many peopke'? To be honest, I haven't come across them myself


There are a good few on this site. And many more who came and went.


----------



## Luchesi

mikeh375 said:


> Ah how we all differ. I met many pros who played on his soundtracks and they would often say that it is the subtlety and the detail that sets JW apart (as well as his wonderful studio manner and consideration for the players, especially the brass). I also agree with them, having studied his scores and got to know his concert work quite well. His orchestration is first rate, as is his virtuosic compositional facility. Of course folk will like him or not, but irrespective of opinion, the man has something to say and he says it with terrific skill and aplomb.


"..the man has something to say and he says it..."

What? Tell us.


----------



## Azol

"Ottorino Respighi: providing musical ideas for movies for over 90 years!"
Star Wars cycle is surely indebted, as well as Hitchhiker's Guide to Galaxy (OST composed not by Williams, but vogons destroying Earth episode was lifted directly from this piece).


----------



## Larkenfield

What a versatile first-rate composer, and not everything he's written is tethered to a film score. Some of it firmly falls within the classical genre as standalone works, such as his excellent bassoon concerto, but some of this critics are probably not aware of this or other examples:






So where's the line drawn now? Look at Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. It was originally tethered to the visuals and story of a ballet. Look at opera suites, such as the one for Carmen, though I think it's also true that some film scores stand better on their own than others and can still be listened to with just as much enjoyment as works that were written just for the concert hall. John Williams has written for both and I believe he blurs the line between the genres as one of the most prolific first-rate composers in any genre. The quality of his music will be judged in the concert halls and it's already there as something welcomed and he's not in competition with Beethoven or any of the other major composers. He's writing for today and it looks like there's room for him to fill a void or he wouldn't be welcomed or played outside the film studios.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> 'Many peopke'? To be honest, I haven't come across them myself


Well if we knew what awful discordant music you are referring to, we might be able to hazard a guess at how many people like it, including ourselves.


----------



## chu42

MatthewWeflen said:


> This is the part I am having diffuculty with, I think. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, isn't it a duck? A lesser duck if you like, but still a duck?
> 
> How does one make music that sounds like jazz, but isn't jazz? Or paint a painting that looks like cubism, but isn't cubism?


Quite simple really. There's intent and format also involved.

Take, for example, Kapustin's Second Sonata:






Kinda sounds like jazz, doesn't it? But no, it's in classic sonata format, which goes against the core of jazz being free flowing and improvisatory in nature. This is why composers like Gershwin and Kapustin are considered to be classical composers and not jazz composers.

In the same vein, John William's film music isn't classical music because the intent is to supplement a film whereas classical music is written for the purpose of the music alone (in opera, the libretto supplements the music and not the other way around).

John William's film music certainly has classical music but it's only his standalone music that I consider classical. No, I don't consider Prokofiev's film music to be classical either.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Well if we knew what awful discordant music you are referring to, we might be able to hazard a guess at how many people like it, including ourselves.


Various composers whose names I quickly forget.


----------



## Fabulin

Larkenfield said:


> What a versatile first-rate composer, and not everything he's written is tethered to a film score. Some of it firmly falls within the classical genre as standalone works, such as his excellent bassoon concerto, but some of this critics are probably not aware of this or other examples:


An excellent concerto it is. What might interest you is that it was composed on a commission in 1995, and that Williams chose the topic based on the celtic poetry he was reading at the time. In 1998 George Lucas gave Williams a vague direction that he wanted something quasi-religious for the finale of The Phantom Menace, so Williams asked a friend of his to translate one of his favourite Celtic poems into Sanskrit and that's how:




was conceived.

Notice the bassoon solo in 0:24! Williams blurres the lines ineed.

Edit: This was at first a pure conjecture on my part, but he actually tells about in in an interview (4:12):




"A fight most dread. And another rages behind, in the head". The closer to the end of the video it gets, the more apparent it is, that Williams thought about the scene much more than what was visualized in it. With Williams it is quite often the case, that music not only accompanies the film well, but is best described as "inspired by the film". And classical music can be inspired by anything, can't it?

By the way I would like to adress a technical argument, that music written for film is butchered and not published as a complete whole, but instead edited to fit the film, and that is why it entirely subordinate to the film and cannot be considered classical:

Within the film music afficionado community, the holy grail is always the vision of the composer, i.e. music _as recorded_, not as edited to fit the film. People are more interested what the composer had to say than the director or editor. Specialty labels publish expanded or even complete recordings of the music, which are the reference in most discussions. OSTs are for muggles.


----------



## Luchesi

Fabulin said:


> An excellent concerto it is. What might interest you is that it was composed on a commission in 1995, and that Williams chose the topic based on the celtic poetry he was reading at the time. In 1998 George Lucas gave Williams a vague direction that he wanted something quasi-religious for the finale of The Phantom Menace, so Williams asked a friend of his to translate one of his favourite Celtic poems into Sanskrit and that's how:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> was conceived.
> 
> Notice the bassoon solo in 0:24! Williams blurres the lines ineed.
> 
> Edit: This was at first a pure conjecture on my part, but he actually tells about in in an interview (4:12):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "A fight most dread. And another rages behind, in the head". The closer to the end of the video it gets, the more apparent it is, that Williams thought about the scene much more than what was visualized in it. With Williams it is quite often the case, that music not only accompanies the film well, but is best described as "inspired by the film". And classical music can be inspired by anything, can't it?
> 
> By the way I would like to adress a technical argument, that music written for film is butchered and not published as a complete whole, but instead edited to fit the film, and that is why it entirely subordinate to the film and cannot be considered classical:
> 
> Within the film music afficionado community, the holy grail is always the vision of the composer, i.e. music _as recorded_, not as edited to fit the film. People are more interested what the composer had to say than the director or editor. Specialty labels publish expanded or even complete recordings of the music, which are the reference in most discussions. OSTs are for muggles.


Williams (87 years old) writes clever music. As a composer where does he fit in the timeline of classical music categories?

Does he ever say he writes classical music? That would make headlines..


----------



## Fabulin

Luchesi said:


> Williams (87 years old) writes clever music. As a composer where does he fit in the timeline of classical music categories?
> 
> Does he ever say he writes classical music? That would make headlines..


Modernist neo-romantic? 1960s-2020s?

His favourite story, which he cutely retells to every audience that has not heard it yet, goes like this:
After watching Schindler's List for the first time, he was supposed to meet Spielberg and discuss the film. But the film left him deeply moved and speechless, so had to take a walk for a while.
When he returned, he said: "Steven, you need a better composer for this".
And Spielberg replied: "I know. But they are all dead".


Go figure. Williams is an extremely modest, obsessively self-critical man, perhaps even more so than the already tortured Tchaikovsky was, so when he says things like "(A god of film music)---maybe, but the real masters are truly others", or that he "didn't think that what he composed was particularily memorable" he just expresses his respect for others, and one shouldn't read too much into it. He knows his worth, because he is a perfectionist with an orchestra, who will only work with no-one less than world-class professionals.

He never called film music classical on record because too many fools would attack him and he is too savvy too make enemies. I doubt he has the type of "primary artistic motivation" mumbo-jumbo objections, but whatever he really thinks of this, he doesn't tell.

Bernard Herrmann sure did consider film music classical, and spoke of "a new medium, that every gifted composer of our time should work in" and compared it to church cantatas of Bach and dinner music of Mozart's and Haydn's times. He hated the term "composer of film music" and prefered "A composer composing for film". Herrmann viewed music in films to be a field for experimentation with the most avant-garde techniques no worse than concert music, provided that the music written is compatible with the dramatic situation of the film. He would _surely _argue with people if he was alive today. Korngold, who faced double standards and former enthusiasts turned misguidedly snobby when he moved from opera to film, would argue loudly as well. That film music is not considered classical would never occur to the man, because on what grounds could such accusation even be made? Korngold composed for an entire orchestra for opera one month, and for the same orchestra configuration the next month, when he was working on music for a film. He used the same set of skills, the same tools, and the same brain, aimed at producing the same type of art. It took others to come and tell him that suddenly he is not a classical composer anymore, and strip him of imaginary badge they had in their heads.

Andre Previn told Williams once that he was wasting his talents and should write "real music". Williams didn't reply to Previn in that conversation, but he did mention the incident in an interview years later, with clear disgust. If Previn said something like this to Herrmann, who hated his guts already, a fistfight would probably ensue.

Dimitri Tiomkin was another composer who suffered from the superficial divide. He was a prime pianist who premiered various works classical works, and his sense of melody and orchestrational abilities were quite broad as well. He said once that if he could have afforded specializing in concert works, he would be equally esteemed to Rachmaninoff. But because he composed for film, he was treated like trash in the classical circles.


----------



## Alfacharger

Luchesi said:


> Does he ever say he writes classical music? That would make headlines..


He does not need to say it, he just does....


----------



## Larkenfield

Are all film scores adapted to the movie, or is it sometimes the other way around? Ennio Morricone, for example, and others: https://www.classicalmpr.org/story/2014/11/05/film-score-picture


----------



## Fabulin

Larkenfield said:


> Are all film scores adapted to the movie, or is it sometimes the other way around? Ennio Morricone, for example, and others: https://www.classicalmpr.org/story/2014/11/05/film-score-picture


Shostakovich had the film _Cheryomushki _written and produced because he wanted to have a musical based on his operetta music. He composed additional music for said film. It was a succesful export to the west.

Howard Shore composed many themes for _The Lord of the Rings _before the filming even started. Even during the shooting, he took inspiration mostly from the script and from Tolkien's writings. That's where the entire approach and colour palette were created. Of course he then decided on particular pieces for use in various scenes, but they had a lot planned in advance.

Steven Spielberg told Williams during _E.T._ to just record the final sequence the most perfect way he envisioned (tempos, etc.) and focus on emotion, and edited the film afterwards to fit the music.

When _Amadeus _was planned, music was decided about in advance.


----------



## Larkenfield

Where does one draw the line in the genres? Must everything be assigned a label to dispel uncertainty? I think not. Beauty and excellence can sometimes be found in unexpected places.






Yo-yo Ma plays his heart out. This is tremendous and its roots are in the cinema. They touch the emotions as standalone works.


----------



## Ethereality

Azol said:


> "Ottorino Respighi: providing musical ideas for movies for over 90 years!"
> Star Wars cycle is surely indebted, as well as Hitchhiker's Guide to Galaxy (OST composed not by Williams, but vogons destroying Earth episode was lifted directly from this piece).


I think the point with Williams appeal is to take similar genres of music and see which one sounds better: the old influence, or the new film music? So his appeal has little to do with originality, but the way he takes from the best ideas, melodies and ornamentations and combines them into a kind of program music perfection.

One example is Star Wars. People will often say "look here, he stole this theme to write Star Wars." While it's true, more people come along with dozens of other influences and say "look he stole this too" and they're referring to the same exact track of Williams. There's no copyright claim to prevent him pulling off this kind of "expansive showcasing of great ideas." He basically takes all kinds of great moments in music and expounds upon them in a way people really enjoy, and gives things a catchy theme. Fortunately there's not much to dislike, and little to prevent people from _not_ making him a favorite. But would they really love the 'original' as much? I have doubts.

It's not always overly detailed and progressive, as *@Enthusiast* mentioned above, but people enjoy the music because they wouldn't find most "imaginative contemporary" as so catchy, diverse in its influences, and always cutting right to the meat: Williams picks great melodies, catchy variations, and always moving, shifting ornamentation. There's reasons why the above piece would never become likeable to most people (a) it has less catchy melodies and (b) it has less borrowing from many sources. Whether his borrowing is unique to art in general is an obvious no, but to fans of "big imaginative music," it has been unique, and they enjoy the diversity and catchy theme-building.



Enthusiast said:


> Yes, if you really do feel his music is better than his (19th Century) models then it must seem he has achieved something to you. But are you serious?


Well I don't say all his 19th century models, I just said his direct contemporary influences and film composers after him. It is a unique genre and I have a unique taste in music, perhaps my favorite composer is Alexander Borodin. Now what would you consider a 10/10 piece? Is it as good as Polovtsian Dances?


----------



## Alfacharger

Larkenfield said:


> Are all film scores adapted to the movie, or is it sometimes the other way around? Ennio Morricone, for example, and others: https://www.classicalmpr.org/story/2014/11/05/film-score-picture


One recent score that was composed before shooting was Michael Giacchino's for the 2015 film Jupiter Ascending. To quote Michael...

"Giacchino stated: "We're actually recording all the music first, before they're even done shooting. It's been done sort of backwards, and it's much more freeing doing it that way. I'm not locked down to any specific timings and what the film is doing. I can do whatever I want. It opens up a lot more possibilities."

My favorite track..






Giacchino also scored a Star Wars film, Rogue One, A Star Wars Story.


----------



## Guest

Alfacharger said:


> "Giacchino stated: "We're actually recording all the music first, before they're even done shooting. It's been done sort of backwards, and it's much more freeing doing it that way. I'm not locked down to any specific timings and what the film is doing. I can do whatever I want. It opens up a lot more possibilities."


A somewhat misleading statement. He might have felt freed, but the editors will still have had to cut his music to fit the scenes.



Fabulin said:


> By the way I would like to adress a technical argument, that music written for film is butchered and not published as a complete whole, but instead edited to fit the film, and that is why it entirely subordinate to the film and cannot be considered classical:
> 
> Within the film music afficionado community, the holy grail is always the vision of the composer, i.e. music _as recorded_, not as edited to fit the film. People are more interested what the composer had to say than the director or editor. Specialty labels publish expanded or even complete recordings of the music, which are the reference in most discussions. *OSTs are for muggles*.


There's nothing wrong in being an aficionado of film music, nor in making the case for its being "classical music" (assuming, of course, that it isn't a jazz soundtrack!). It's also fair to recognise that music written and cut for cinema can be reformulated into suites for consumption in the concert hall for standalone pieces. The purists should stop being sniffy about it.

There is an irony in the subsequent claims that film music must be considered the equal - even the inheritor - of the classical concert tradition. Well, the claim is certainly supported by similarities in the championing of this composer over that, the disparaging of anything that doesn't have a traditional melody, the insisting that film music is now in decline because of the increase in "modern" methods and technologies, and the smug superiority towards those not in the know.


----------



## mikeh375

Luchesi said:


> "..the man has something to say and he says it..."
> 
> *What? Tell us*.


It's surely not possible to answer that Luchesi. As evidenced by the concert music he's written, one can safely assume he has something to say, otherwise these works would not exist right? He is specific about his intentions with some pieces and as a listener one goes along with his premise and gets it or not. Either way, the man has mastered his craft and is writing works he feels he needs to and to the best of his abilities - which I might add are considerable.

He has something to say and presents it to us with impeccable technique and style.


----------



## mikeh375

Fabulin said:


> Modernist neo-romantic? 1960s-2020s?
> 
> His favourite story, which he cutely retells to every audience that has not heard it yet, goes like this:
> After watching Schindler's List for the first time, he was supposed to meet Spielberg and discuss the film. But the film left him deeply moved and speechless, so had to take a walk for a while.
> When he returned, he said: "Steven, you need a better composer for this".
> And Spielberg replied: "I know. But they are all dead".
> 
> 
> Go figure. Williams is an extremely modest, obsessively self-critical man, perhaps even more so than the already tortured Tchaikovsky was, so when he says things like "(A god of film music)---maybe, but the real masters are truly others", or that he "didn't think that what he composed was particularily memorable" he just expresses his respect for others, and one shouldn't read too much into it. He knows his worth, because he is a perfectionist with an orchestra, who will only work with no-one less than world-class professionals.
> 
> He never called film music classical on record because too many fools would attack him and he is too savvy too make enemies. I doubt he has the type of "primary artistic motivation" mumbo-jumbo objections, but whatever he really thinks of this, he doesn't tell.
> 
> Bernard Herrmann sure did consider film music classical, and spoke of "a new medium, that every gifted composer of our time should work in" and compared it to church cantatas of Bach and dinner music of Mozart's and Haydn's times. He hated the term "composer of film music" and prefered "A composer composing for film". Herrmann viewed music in films to be a field for experimentation with the most avant-garde techniques no worse than concert music, provided that the music written is compatible with the dramatic situation of the film. He would _surely _argue with people if he was alive today. Korngold, who faced double standards and former enthusiasts turned misguidedly snobby when he moved from opera to film, would argue loudly as well. That film music is not considered classical would never occur to the man, because on what grounds could such accusation even be made? Korngold composed for an entire orchestra for opera one month, and for the same orchestra configuration the next month, when he was working on music for a film. He used the same set of skills, the same tools, and the same brain, aimed at producing the same type of art. It took others to come and tell him that suddenly he is not a classical composer anymore, and strip him of imaginary badge they had in their heads.
> 
> Andre Previn told Williams once that he was wasting his talents and should write "real music". Williams didn't reply to Previn in that conversation, but he did mention the incident in an interview years later, with clear disgust. If Previn said something like this to Herrmann, who hated his guts already, a fistfight would probably ensue.
> 
> Dimitri Tiomkin was another composer who suffered from the superficial divide. He was a prime pianist who premiered various works classical works, and his sense of melody and orchestrational abilities were quite broad as well. He said once that if he could have afforded specializing in concert works, he would be equally esteemed to Rachmaninoff. But because he composed for film, he was treated like trash in the classical circles.




Great post Fabulin, covering all the salient points. I was working at Abbey Road Studios once when he was recording some early Harry Potter. After my session was finished I hung around in the bar waiting to see if he'd come in. Alas he didn't and I just got a bit drunk instead...ah well...I have sat in the very chair everyone sits on in Studio 1 a few times though....


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

JAS said:


> This statement is quite mistaken. Scores were written for silent movies, although the need to support an orchestra to play the score generally meant that only the larger houses could afford the luxury. (Saint-Saens wrote a score for a film in 1908: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Assassination_of_the_Duke_of_Guise.) Smaller venues usually had to make do with a pianist or organist. (Edison experimented with attempts to play a recording in synchronization with a film.)
> 
> I am not planning on more than this very brief interruption in my self-imposed hiatus, but it is _very_ amusing to see that John Williams is not writing Classical Music, and John Cage and Brian Ferneyhough are, according to some. (And the thrashing that such convenient categorization creates is a hoot.)


The kind of music scoring that existed during most of the silent era is totally different from the kind of scoring that came to be in the sound era, so it's really not mistaken at all. You mention some of the differences, but plenty of silent films simply didn't have scores, and much early scoring was done to drown out the noise of the projector as opposed to having any artistic purposes. Not to mention that few silent filmmakers would've actually collaborated with any composers the way Williams does with Spielberg. It's really apples and oranges.

Anyway, I'm not opposed to saying John Williams is writing classical music, but more inclined to say he's writing "classical music film scores." It's its own genre, similar to but still distinct from other classical music. The likes of Cage and Fernehough are, at least, trying to advance the art-form, whatever one thinks of their efforts. They aren't offering blatant pastiches made to support a different medium. I'm not saying this makes them better or worse but, again, it's apples and oranges.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DavidA said:


> I agree that this is completely mistaken. The music is often an integral part of the movie. Just watch Psycho. The music by Hermann actually makes the movie. I think Howard Goodall says it better than I can.
> 
> And where on earth would Jaws have been without Williams' score?


You're not actually contradicting what I said. I didn't say anything about film scores not "often being an integral part of movies" as, indeed, I feel they are in the best cases. I've seen Psycho many times (I'm something of a Hitchcock fanatic), and Hermann's score certainly adds a great deal to it; but it is not carrying the entire film. Removing the score from Psycho is not as ruinous as it would be to remove the music from Le Nozze di Figaro. Indeed, Hitchcock was originally going to have the shower scene without any music until Hermann convinced him it was better with it. I've watched that scene without the score before and it still works, very effectively. Hitch's framing and editing and doing 90% of the work; the music is just the cherry on top (or maybe the extra drop of blood down the drain, in this case). The main point is that film CAN get a long without music. Can music play an integral part in some films? Yes, but unlike with opera it is not integral to all of them, and even in cases where it is integral it is not doing the vast majority of the leg-work. There are even masterpiece films out there without scores at all, like Dreyer's Passion of Joan of Arc.


----------



## mikeh375

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Anyway, *I'm not opposed to saying John Williams is writing classical music, but more inclined to say he's writing "classical music film scores." *It's its own genre, similar to but still distinct from other classical music. The likes of Cage and Fernehough are, at least, trying to advance the art-form, whatever one thinks of their efforts. They aren't offering blatant pastiches made to support a different medium. I'm not saying this makes them better or worse but, again, it's apples and oranges.


I'm not sure I'd agree with that Eva. The cello concerto for example is finely wrought, the lines and rhetoric are expansive, the expression and language are far beyond the confines of film score. Have you listened to his violin concerto for example? In this work one discerns his willingness to explore atonal fields with enviable fluency. This is nowhere near the approach one takes to film scoring, the music below has no need of film and is free to explore its own inner logic without restriction, be that audio wise or technically so. Yes, atonality is used in film, but it is never developed for its own sake and only used for effect, i.e subservient and mostly a digetic utility.

If you've got literally 2 mins you'll hear straight away that this is a serious work with serious intent, delivered with serious rigour.


----------



## DavidA

Eva Yojimbo said:


> You're not actually contradicting what I said. I didn't say anything about film scores not "often being an integral part of movies" as, indeed, I feel they are in the best cases. I've seen Psycho many times (I'm something of a Hitchcock fanatic), and Hermann's score certainly adds a great deal to it; but it is not carrying the entire film. Removing the score from Psycho is not as ruinous as it would be to remove the music from Le Nozze di Figaro. Indeed, Hitchcock was originally going to have the shower scene without any music until Hermann convinced him it was better with it. I've watched that scene without the score before and it still works, very effectively. Hitch's framing and editing and doing 90% of the work; the music is just the cherry on top (or maybe the extra drop of blood down the drain, in this case). The main point is that film CAN get a long without music. Can music play an integral part in some films? Yes, but unlike with opera it is not integral to all of them, and even in cases where it is integral it is not doing the vast majority of the leg-work. There are even masterpiece films out there without scores at all, like Dreyer's Passion of Joan of Arc.


If you are a Hitchcock fanatic you should realise the power that Hermann's music adds to the movie. The music is integral to it as Goodall shows. They music is far more than just the cherry on the top. Certainly music plays a huge part in many movies. If it didn't no-one would have employed a pianist to improvise along with the silent movie.


----------



## Fabulin

mikeh375 said:


> I'm not sure I'd agree with that Eva. The cello concerto for example is finely wrought, the lines and rhetoric are expansive, the expression and language are far beyond the confines of film score. Have you listened to his violin concerto for example? In this work one discerns his willingness to explore atonal fields with enviable fluency. This is nowhere near the approach one takes to film scoring because music below is has no need of film and is free to explore its own inner logic. Yes, atonality is used in film, but it is never developed for its own sake and only used for effect, i.e subservient and digetic.
> 
> If you've got literally 2 mins you'll hear straight away that this is a serious work with serious intent, delivered with serious rigour.


I don't suppose many take jabs at his concert works anymore in this thread. I feel that he has been established as an (at least) "minor contemporary classical composer of concertos" in this thread so far. The discussion shifted into film scores, and the classification of music therein.

Atonality is used a lot in _The Close Encounters_. Moreover, Williams always uses a certain level of dissonance, from which he can fluently move to _more _or _less _tonal music. As some learned observers remarked, he is great at always slightly masking dissonant chords it with his orchestration choices. A colleague of mine even said that his orchestral music, whenever a piano reduction is made, often sounds surprisingly atonal/jarring compared to full music.

When within confines of tonal music, Williams is a rapid key-shifter. Even a simple motif like Yoda's theme has 7 shifts within the first 7 bars. That's why it is not easy to compose melodies like his. He even remarked in an interview, that this is the hardest work in composing music---for anyone. Williams does not distinguish here between "types of music". He just means music. And this "anyone" surely includes: "Beethoven(, who) would have hated Hollywood" and "Wagner, who would have his own studio with a big W on the building"---the composers which Williams mentioned in an acceptance speech for some reward, and with the same distance as he would Franz Waxman, Miklós Rózsa, or Alex North.


----------



## mikeh375

^^..indeed and his so called short scores are often as much as 12 staves worth with annotations that basically turn an orchestrator into a copyist...(when he needs one of course for his film work).


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DavidA said:


> If you are a Hitchcock fanatic you should realise the power that Hermann's music adds to the movie. The music is integral to it as Goodall shows.


Ignoring what I say and repeating what you previously said is not conducive to productive discussion.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

mikeh375 said:


> I'm not sure I'd agree with that Eva. The cello concerto for example is finely wrought, the lines and rhetoric are expansive, the expression and language are far beyond the confines of film score. Have you listened to his violin concerto for example? In this work one discerns his willingness to explore atonal fields with enviable fluency. This is nowhere near the approach one takes to film scoring, the music below has no need of film and is free to explore its own inner logic without restriction, be that audio wise or technically so. Yes, atonality is used in film, but it is never developed for its own sake and only used for effect, i.e subservient and digetic.
> 
> If you've got literally 2 mins you'll hear straight away that this is a serious work with serious intent, delivered with serious rigour.


I haven't heard any of John Williams's music outside his film scores, so I was commenting on his reputation/place solely regarding them. I'll try to give a listen to the piece you posted (and perhaps some others asap), but I'd be skeptical if, purely based on them, many would be considering him for a place in any canon, and my skepticism is just based on the state of contemporary classical music in general.


----------



## DavidA

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Ignoring what I say and repeating what you previously said is not conducive to productive discussion.


Well kindly take note of what you say and apply it to yourself!


----------



## Enthusiast

There were serious and genuinely classical composers who wrote excellent film music. People like Prokofiev and Walton come to mind. But the music they wrote for films was genuinely contemporary and fresh. Some of it even stands up well as concert music.


----------



## Fabulin

Enthusiast said:


> There were serious and genuinely classical composers who wrote excellent film music. People like Prokofiev and Walton come to mind. *But *the music they wrote for films was genuinely contemporary and fresh. Some of it even stands up well as concert music.


*Unlike *Williams' music?


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I would say so, yes. But if you think he equals them in this then that's fine.


----------



## Ethereality

I do think this quote is largely true, but whether you agree depends on how invested you are into the style of this specific genre.

_"This is the very philosophy that music doesn't need to be composed with notes (as though previous notes discovered by people) but that music can now be composed using a palette of whole ideas previously discovered by people, a palette to invent a new sound and craft, with Williams that is a rather lofty and light type of passion, packed full of timeless themes written more effectively for this genre, a real sense of movement and rhythm, a sensitive imagination and appreciation for how music always makes us feel during a story.

I think this is becoming more and more true, when a composer like Williams has a difficult-to-mimick ability to string old ideas into something so effective in both catchiness and telling a story, it can be said that he is a true innovator. He's able to 'classicize' these newer concepts, no longer inventing standalone concepts like previous composers, but inventing a new way of how to put these concepts together more beautifully and lastingly."_

I think that's true when you compare him to his film composer influences like Korngold, but if you don't appeal largely to the styles of music he particularly borrows from, you may not see the value in Williams' appreciation of them in the way he writes and attempts to elevate them beyond their original status. But he does this mainly by luring us in to strong and beautiful thematic cues, giving them a proper foundation in ornamentation. The more you investigate it, the more you realize it's a unique style of composition on its own, something more conceptual than aesthetic, and both concepts and aesthetics can make bold changes to the evolution of music.


----------



## Fabulin

MacLeod said:


> There is an irony in the subsequent claims that film music must be considered the equal - even the inheritor - of the classical concert tradition.
> Well, the claim is certainly supported by similarities in the championing of this composer over that, the disparaging of anything that doesn't have a traditional melody, the insisting that film music is now in decline because of the increase in "modern" methods and technologies, and the smug superiority towards those not in the know.


John Mauceri, a great American conductor, highlighted once in an interview, that the type of displacement of talents that the situation right before World War II caused, in many fields, not only music, is reminiscent of what happened when Constantinople was endangered and artists & thinkers fled to Italy, where they fostered Renaissance. These were not even descendants, these were classical music artists who continued their trade the best they could. The divide of _concert _and _film _music that they (for example Miklós Rózsa, Erich Korngold) have made is something slightly different than "classical VS film music". It is rather a _pragmatic _divide based on the way music is _presented_.

If a _strict _division is made, that music prepared for a listening on it's own _is _classical music, whereas the music prepared for use _in a film_ is not, then according to this condition, once music from a film score is adapted in a way that makes it a standalone listen, it is already on the side of the classical music of said divide. After all, a folk music piece, a march, or a dance adapted into a part of a concerto or symphony, becomes accepted as a valid part of a classical music piece, and even considered a valuable flavour that allows a composer to be identified by unique influences and bringing something to the classical music table.

Another problem with this logic of "made for a separate listening in a concert hall" vs. "made for a listening with images in a film theater" is where the line should be drawn on _what constitutes a material for a separate listening_ and what doesn't. Since music of John Williams is beloved by hundreds of millions of listeners as a standalone, then I suppose it is concert ready with little to no changes. So believe many conductors and concert hall programmers.

In 2018 John Williams was invited by the Wiener Philharmoniker to conduct a concert of his music (from film scores) in the Großer Saal of the Musikverein. It was considered a significant nod from the extremely conservative and image-conscious establishment that is the VPO. They thought that they risk a lot, but were open for it provided that Williams would open a first concert of this type personally. Sadly Williams was hospitalized in London and it was decided that his health does not allow for intercontinental travel anymore. The concert was cancelled.

Musik by John Williams has been previously played by the VPO at a Sommerkonzert in 2010, and the concert programming competition at those concerts is fierce, with composer rosters differing greatly each year. Considereing the context, his music was given the same space in the programme as is given at those concerts to Verdi, Wagner, or Berlioz for example, and more than is given to minor classical figures like Gerschwin or Fucik.

I am singling out the VPO especially, because they are the same society that until this very day considers the music of, for example, otherwise established British classical composers like Holst, Vaughan Williams, or Elgar..., to be of not very high quality and a bit taboo. If they consider Williams a worthy addition to the canon, then clearly some of the most formidable bastions of snobbery are thawing. Other orchestras, from LA to Moscow, and from Berlin to Tokyo, have already welcomed a new member of the family and play the highlights of music by John Williams regularily, mixed with other classical music.

The view on the history of the 20th century classical music is incomplete until the art in film music is considered as natural of a branch of classical music developments as the free-verse symphonic poems have been in the 19th century. This will happen sooner than you think.

The music by other composers active in Hollywood is being "rediscovered" and given a new life as well, as can be witnessed in the worldwide concerts of music by Ennio Morricone, frequently for people who never watched the old boring westerns or cheap Italian films that they accompanied initially, or the recent (from the 1990s and only getting faster) resurfacing of music by Franz Waxman, Bernard Hermann, Erich Korngold, Miklós Rózsa, David Raxin, Elmer Bernstein, and Jerry Goldsmith.

Williams' music is not being championed by me at the cost of _their _fame, but on the contrary as a battering ram for the giving of credit where credit is due---to them as well; and for filling this stupid divide once and for all.


----------



## Luchesi

mikeh375 said:


> It's surely not possible to answer that Luchesi. As evidenced by the concert music he's written, one can safely assume he has something to say, otherwise these works would not exist right? He is specific about his intentions with some pieces and as a listener one goes along with his premise and gets it or not. Either way, the man has mastered his craft and is writing works he feels he needs to and to the best of his abilities - which I might add are considerable.
> 
> He has something to say and presents it to us with impeccable technique and style.


I admire you so I was curious what your answer would be, since you put it in those words.


----------



## Luchesi

Fabulin said:


> John Mauceri, a great American conductor, highlighted once in an interview, that the type of displacement of talents that the situation right before World War II caused, in many fields, not only music, is reminiscent of what happened when Constantinople was endangered and artists & thinkers fled to Italy, where they fostered Renaissance. These were not even descendants, these were classical music artists who continued their trade the best they could. The divide of _concert _and _film _music that they (for example Miklós Rózsa, Erich Korngold) have made is something slightly different than "classical VS film music". It is rather a _pragmatic _divide based on the way music is _presented_.
> 
> If a _strict _division is made, that music prepared for a listening on it's own _is _classical music, whereas the music prepared for use _in a film_ is not, then according to this condition, once music from a film score is adapted in a way that makes it a standalone listen, it is already on the side of the classical music of said divide. After all, a folk music piece, a march, or a dance adapted into a part of a concerto or symphony, becomes accepted as a valid part of a classical music piece, and even considered a valuable flavour that allows a composer to be identified by unique influences and bringing something to the classical music table.
> 
> Another problem with this logic of "made for a separate listening in a concert hall" vs. "made for a listening with images in a film theater" is where the line should be drawn on _what constitutes a material for a separate listening_ and what doesn't. Since music of John Williams is beloved by hundreds of millions of listeners as a standalone, then I suppose it is concert ready with little to no changes. So believe many conductors and concert hall programmers.
> 
> In 2018 John Williams was invited by the Wiener Philharmoniker to conduct a concert of his music (from film scores) in the Großer Saal of the Musikverein. It was considered a significant nod from the extremely conservative and image-conscious establishment that is the VPO. They thought that they risk a lot, but were open for it provided that Williams would open a first concert of this type personally. Sadly Williams was hospitalized in London and it was decided that his health does not allow for intercontinental travel anymore. The concert was cancelled.
> 
> Musik by John Williams has been previously played by the VPO at a Sommerkonzert in 2010, and the concert programming competition at those concerts is fierce, with composer rosters differing greatly each year. Considereing the context, his music was given the same space in the programme as is given at those concerts to Verdi, Wagner, or Berlioz for example, and more than is given to minor classical figures like Gerschwin or Fucik.
> 
> I am singling out the VPO especially, because they are the same society that until this very day considers the music of, for example, otherwise established British classical composers like Holst, Vaughan Williams, or Elgar..., to be of not very high quality and a bit taboo. If they consider Williams a worthy addition to the canon, then clearly some of the most formidable bastions of snobbery are thawing. Other orchestras, from LA to Moscow, and from Berlin to Tokyo, have already welcomed a new member of the family and play the highlights of music by John Williams regularily, mixed with other classical music.
> 
> The view on the history of the 20th century classical music is incomplete until the art in film music is considered as natural of a branch of classical music developments as the free-verse symphonic poems have been in the 19th century. This will happen sooner than you think.
> 
> The music by other composers active in Hollywood is being "rediscovered" and given a new life as well, as can be witnessed in the worldwide concerts of music by Ennio Morricone, frequently for people who never watched the old boring westerns or cheap Italian films that they accompanied initially, or the recent (from the 1990s and only getting faster) resurfacing of music by Franz Waxman, Bernard Hermann, Erich Korngold, Miklós Rózsa, David Raxin, Elmer Bernstein, and Jerry Goldsmith.
> 
> Williams' music is not being championed by me at the cost of _their _fame, but on the contrary as a battering ram for the giving of credit where credit is due---to them as well; and for filling this stupid divide once and for all.


After reading that I'm curious as to what you think classical music is? Perhaps we can no longer answer that question.

For me classical music is serious music that comes from a long tradition (which can be studied in minute detail) and fills the needs of the audiences down through the years, artistically constrained by the currently acceptable dissonances.


----------



## Fabulin

Luchesi said:


> After reading that I'm curious as to what you think classical music is? Perhaps we can no longer answer that question.
> 
> For me classical music is serious music that comes from a long tradition (which can be studied in minute detail) and fills the needs of the audiences down through the years, artistically constrained by the currently acceptable dissonances.


Skillful, complex music that traditional-European-orchestral-instrument-equipped musicians in numbers from 1 to unlimited and organized in an European fashion tend to play for the purpose of a pleasant aesthetic experience of their audience, with other influences not outweighting said features or purpose.


----------



## Gordontrek

We can debate all day as to whether Williams is a "worthy" addition to the canon, but the bigger point that needs to be made is that he is _already_ in the canon by now, whether you like it or not. His music is a mainstay of orchestral programming pretty much everywhere. Look up the calendar of almost any orchestra and chances are you will find at least one concert featuring his music. Heck, I guarantee you can find entire concerts entirely devoted to his works. How many living composers can claim to have done that even once? We might as well face it; John Williams is not going anywhere.

But if he is in the canon, I have to ask: why is that a bad thing? _No_ other composer gets as many people into concert halls he does, and isn't that a good thing? Reading the criticisms throughout this thread has been quite the soul-crushing bummer. They can generally be summed up as: "composers have to be cutting-edge, soul-searching, and introspective to be part of our canon, and since John Williams is traditional, euphoric, and entertaining, he can't be in our club. Besides, I don't like his music when separated from the screen, so it isn't worthy music anyway." God forbid we allow classical music to be FUN! Passing off our subjective dislike of Williams' music offscreen as evidence of its unworthiness as stand-alone music is one thing. But docking him points based on his traditional and widely-appreciable style is just plain snobbery. We have many composers who give us profound, emotional, cutting-edge works that challenge our listening skills and raise deeper questions for us to ponder, but is there something wrong with good clean FUN? I am trying to raise a serious question here. For all the range of emotions that art music can evoke, can classical music ever be fun, with no strings attached?


----------



## mikeh375

Luchesi said:


> I admire you so I was curious what your answer would be, since you put it in those words.


That's very kind of you to say so Luchesi....


----------



## Guest

Fabulin said:


> If a _strict _division is made, that music prepared for a listening on it's own _is _classical music, whereas the music prepared for use _in a film_ is not, then according to this condition, once music from a film score is adapted in a way that makes it a standalone listen, it is already on the side of the classical music of said divide. After all, a folk music piece, a march, or a dance adapted into a part of a concerto or symphony, becomes accepted as a valid part of a classical music piece, and even considered a valuable flavour that allows a composer to be identified by unique influences and bringing something to the classical music table.
> 
> Another problem with this logic of "made for a separate listening in a concert hall" vs. "made for a listening with images in a film theater" is where the line should be drawn on _what constitutes a material for a separate listening_ and what doesn't. Since music of John Williams is beloved by hundreds of millions of listeners as a standalone, then I suppose it is concert ready with little to no changes. So believe many conductors and concert hall programmers.


The fact is that film music - that which makes it onto the screen alongside the images - is made to accompany the movie. Music which is composed to be sat and listened to in the concert hall, without accompanying visuals - is a different form.

Obviously, the one can be turned into the other: Williams and Shore concerts are examples of conversion in one direction; _2001: A Space Odyssey _a conversion the other way.

That's fine. I have no problem acknowledging that John Williams' film scores are great for movies and can make for great concert entertainment. And, as Gordontrek says, his work is part of the canon.

But, as I have said now three times, I think, my objection to your views on film music that you have not yet dealt with is your initial claim about the decline of film music. Perhaps you'd like to address this question\?


----------



## mikeh375

MacLeod said:


> ...........................you have not yet dealt with is your initial claim about the decline of film music. Perhaps you'd like to address this question\?


Mac,L if I may I'd like to have a shot at your question too as I know a bit about it - I'll be as succinct as I can be and look forward to Fabulins' answer as well.

Film scoring today does not require a composer to be academically trained because writing skill and production are heavily reliant on a computer to assist. As a result of this, it is my firmly held belief that composers who elect to not learn much compositional technique and rely on a DAW's immediacy when creating, are missing out on their own potential and making it doubly hard to raise themselves above the ubiquitous mediocracy that the easy way via a DAW encourages. The new way to compose is as you can imagine, fundamentally different to JW's schooled way and depending on your view, either better or worse for it (Williams' scores are considered 'old school' these days).
I personally don't feel too strongly about the new wave of DAW composers as some have proved to be brilliantly gifted and let's not forget, scoring is as much about feel and gut instinct for what will work in a scene. It is not easily taught and is made harder by a wide open palette of sound that can include anything at all, from synths, sound design electronics, through to full orchestra.

If I had to get off the fence, I'd say Fabulin has a point about the_ quality_ of music written for film these days, however unfair that may seem because film music is always under restrictions, a utility, that is being taken out of context (I'm also comparing it to the absolute music of the concert hall, the biggest injustice). But of the films I've seen of late, there is no doubting the _efficacy_ of the current paradigms in scoring.

Did I add anything here or just muddy waters???


----------



## Fabulin

MacLeod said:


> But, as I have said now three times, I think, my objection to your views on film music that you have not yet dealt with is your initial claim about the decline of film music. Perhaps you'd like to address this question\?


Eschewing of the focus on a traditional orchestra in favour of electronic instruments? 
Being guided by rhytms more pronounced like those in rock/hip-hop/pop music, more than by melody?
Favouring musical sound engineering as a main mean of achieving effect, over composing?
Minimalism rising, for both budgetary and (???) reasons, which combined with the three aspects above makes music possess nowhere near the effect it used to have? The effect of classical music?

Name 10 greatest film scores of the last 10 years, please, with Williams and Morricone excluded. I will point you to a greater set of film scores from any previous decade you choose.


----------



## mikeh375

Fabulin said:


> Eschewing of the focus on a traditional orchestra in favour of electronic instruments?
> Being guided by rhytms more pronounced like in those in rock/hip-hop music more than by melody?
> *Minimalism rising, which combined with the two aspects above makes music have nowhere near the effect it used to have? *The effect of classical music?


Yes.
The number of times one hears an ostinato in semis or quavers of a repeated minor third is a symptom of the DAW's insidious influence on composers who don't reach their full potential.
The worst of it is, the more these compositional devices have been used, the more entrenched they have become as default emotional signifiers, easily re-created in a DAW and requiring no imaginative effort on either the producer/director nor composer's behalf - a dumbing down if you will. One can justify this however on other levels...(as he hops back on to the fence)


----------



## Luchesi

Fabulin said:


> Skillful, complex music that traditional-European-orchestral-instrument-equipped musicians in numbers from 1 to unlimited and organized in an European fashion tend to play for the purpose of a pleasant aesthetic experience of their audience, with other influences not outweighting said features or purpose.


Okay and now I see the problem. Because if that's your definition it can apply to jazz works or the Electric Light Orchestra or Pink Floyd. We've been having this debate since 'way back then.


----------



## Gordontrek

mikeh375 said:


> Mac,L if I may I'd like to have a shot at your question too as I know a bit about it - I'll be as succinct as I can be and look forward to Fabulins' answer as well.
> 
> Film scoring today does not require a composer to be academically trained because writing skill and production are heavily reliant on a computer to assist. As a result of this, it is my firmly held belief that composers who elect to not learn much compositional technique and rely on a DAW's immediacy when creating, are missing out on their own potential and making it doubly hard to raise themselves above the ubiquitous mediocracy that the easy way via a DAW encourages. The new way to compose is as you can imagine, fundamentally different to JW's schooled way and depending on your view, either better or worse for it (Williams' scores are considered 'old school' these days).


All of that is true, but there is another aspect I'd like to add for consideration- film itself is also currently in a much different artistic era than it was in the heyday of Williams/Goldsmith/Herrmann et al., and the musical scoring aspect of film has changed accordingly. Film historians classify the time period spanning the beginning of the sound era to roughly the early 60s as "classical Hollywood." The films made during this era were primarily characterized by lush and romantic storytelling accompanied by lush and romantic soundtracks. After classical Hollywood ended, it made a comeback in the late 70s with films like _Star Wars,_ no less. And once again, the classical Hollywood music style was back, this time with John Williams, Jerry Goldsmith, James Horner etc. taking the reins from the likes of Bernard Herrmann and Miklos Rosza.

Nowadays the style of filmmaking is not nearly as conducive to lush and romantic scoring as it once was. The most prominent directors today prefer a more atmospheric and impressionistic style. Christopher Nolan is probably the best example of this. His films work better with broad, moody, and effects-driven background music, hence why he and Hans Zimmer have collaborated so successfully (Interstellar, Dark Knight, Dunkirk etc). I wouldn't say film music has declined in quality, but rather, it has changed styles to one that does not as easily convert to concert music like Williams's music does, and even when it does, it's quite minimalist.


----------



## Fabulin

Gordontrek said:


> Christopher Nolan is probably the best example of this. His films work better with broad, moody, and effects-driven background music, hence why he and Hans Zimmer have collaborated so successfully (Interstellar, Dark Knight, Dunkirk etc).


There is always more than one way to score a certain scene or film. I had a theory a while ago, that a rather poorly executed film that was Attack of the Clones could have been quite striking if scored by Bernard Herrmann in a more menacing, dissonant style.

The same goes for Nolan films. Just because they work with synthetic music, it doesn't mean they couldn't have been scored for a traditional orchestra for a comparable, or even better effect.


----------



## Guest

mikeh375 said:


> Mac,L if I may I'd like to have a shot at your question too as I know a bit about it - I'll be as succinct as I can be and look forward to Fabulins' answer as well.
> 
> Film scoring today does not require a composer to be academically trained because writing skill and production are heavily reliant on a computer to assist. As a result of this, it is my firmly held belief that composers who elect to not learn much compositional technique and rely on a DAW's immediacy when creating, are missing out on their own potential and making it doubly hard to raise themselves above the ubiquitous mediocracy that the easy way via a DAW encourages. The new way to compose is as you can imagine, fundamentally different to JW's schooled way and depending on your view, either better or worse for it (Williams' scores are considered 'old school' these days).
> I personally don't feel too strongly about the new wave of DAW composers as some have proved to be brilliantly gifted and let's not forget, scoring is as much about feel and gut instinct for what will work in a scene. It is not easily taught and is made harder by a wide open palette of sound that can include anything at all, from synths, sound design electronics, through to full orchestra.
> 
> If I had to get off the fence, I'd say Fabulin has a point about the_ quality_ of music written for film these days, however unfair that may seem because film music is always under restrictions, a utility, that is being taken out of context (I'm also comparing it to the absolute music of the concert hall, the biggest injustice). But of the films I've seen of late, there is no doubting the _efficacy_ of the current paradigms in scoring.
> 
> Did I add anything here or just muddy waters???


Very happy for you to jump in mike.

I've been trying to find where the exchange was between me and Fabulin about the decline of film music. It was in another thread altogether. It went something like this:



Fabulin said:


> As for film, no decade before, not even the dive in the late 1960s / early 1970s, had so little great film music, for example. I am more active on film music fora than here, and there people are interested in all sorts of film scores; we literally trace every release, look forward to them, check them out, write reviews and discuss details, etc. It's more than bad. It's a plane crash. [etc]





Fabulin said:


> A pile-up of high-profile composer deaths occured at the beginning of the 21st century.: Michael Kamen(2003), Jerry Goldsmith (2004), Elmer Bernstein (2004), Basil Poledouris (2006), Leonard Rosenman (2008), with:
> John Barry (2011), Joel Goldsmith (2012), and James Horner (2015) following soon. In Horner's case it was a literal plane crash.
> 
> [...]
> 
> There are exceptions to those trends like to any, but it is the general trends that shape a decade of film music. It has never been quite as bad as now. I hope for a better future, perhaps when yet another generation of composers joins in---one of conservative rebels, like what we see in politics, who would try to resurrect symphonic film scoring once more. There are more and more academic books on the topics of ambitious film music each year, and more and more film scores are available on the internet or as recordings, so there are materials to study.
> 
> Do you get the picture now? [...]





MacLeod said:


> Well, thanks for your detailed response. However, you don't seem to have offered any evidence from either the films or from the scores to support your assertion that film music is in decline. [...]
> 
> Looking at the list of film credits for, say, Thomas Newman, I can see he worked on a number of successful and (IMO of course) enjoyable films (eg _Bridge of Spies, The Iron Lady, Spectre, Finding Nemo_). Do I remember much about the scores themselves? Not really. So what?
> 
> I will agree that the premature deaths are unfortunate. I like the work of Jóhann Jóhannsson (_Prisoners_, _Arrival_) so I regret his death in 2018. Ironically, one of the most memorable pieces from _Arrival _was actually by Max Richter who has just done _Ad Astra_.
> 
> These films and scores may not be to your taste - I don't know, as you have little to say about any actual movies - but without any criteria on offer for supporting your claims for what is and isn't a great score, I don't get the picture at all. Sorry


Fabulin has not chosen to reply to that last, which is why I've put my request again in this thread.



Fabulin said:


> Eschewing of the focus on a traditional orchestra in favour of electronic instruments?
> Being guided by rhytms more pronounced like those in rock/hip-hop/pop music, more than by melody?
> Favouring musical sound engineering as a main mean of achieving effect, over composing?
> Minimalism rising, for both budgetary and (???) reasons, which combined with the three aspects above makes music possess nowhere near the effect it used to have? The effect of classical music?
> 
> Name 10 greatest film scores of the last 10 years, please, with Williams and Morricone excluded. I will point you to a greater set of film scores from any previous decade you choose.


What you, mike, and Fabulin and I have all acknowledged is that the technology and practice in creating film scores has changed. You and fabulin think this has been a change for the worse. I just see it as a change. For me, the test is not whether a score has, for example, great melodies that cinemagoers will leave the picture house whistling; nor is it whether it would stand up as a suite in a music concert, or enter the classical music canon.



Gordontrek said:


> All of that is true, but there is another aspect I'd like to add for consideration- film itself is also currently in a much different artistic era than it was in the heyday of Williams/Goldsmith/Herrmann et al., and the musical scoring aspect of film has changed accordingly. Film historians classify the time period spanning the beginning of the sound era to roughly the early 60s as "classical Hollywood." The films made during this era were primarily characterized by lush and romantic storytelling accompanied by lush and romantic soundtracks. After classical Hollywood ended, it made a comeback in the late 70s with films like _Star Wars,_ no less. And once again, the classical Hollywood music style was back, this time with John Williams, Jerry Goldsmith, James Horner etc. taking the reins from the likes of Bernard Herrmann and Miklos Rosza.
> 
> Nowadays the style of filmmaking is not nearly as conducive to lush and romantic scoring as it once was. The most prominent directors today prefer a more atmospheric and impressionistic style. Christopher Nolan is probably the best example of this. His films work better with broad, moody, and effects-driven background music, hence why he and Hans Zimmer have collaborated so successfully (Interstellar, Dark Knight, Dunkirk etc). I wouldn't say film music has declined in quality, but rather, it has changed styles to one that does not as easily convert to concert music like Williams's music does, and even when it does, it's quite minimalist.


Exactly so. Thanks Gordon.

For me, the acid test is whether a film is a good film, not whether a film score is a good film score. As Fabulin himself suggested, movies are like a gesamtkunstwerk where several arts/crafts/skills come together to tell a story, present ideas, play with our emotions etc. If I really enjoy a film, it's likely that the score played a part, though I may not recall anything in particular about it - and I'm certainly not disappointed if I'm not marvelling at how the good old Steiner/Korngold days are back.

I don't do "top tens" as I don't believe in the idea that you can assemble a hierarchy of greatness using objective criteria. It all comes down to opinions, even if they are the collated opinions of "experts". I go regularly to the cinema, and have been enchanted by movies since first terrified by The Wizard of Oz (not on its first release, I should add - I'm not that old!) It's my first hobby. So, I've plenty of opinions about movies, but none of them involve pointing to _The Sea Hawk _or _The Adventures of Robin Hood _(though I like both movies and their scores) and saying that their scores are the finest ever written and nothing composed since 2000 can hold a candle. The same of course applies to the idea of a top ten movies. I've watched so many, and still enjoy watching so many again, that I couldn't compile a meaningful list. Suffice to say that on any given day it might include _The General, The Maltese Falcon, Psycho, Casablanca, Toy Story, Dunkirk, Arrival, 2001, Ice Cold in Alex, Castaway, It's A Wonderful Life...

_However, I don't go often enough to comment on what is happening across the whole of cinema since 2000. Take just one list, this from Metacritic, the top scores from 2019 so far. I've only seen a handful. If Fabulin has seen many of these and researched their scores, I'll take my hat off to him.

https://www.metacritic.com/browse/movies/score/metascore/year/filtered?sort=desc


----------



## mikeh375

I'm with you MacL about the different contemporary paradigm in scoring being just that and of course the acid test of a film scores success is within the context of the film itself. I mentioned that the _efficacy_ of modern scoring is often in evidence, regardless of genre, style of composing and skill level and as you mention 'Arrival' above, I'll say that I too was impressed by the music for that film. The moving minimalist, ostinato driven string piece worked very well despite my protestations about the ubiquity of such techniques above and I was especially impressed with the awe induced by the electronic alpine horn-ish sounding drone for the aliens - quite other-worldly and nicely conceived. That type of scoring (a mixed aural, media approach if you like) suits modern tastes very well and has the potential to be more effective and is certainly more expansive creatively speaking than older schools of thought imv. If one also factors in innovative production/mixing techniques then filmic digetic (and non-digetic for that matter) soundscape has no creative barriers whatsoever - although such complex production might well mitigate against the score becoming a concert classic ...

I do however bemoan the lack of compositional skill in general amongst media composers, which tends to reduce work produced to the lowest common musical denominators and then turns them into default cliches easily created with samples designed for such moves. But then again, perhaps mastery of the DAW is more essential, relevant and vital for innovation today - it certainly does not stymie creativity, if anything the wide open palette is harder to work in.

Gordontrek makes good points above and mention of Zimmer is timely. He is one of the outstanding film composers of our time, innovative in terms of music and production and as influential as JW has been. He exemplifies excellence in the current school and interestingly with scores like 'Gladiator' one can also readily discern a heritage with the old school.


----------



## Fabulin

1) Hans Zimmer is not a worthy addition to the classical canon. That one is certain :tiphat: 

2) Benny Herrmann said once "Music correctly used, can be music of poor quality and be effective, or can be music of magnificent quality and also serve it's purpose". A differentiation needs to be made between serving the needs of the film and being great music, and only serving the needs of the film, the same way one can satiate hunger after grabbing a fast-food, or a good home-cooked meal / 5-star restaurant dish. Both answer to hunger, but do not equally serve health, and definitely do not take equal skill to create.


----------



## Guest

Fabulin said:


> Hans Zimmer is not a worthy addition to the canon.


Which one - the canon of film music, or the canon of classical music?


----------



## mikeh375

^^^don't worry Fabulin, I agree with you..... He's a good scorer though, one of the best in the film genre.


----------



## Fabulin

mikeh375 said:


> ^^^don't worry Fabulin, I agree with you..... He's a good scorer though, one of the best in the film genre.


I like a lot of his music. His work in adventure and animation genres is very good. It is when things get more nuanced and delicate, that his ostinato and cluster-based approach does not achieve as good results as traditional one would.

However good with DAWs he is, he is not as good of an orchestrator as any of the other... TOP 15 film composers.


----------



## Luchesi

If we start teaching students that John Williams and the like are classical music what will be the unintended consequences?

I think it's pretty obvious that young people would rather listen to John Williams and his attractive stuff.


----------



## Guest

Fabulin said:


> It is when things get more nuanced and delicate, that [Zimmer's] ostinato and cluster-based approach does not achieve as good results as traditional one would.


Can you give an example where Zimmer's score was insufficiently 'nuanced and delicate'? Is it really possible to show (it's obviously possible to assert) how a "traditional" score would work instead?



Fabulin said:


> A differentiation needs to be made between serving the needs of the film and being great music, and only serving the needs of the film


I don't think it does. Film music should serve the needs of the film. End of.

Since film music doesn't have to be "classical", it seems presumptuous to claim that "film music should be counted as classical".

I'm not sure how much more we can get out of this aspect of the discussion. If we are wedded to our opposing opinions, we may have to agree to disagree.

And in response to the OP's question, I've taken the trouble to look through the list of movies Williams scored.

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0002354/

He has scored conventionally, some very conventional films - many that I enjoyed watching, but few that I would call startlingly original, especially what he was doing for TV and Hollywood in the 60s and 70s (eg Irwin Allen TV adventures, _The Towering Inferno, The Poseidon Adventure_). I'm beginning to think that his reputation rests on a relatively small handful of well-regarded movies to which he made a well-regarded contribution (_Jaws, CE3K, ROTLA, Jurassic Park_). That's fine, of course. The "great" Korngold only scored around 20 pictures (the actual number is debatable as he wasn't credited for all that he worked on, according to IMDB).


----------



## Fabulin

MacLeod said:


> Can you give an example where Zimmer's score was insufficiently 'nuanced and delicate'? Is it really possible to show (it's obviously possible to assert) how a "traditional" score would work instead?
> 
> I don't think it does. Film music should serve the needs of the film. End of.
> 
> Since film music doesn't have to be "classical", it seems presumptuous to claim that "film music should be counted as classical".
> 
> I'm not sure how much more we can get out of this aspect of the discussion. If we are wedded to our opposing opinions, we may have to agree to disagree.
> 
> And in response to the OP's question, I've taken the trouble to look through the list of movies Williams scored.
> 
> https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0002354/
> 
> He has scored conventionally, some very conventional films - many that I enjoyed watching, but few that I would call startlingly original, especially what he was doing for TV and Hollywood in the 60s and 70s (eg Irwin Allen TV adventures, _The Towering Inferno, The Poseidon Adventure_). I'm beginning to think that his reputation rests on a relatively small handful of well-regarded movies to which he made a well-regarded contribution (_Jaws, CE3K, ROTLA, Jurassic Park_). That's fine, of course. The "great" Korngold only scored around 20 pictures (the actual number is debatable as he wasn't credited for all that he worked on, according to IMDB).


Taken the trouble to skim through the achievement of one of the greater artists of our era? Poor you.

Anyway, here is a more complete list of works that make Williams great.:

10/10 CE3K, Empire Strikes Back, Temple of Doom, E.T., Star Wars, Jaws, Jurassic Park, The Phantom Menace, The Last Crusade, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Schindler's List, Return of the Jedi

9.5/10 Jane Eyre, The Revenge of the Sith, A.I. Artificial Intelligence, The Lost World, The Last Jedi, Black Sunday

9/10 Jaws 2, Attack of the Clones, The Force Awakens, The Towering Inferno, Memoirs of Geisha, Saving Private Ryan, The Philosopher's Stone, The Chamber of Secrets, Midway, The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Williams has an easily agreeable set of 12 10/10.
Howard Shore has 3 (3 LOTRs), Korngold has 4 (Anthony Adverse, Sea Hawk, Kings Row, Adventures of Robin Hood), Danny Elfman 2 (Batman, Batman Returns), Gottfried Huppertz 3 (Metropolis, Nibelungen 1 & 2), Dmitri Shostakovich 2 (Cheryomushki, The First Echelon), Jerry Goldsmith is up to a debate. I would nominate The Shadow for a 10/10. Others would possibly Sand Pebbles, or The List of Adrian Messenger. I would leave those two at 9.5/10. Zimmer's best was and will remain The Lion King, which is his 10/10.

Herrmann has a ton of 9/10s and 9.5/10s and in a blind pick, on average, would be the most reliable film composer ever, but I've listened to all of his works (excluding most of TV and Radio) and not one is really 10/10. Even Psycho is 9.5/10. And I am saying that despite the fact that he was, for some time, my favourite composer after Shostakovich. The problem with Herrmann vs Williams is that Williams has as many as good scores as Herrman had, and then a dozen a league higher.

So... that's the way I see it. Williams composed 12 out of 28 10/10 scores I have ever heard. I've heard perhaps 200-300 film scores in total, ranging from 1900s-1920s to the 2010s. And then many more I switched off after checking here and there and recognizing that they are an unoriginal, boring 5/10s or less.

To answer the second part of your post:

Whenever an art form can serve multiple purposes, and there are works that do set such standards, other works will always be judged based on said standards. To do otherwise, and hail something with superlatives while discarding works with a longer list of achievements, is disrespectful and foolish. I wonder what would you say are the criteria to tell a good book from a bad one. To me it can be knowledge, wisdom, poetry, fluency, structure, vocabulary, innovation of various sorts, etc. And if it can, and there are books that offer something in each cathegory, then there is no way a book that only does one thing and claims that other categories should not be considered in a comparison with it, stands any chance. Let's say you have a funny story which someone claims is great because it's purpose was to be funny and na-na-na-na woe betide anyone who suggests that it offers nothing more. You compare it to a satire by Diderot or Swift and realize their authors thought about _both _making them funny and wise, and put in the effort to have their work achieve more than one goal. You realize there are some writers who seem to have thought of everything. What will you call "good", "great", or "competent" will forever be changed by a contact with said works.

Ditto music in films. Work well within the film, or without it. Achieve as many qualities as music can achieve. It's art. Anything that can be achieved with it, is a reason to give a greater applause. If someone else's work looks miserable as a result in comparison, tough luck. Others apparently cared to work harder and smarter.

There is no disagreeing with this. At least no sane one.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Zimmer is not half the composer John Williams is in my book. He usually strings together a short motif and go through simple chord progressions. The melody is reduced to a note or 2 with every chord change.






One of his more memorable themes, from Gladiator, is like an ad lib on a catchy chord progression, which is the heart of the whole piece, the rest is just filler.






Compared to the polyphony at the beginning of this, and great orchestration.


----------



## Guest

Fabulin said:


> Taken the trouble to skim through the achievement of one of the greater artists of our era? Poor you.
> 
> Anyway, here is a more complete list of works that make Williams great.:
> 
> 10/10 CE3K, Empire Strikes Back, Temple of Doom, E.T., Star Wars, Jaws, Jurassic Park, The Phantom Menace, The Last Crusade, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Schindler's List, Return of the Jedi [etc]


Ah, I see how you're working. That's fine. As I said, we're not going to agree on this, so there's little point my pursuing the specifics of John Williams with you, or challenging your scoring system. What we do agree on is that he did some some very good scores on some very good films - those we've both referred to in our last pasts.



Fabulin said:


> To answer the second part of your post:
> 
> Whenever an art form can serve multiple purposes, and there are works that do set such standards, other works will always be judged based on said standards. To do otherwise, and hail something with superlatives while discarding works with a longer list of achievements, is disrespectful and foolish. *I wonder what would you say are the criteria to tell a good book from a bad one.* To me it can be knowledge, wisdom, poetry, fluency, structure, vocabulary, innovation of various sorts, etc. And if it can, and there are books that offer something in each cathegory, then there is no way a book that only does one thing and claims that other categories should not be considered in a comparison with it, stands any chance. Let's say you have a funny story which someone claims is great because it's purpose was to be funny and na-na-na-na woe betide anyone who suggests that it offers nothing more. You compare it to a satire by Diderot or Swift and realize their authors thought about _both _making them funny and wise, and put in the effort to have their work achieve more than one goal. You realize there are some writers who seem to have thought of everything. What will you call "good", "great", or "competent" will forever be changed by a contact with said works.
> 
> Ditto music in films. Work well within the film, or without it. Achieve as many qualities as music can achieve. It's art. Anything that can be achieved with it, is a reason to give a greater applause. If someone else's work looks miserable as a result in comparison, tough luck. Others apparently cared to work harder and smarter.
> 
> There is no disagreeing with this. At least no sane one.


I'm sorry, but I see no value in taking a diversion and discussing the merits of books to make any relevant points about film music.

You didn't, however, answer my first pair of questions about Zimmer.


----------



## Fabulin

Edit: the original video of the Wiener Philharmoniker has been removed from their facebook, so here it is:


----------



## Enthusiast

^ My taste filter has blocked the above. Good to know it works. :lol:


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Since this has been bumped:

I've listened to the Rise of Skywalker OST. It is a great recording technically. The bass response in particular is really cool on good equipment. Musically, it is what most movie soundtracks are - vignettes of music that can be satisfying on their own but rarely cohere into something larger. But taken individually some pieces are very satisfying:






Anyway: not _great _classical music, but classical music by most reasonable definitions. :devil:


----------



## MatthewWeflen

This, on the other hand, is just great music, well orchestrated.


----------



## Luchesi

MatthewWeflen said:


> This, on the other hand, is just great music, well orchestrated.


Great music comes from somewhere and goes somewhere. Like the major works of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. And all the lesser greats. This is sugary porridge. We 'like it' once in a while.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Luchesi said:


> Great music comes from somewhere and goes somewhere. Like the major works of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. And all the lesser greats. This is sugary porridge. We 'like it' once in a while.


This seems quite Tchiakovskian or Lisztian to me. To each his or her own, I guess. I'll happily eat my delicious porridge.


----------



## Luchesi

MatthewWeflen said:


> This seems quite Tchiakovskian or Lisztian to me. To each his or her own, I guess. I'll happily eat my delicious porridge.


We like it. It's concocted to be liked. It's devised to accompany an entertaining film. Ask Williams if he thinks it's great music.


----------



## Enthusiast

I actually find it ugly in the extreme when considering it as music. It astonishes me that people who love the music of the greats can find this manipulative and sickly stuff to be decent music. I have learned on this forum that many do seem to but my amazement continues unabated.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I am sure that my "appreciation for the greats" also somehow fails to pass muster.

Meh.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Sorry if you found my comment snooty or snobbish but that music had an almost visceral affect on me. I can't say I had noticed that you're taste doesn't "pass muster" - you seem to be someone who loves a lot of the great music that I love, too - but I suppose you are right that I cannot (should not) claim to guard universal standards for greatness.


----------



## Luchesi

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Sorry if you found my comment snooty or snobbish but that music had an almost visceral affect on me. I can't say I had noticed that you're taste doesn't "pass muster" - you seem to be someone who loves a lot of the great music that I love, too - but I suppose you are right that I cannot (should not) claim to guard universal standards for greatness.


It's like the Pluto question.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Sorry if you found my comment snooty or snobbish but that music had an almost visceral affect on me. I can't say I had noticed that you're taste doesn't "pass muster" - you seem to be someone who loves a lot of the great music that I love, too - but I suppose you are right that I cannot (should not) claim to guard universal standards for greatness.


I do find it a bit snobbish. But to the extent to which offense could be taken, I didn't.

As far as Williams goes, I buy the criticism that his movie music is fragmentary and to some extent depends on the visuals/story. Now, this is certainly a part of the medium for which it is composed. It would be interesting to see Williams tackle a longer form symphony - who knows how he would do, but given his particular gifts (catchy melodic writing chief among them) I can at least imagine him equaling the technical mastery and overall quality of a Schubert, let's say. But that's purely conjectural.

As it stands, his film oeuvre compares more directly to short tone poems or operatic overtures, a la Strauss, Rossini, Tchaikovsky, Liszt or Sibelius. And I think there are strong arguments for all of those being superior, but I would opine that Williams is at least within sniffing distance.

I listen to "the greats" way more than I listen to Williams, because the music is more complex and more unitary as a set of compositions. But I do listen to Williams' film music occasionally, and never have I reacted with revulsion at the "ugliness" on display.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ :lol: Now you are trying to wind me up by taking the "music" seriously. Fragmentary is the least of his problems IMO.


----------



## mikeh375

MatthewW, there are concert works recorded by Williams and some are wonderful, especially the violin and cello concertos. You can find them on youtube, they are well worth getting to know.
Perhaps Enthusiast, you might want to hear them too if you don't already know them - I'm assuming you are only criticising his film scores.
There is Williams the master scorer and composer for film and then there is the serious Williams, equally brilliant, masterful and gifted imv.


----------



## Guillaume80

Probably not as genious as some of the old time composers but definitely someone who has been able to capture through rather simplistic theme the attention of the audience...that's also part of the genius to be able to always compose something that your remember


----------



## Enthusiast

There are great composers alive and well but he is not one of them. He will be totally forgotten in 5o years or remembered as a composer of music for Hollywood blockbusters, which are themselves hardly high art.


----------



## mikeh375

Enthusiast said:


> There are great composers alive and well but he is not one of them. He will be totally forgotten in 5o years or remembered as a composer of music for Hollywood blockbusters, which are themselves hardly high art.


Have you heard his concert work? It really is very good indeed, definitely worth a listen, it might change your perspective on him..


----------



## Jacck

Enthusiast said:


> There are great composers alive and well but he is not one of them. He will be totally forgotten in 5o years or remembered as a composer of music for Hollywood blockbusters, which are themselves hardly high art.


I bet he will be much better known than Birtwistle in 50 years.


----------



## Simplicissimus

I often enjoy film score music in pops-type concerts, but I don't make an effort to listen to it at home. I am interested in the concert music of some of the Hollywood composers, including Williams, Bernard Hermann, and Miklos Razca, and I consider it worthwhile and enjoyable to buy the CDs and listen at home in the course of wandering around what I think of as the classical (or as my dad used to say, "serious") music space. It makes a difference to me whether a composer wrote music for a film or for concert performance. Somehow I cannot apprehend film music in the same way as concert music. It's strange to me to separate it from the experience of viewing the film, though as I say, I do sometimes find it entertaining to hear in the context of a pops concert. (Maybe what we understand as "pops" is a topic for another thread.)

Franz


----------



## Durendal

Guillaume80 said:


> Probably not as genious as some of the old time composers but definitely someone who has been able to capture through rather simplistic theme the attention of the audience...that's also part of the genius to be able to always compose something that your remember


This is a very important point when considering the works of Williams in the context of current classical orchestral music. Like the old masters, he imbues his compositions with melodies. They might be simple, but crucially, they are catchy and memorable. This is an essential ingredient, indeed a skill, that the majority of modern, "serious" composers have forgotten how to do, dooming them and their technically superior and more innovative works to eternal obscurity.


----------



## Bulldog

Durendal said:


> This is a very important point when considering the works of Williams in the context of current classical orchestral music. Like the old masters, he imbues his compositions with melodies. They might be simple, but crucially, they are catchy and memorable. This is an essential ingredient, indeed a skill, that the majority of modern, "serious" composers have forgotten how to do, dooming them and their technically superior and more innovative works to eternal obscurity.


Well, I don't find his melodies catchy or memorable, but that's just me. Obviously, Williams is a significant voice in the film music canon; that's as far as I'd take it.


----------



## Guillaume80

Bulldog said:


> Well, I don't find his melodies catchy or memorable, but that's just me. Obviously, Williams is a significant voice in the film music canon; that's as far as I'd take it.


I feel like he is the same spirit as Horner, Zimmer, Barry or Morricone...we probably won't remember them in 100 yrs from now because the movies they composed the music to will be outdated but for the time being, it is still very enjoyable to listen to their pieces...

I don't think we will have the opportunity to have a new Schubert, Mozart or Beethoven simply because our society is not fitted for this anymore...


----------



## Fabulin

Williams' melodies are as close to being objectively catchy/memorable for human beings as a composer can ever get. Within the next couple of decades his fame will only rise from where it is now (it already has, over the last 2 decades, despite his best work having been composed in the 1980s) to one of a fair consensus that he was at least "one of" the greatest composers of his time.


----------



## Bulldog

Fabulin said:


> Williams' melodies are as close to being objectively catchy/memorable for human beings as a composer can ever get.


Melodies are not objectively memorable. It's all subjective.


----------



## Xisten267

I just listened for the first time to some music by Williams that is not soundtracks. I liked some of it, such as his violin concerto. From now on, in my book John Williams will be a (very talented) classical composer.


----------



## Alfacharger

Allerius said:


> I just listened for the first time to some music by Williams that is not soundtracks. I liked some of it, such as his violin concerto. From now on, in my book John Williams will be a (very talented) classical composer.


February 8th is Johnny's birthday. I will be playing this recording.


----------



## Fabulin

Happy 88th birthsday, maestro!

My picks for the celebration are the harp concerto and The Last Crusade.


----------



## Xisten267

The Cowboys Overture is very beautiful too in my opinion:


----------



## Red Terror

*****Deleted*****


----------



## Enthusiast

Jacck said:


> I bet he will be much better known than Birtwistle in 50 years.


History teaches us that predicting what music will survive and which won't is not an easy game but I feel very certain (having listened to many further examples of his "art") that Williams will be forgotten. Even here much of the advocacy from his fans comes down to "at least he writes music that sounds like music used to sound like" - advocacy that is not really true (there is not enough intellectual muscle, invention, rigour or grit) but also makes me wonder why anyone bothers with him when we already have the music of the past. Birtwistle is in with a chance of being remembered. Sadly I won't be around to collect your money.


----------



## Fabulin

Enthusiast said:


> History teaches us that predicting what music will survive and which won't is not an easy game but I feel very certain (having listened to many further examples of his "art") that Williams will be forgotten. Even here much of the advocacy from his fans comes down to "at least he writes music that sounds like music used to sound like" - advocacy that is not really true (there is not enough intellectual muscle, invention, rigour or grit) but also makes me wonder why anyone bothers with him when we already have the music of the past. Birtwistle is in with a chance of being remembered. *Sadly I won't be around to collect your money.*


_"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. . . ."_
- Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97

The same is with Williams, you, and me.


----------



## Jacck

Enthusiast said:


> History teaches us that predicting what music will survive and which won't is not an easy game but I feel very certain (having listened to many further examples of his "art") that Williams will be forgotten. Even here much of the advocacy from his fans comes down to "at least he writes music that sounds like music used to sound like" - advocacy that is not really true (there is not enough intellectual muscle, invention, rigour or grit) but also makes me wonder why anyone bothers with him when we already have the music of the past. Birtwistle is in with a chance of being remembered. Sadly I won't be around to collect your money.


all you need to do is look at what the young generations listen to. And many of them listen to movie sountracks including Williams (because the Star Wars are still popular). So as long as the current young generation is alive, Williams will not be forgotten.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Not true, I think. Firstly, I am not sure you are right that the young are in love with his music. Certainly, none of the young people who are open to classical music (not a large sample!) are ... and I am told that the music blogs they visit can be pretty scathing of the view that Williams' music is any good. And, secondly, I suspect those who do like Williams' music will grow up as they discover the greats of the past. Those who don't discover classical music more widely are not really relevant to our discussion. No, I feel sure that the idea of Williams as a serious composer will be laughed at in 50 years.


----------



## mikeh375

Enthusiast, just for clarity, are you talking about JW the film scorer or JW the concert music composer?


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I believe him to be a composer of very effective music for blockbuster films but I don't believe that that music should be taken seriously. Also, I doubt he would thrive as a composer of music for art films or the "higher end" of Hollywood's produce. And his concert music offends me.


----------



## Xisten267

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I believe him to be a composer of very effective music for blockbuster films but I don't believe that that music should be taken seriously. Also, I doubt he would thrive as a composer of music for art films or the "higher end" of Hollywood's produce. And his concert music offends me.


Can you offer some objective criticism to his music other than the cliché "blockbuster" thing? Judging from what I know of their music, I think that Williams has much more variety in style than Whitacre or Glass, knows much more about rhythms than Górecki (I just listened to this latter's 3rd symphony some days ago, IMO it's intense and makes beautiful use of form and dynamics but the one hour of tick tock annoys me), actually composes his music (unlike Cage) and doesn't overextend forms without good reason (like IMO Feldman and his 2nd quartet). I don't fall in the trap of thinking that he is one of the greatest composers ever like some do, but to neglect that he is a damn good composer is just plain wrong in my opinion, and unfair, considering that at the same time people like Bob Dylan who can't even modulate, read music or develop his melodies get praise.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I didn't call his music blockbuster - that observation concerned the films his music works well with. I am not a musician or an "objective critic" (whatever that is) ... so I can't oblige with any more objective criticism than I have already provided. Nor can I mount a defense of the music of Gorecki or Glass or Whiteacre or even Cage - their music doesn't interest me. I _am _fascinated by Feldman and do like Bob Dylan but I don't know what you can read into that. I do know that I actively dislike what I have heard (quite a lot) of Williams and that these feelings have nothing to do with his technical competence - my concern is aesthetic.

Listen, if his music brings you pleasure then carry on. Feel free. But there is not much more that can be got out of me concerning my disliking his music. Firstly, it is not something I spend time thinking about and I have surely said all I have to offer on the subject - I have written quite extensively in this and other threads.


----------



## pianozach

Wow, you guys.

I got through the first half of the thread and gave up. Most of youse guys are quibbling over details (and details ARE important) instead of seeing the overall wholistic picture.

The issue, as I'm seeing it, is that the initial topic has spilled over into the debate over what *Classical Music* actually *is*.

So, first off, I'd just offer up the fact that Symphony Orchestra schedules are jam packed full of film orchestral composers.

Film scores/soundtracks are a far more diverse musically than Classical music might be. It doesn't clear the waters any when actual Classical Music is used FOR film soundtracks (2001 A Space Odyssey being the most notable example, although there are films where Classical composers jumped ship to compose for a film).

Next, Classical composers have borrowed liberally from folk traditions, or simply mimicked them, to great success.

Next up is whether the selection of orchestral instruments is relevant evidence at all. When *Emerson, Lake & Palmer* cover *Ginastera*, *Bach*, or *Copland*, does that music _*cease*_ to be Classical Music? No, and the choice of instruments is simply another means to deliver a classical work to an audience. Classical musicians do this all the time: Guitarists transcribing Bach works for lute or keyboard for the guitar, or maybe playing a bassoon concerto on a cello, or a piano work to an orchestral one (like Pictures at an Exhibition). So when Keith Emerson writes a Piano Concerto is it classical or not?

[Speaking of *Pictures at an Exhibition*, *Ravel, Tomita*, and *ELP* have transcribed it for other instruments. Yet we tend to think of Ravel's orchestration as "Classical", and Tomita's and ELP's versions as something _else_.]

And _then_, the conversation found a new way to muddy the waters by bringing up Leonard Bernstein and Paul McCartney. *McC* was summarily dismissed for several _non_-relevant reasons, most notably his lack of training and inability to read music. Yeah, well, they dismissed Mussorgsky and Prokofiev because they were doing chord progressions all "wrong". McC is a detail-oriented perfectionist when it comes to his music. And A Leaf is his own work. His first outing into Classical, his 1991 *Liverpool Oratorio*, gave full credit to his collaborator Carl Davis. For his second work he used a personal computer and software to help compose.

And *Bernstein*? Damn . . . he's Classical all the way: Composer, conductor, pianist, educator.

But as to the question of *John Williams* being a Classical composer or not . . . .

Of course he is. Citing his "pure" Classical works as not being "notable" is a weak argument. Obviously he uses his best material for film which he composes in a Classical Music sense.

*Trying to fence genres and styles into neat little separate pens is an outdated notion*. *There are no boundaries*. *The Moody Blues* crashed through that fence separating classical and rock in 1967 with *Days of Future Passed*. Classical composers.

Classical composers Korngold and Copland crossed over into film. Composer/Pianist *Korngold* had been writing opera and concert music since 1908, but jumped ship to cinema in starting in 1935 for *A Midsummer Night's Dream*, and continuing with adventure films like *Captain Blood, The Adventures of Robin Hood, The Sea Hawk*, and other award-winning films like *King's Row* and *Of Human Bondage*, then retired from film in 1947, returning to composing concert pieces, including a Violin Concerto, a Symphonic Serenade for strings, a Cello Concerto, some more operas and a Symphony.

*Copland* was already an established "Classical Composer" when Hollywood beckoned him in the late 1930s with promises of better films and higher pay, where he composed scores for a half dozen films between 1939 and 1961. He arranged his score for *The Red Pony* into an Orchestral Suite, just as *John Williams* does. So, what's the diff?


----------



## Phil loves classical

I can understand some bias against Williams as a serious composer being best known for films. Leonard Rosenman (my favourite film composer) said they wouldn't even look at his concert music once he got into film. But I find John Williams' concert works incredibly bland or gets boring very quick. I tried out his cello, harp, bassoon concertos.

Here is a clip of Leonard Rosenman's chamber music. The 2nd track here.

https://play.google.com/music/preview/T5mq32cwefv2bmvy4utz7ga346m?play=1


----------



## Xisten267

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I didn't call his music blockbuster - that observation concerned the films his music works well with. I am not a musician or an "objective critic" (whatever that is) ... so I can't oblige with any more objective criticism than I have already provided. Nor can I mount a defense of the music of Gorecki or Glass or Whiteacre or even Cage - their music doesn't interest me. I _am _fascinated by Feldman and do like Bob Dylan but I don't know what you can read into that. I do know that I actively dislike what I have heard (quite a lot) of Williams and that these feelings have nothing to do with his technical competence - my concern is aesthetic.
> 
> Listen, if his music brings you pleasure then carry on. Feel free. But there is not much more that can be got out of me concerning my disliking his music. Firstly, it is not something I spend time thinking about and I have surely said all I have to offer on the subject - I have written quite extensively in this and other threads.


I respect your dislike and also believe in greater and lesser music/composers, as you seem to do. I think also that one doesn't have to appreciate the music of any composer, even the most famous of them, for one's taste and ones's musical preferences belong to him/her and to him/her only. Yet, when one openly criticizes a composer and indicates that others are wrong because they like him/her, I think that it's fair that this person shows some substance in this criticism.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Fair enough but read through this thread - I would say I have provided a lot of substance in support of what I am saying ... or as a description of what I find in the music. I am not sure any more is necessary as I am just one person with no monopoly on good taste. Still, ... etc. etc.


----------



## Luchesi

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Fair enough but read through this thread - I would say I have provided a lot of substance in support of what I am saying ... or as a description of what I find in the music. I am not sure any more is necessary as I am just one person with no monopoly on good taste. Still, ... etc. etc.


A lot of words in here, but I think you're saying he shouldn't be put in the wrong category. And he's excellent in the category he's in.

This is important in the long term for music as an art.


----------



## Fabulin

2:20 is some serious horn enthusiasm after 2,5 hours of concert


----------



## Guest002

I think the trouble might be with the term "classical music".

Clearly, John Williams is not "Classical music" (captial C), but then neither was Bach, Beethoven nor Wagner.

Is he "serious" music? Absolutely: I haven't heard quite so many leitmotivs since my Melbourne Ring in 2016.

Is he "art" music? I must also say he is: you don't get to wear tuxedos and conduct an orchestra unless someone considers it art.

Of course, they also think Banksy murals are art. But whatever.

Any which way you want to cut it, he is producing music that requires more than a basic grasp of grammar and a flexible dance body. So yeah, he's serious music in my neck of the woods and I wouldn't be without his Olympic Fanfare.


----------



## consuono

> John Williams: worthy addition to the canon or charlatan?


He isn't either one.


----------



## Luchesi

consuono said:


> He isn't either one.


That's right. He comes from nowhere. It's not his fault that this is a prerequisite, BUT he doesn't intend to develop today's art of music. He isn't serious enough overall, he's a film composer, but he writes other works, ...like other film composers.


----------



## Xisten267

Luchesi said:


> That's right. He comes from nowhere. It's not his fault that this is a prerequisite, BUT he doesn't intend to develop today's art of music. He isn't serious enough overall, he's a film composer, but he writes other works, ...like other film composers.


Yet he's a famous, rich and influential classical composer (that has concertos, chamber music and incidental orquestral works like other classical composers), and he likes to compose some gorgeous music, derivative yes but yet in my view substantial, so I guess that he's serious enough for me (and for others here as well, considering that he appeared in the favorite TC composers's list compiled this year).


----------



## Ethereality

He tied Schumann and Rachmaninoff on that "BBC Polled 170 Renown Composers to name the Greatest Composers" list. None of their top 15 are alive. I wonder what time will tell with Williams.

Their Top 15 was
1. Bach
2. Stravinsky
3. Beethoven
4. Mozart
5. Debussy
6. Ligeti
7. Mahler
8. Wagner
9. Ravel
10. Monteverdi
11. Britten
12. Sibelius
13. Messiaen
14. Bartók
15. Shostakovich
.
23. Gesualdo (lol idk why I did #23)
.
and then 48th place was tied with Rach., Schum., Williams, and a few others. 170 composers naming 5 composers each. That's a pretty good sample. And they're professionals and stuff.

I'd agree more with this list personally, than the forum's list. That's because Stravinsky, Debussy, Ravel, and Bartok are awesome sauce. Looks like they appreciate Wagner more than our forum does too (not judging.)


----------



## Enthusiast

I can only take him seriously as a popular composer of music for popular/blockbuster films. He seems to be very good at that. But even as a film music composer he is not associated with writing music for serious/art films, let alone composing serious and credible art music.


----------



## Fabulin

Enthusiast said:


> I can only take him seriously as a popular composer of music for popular/blockbuster films. He seems to be very good at that. But even as a film music composer he is not associated with writing music for serious/art films, let alone composing serious and credible art music.


Music created with great skill that speaks universally to the hearts of listeners is the only serious music worthy of the name.


----------



## DavidA

Fabulin said:


> Music created with great skill that speaks universally to the hearts of listeners is the only serious music worthy of the name.


Well all I can say is that if I'd of written the music Williams has written I'd have been very pleased. The irritating thing for so many people is that he's been so successful


----------



## consuono

DavidA said:


> Well all I can say is that if I'd of written the music Williams has written I'd have been very pleased. The irritating thing for so many people is that he's been so successful


I'm not irritated at all by his success, any more than I would be by a successful composer of commercial jingles or a pop star. I just think Williams is very limited, and after a while everything he's written runs together. But he's always been very good at writing evocative film scores. Bernard Herrmann had more serious-composer chops.


----------



## Enthusiast

DavidA said:


> Well all I can say is that if I'd of written the music Williams has written I'd have been very pleased. The irritating thing for so many people is that he's been so successful


By successful ... you mean he has made money and gathered fans or that he has produced music that is very effective for his main purpose (music for big popular films)? Why would anyone be jealous of either? We all know that a good many pop stars achieve the former and that is the world we live in. As for the latter (writing effective film music), I suppose some bitter aspiring film music composers might be jealous but respect might be a more common response from them.


----------



## larold

_I just think Williams is very limited, and after a while everything he's written runs together. But he's always been very good at writing evocative film scores. Bernard Herrmann had more serious-composer chops._

This is fairly common among film composers -- a typical sound that is often in all scores.

Jerry Goldsmith is more adventurous in that regard having written diverse scores for films like _Take Her, She's Mine_, _Supergirl_, _Alien_ and the 12 tone _Planet Of the Apes_ (1971).

Herrmann, whose range stretched from the post-Baroque _Three Worlds of Gulliver_ to the ultra-modern _Psycho_ and _Fahrenheit 451_, wrote and conducted a dramatic symphony.


----------



## Jacck

I don't think he is a charlatan. He has some genuine talent, though he is not my favorite film composer. He also borrowed too much motifs from classical composers and repurposed them for his scores, though he did that masterfully. Jerry Goldsmith is a more original and better composer


----------



## Ethereality

Usually artists are much more experimental, but Williams takes on the more noble task of appreciating the potential of music we already have. Even though at first listen you'd catch Williams recycling a lot of his approach, other moments of his, become so profound and don't really resemble other composers. That's because of his perfectionism towards the idea of leitmotif creating an overall direction with different moods. Is he being creative? To me his music sounds unique in that precise sense: his imaginative effort towards the audience. Not many other musicians have been such music-appreciation perfectionists as him, the need to make things sound more 'perfect' than an audience really requires. Notable moments like the credits of E.T The Extra-terrestrial, his overall work on Harry Potter and Star Wars, and the credits of Jurassic Park, no one else could make these movies sound exactly like this unless they were more retrospectively perfectionistic towards how they wanted to design their music.


----------



## Luchesi

Ethereality said:


> Usually artists are much more experimental, but Williams takes on the more noble task of appreciating the potential of music we already have. Even though at first listen you'd catch Williams recycling a lot of his approach, other moments of his, become so profound and don't really resemble other composers. That's because of his perfectionism towards the idea of leitmotif creating an overall direction with different moods. Is he being creative? To me his music sounds unique in that precise sense: his imaginative effort towards the audience. Not many other musicians have been such music-appreciation perfectionists as him, the need to make things sound more 'perfect' than an audience really requires. Notable moments like the credits of E.T The Extra-terrestrial, his overall work on Harry Potter and Star Wars, and the credits of Jurassic Park, no one else could make these movies sound exactly like this unless they were more retrospectively perfectionistic towards how they wanted to design their music.


"Williams takes on the more noble task of appreciating the potential of music we already have."

That's an interesting idea. I hadn't thought of it that way, thanks.

"...no one else could make these movies sound exactly like this..."

This is a classical composer to you? What is his place in the history and the development of music?


----------



## Fabulin

consuono said:


> I'm not irritated at all by his success, any more than I would be by a successful composer of commercial jingles or a pop star. I just think Williams is very limited, and after a while everything he's written runs together. But he's always been very good at writing evocative film scores. Bernard Herrmann had more serious-composer chops.


The notion that Herrmann had better chops as a composer is unfounded. Williams succeeded his master in a worthy way as far back as 1975. Ponder sincerly what would have happened had Herrmann scored Jaws and Close Encounters of the Third Kind and you will know this. Williams has at that point equalled Herrmann in harmony, counterpoint, and orchestration, but ran circles around him in melody. He has a broader palette, too, and more versatile approaches, just like Goldsmith had. Finally, he is also at least as good a musical psychologist.

Herrmann is one of my four favourite composers, together with Williams, Tchaikovsky, and Shostakovich, and his mark on his student [Williams] was immense. But Williams observed him since pre-school age, and is just more talented.


----------



## Fabulin

Luchesi said:


> This is a classical composer to you? What is his place in the history and the development of music?


The greatest musical syncretist of the 20th century.


----------



## consuono

Fabulin said:


> The notion that Herrmann had better chops as a composer is unfounded. ...


No, it's demonstrable just using film scores alone. The only time Williams did anything this truly effective and sensitive is *maybe* the Jaws soundtrack. Williams is more about themes than atmosphere, probably dictated by the form that film scores took on. And he has been great at that. Herrmann was better. So were Dmitri Tiomkin and Elmer Bernstein for that matter.


----------



## Fabulin

Tiomkin and E. Bernstein over Williams? Tell me you are joking...

And singling out Jaws as superior to Williams' other scores, and claiming that they do not achieve 'atmosphere', is bizarre. Harry Potter, Jurassic Park, Close Encounters, not to mention the magnificent finale of _Raiders of the Lost Ark_, are all prime examples of a musical atmosphere. Your contrasting of melody and mood is suspicious to say the least.

On an unrelated note, look ye merry gentlemen at our charlatan's newest album:


----------



## Luchesi

Fabulin said:


> The greatest musical syncretist of the 20th century.


but not a composer who devoted his life to the advancement of CM, like Arnie, Shosty, Prok and Bela.. etc.


----------



## consuono

Fabulin said:


> Tiomkin and E. Bernstein over Williams? Tell me you are joking...


 Absolutely not. And Jerry Goldsmith as well.



> And singling out Jaws as superior to Williams' other scores, and claiming that they do not achieve 'atmosphere', is bizarre. Harry Potter, Jurassic Park, Close Encounters, not to mention the magnificent finale of _Raiders of the Lost Ark_, are all prime examples of a musical atmosphere. ...


:lol:
Here's the thing. If John Williams weren't associated with primarily blockbuster Spielberg movies, would people want to listen to his scores? Now the memorable *themes* did indeed serve these movies well and helped to make them blockbusters. But they really aren't music that I would listen to as standalone compositions. The Herrmann scores I linked above are far more interesting musically even out of their film contexts.

I don't think Williams is a "charlatan" at all. He's a limited film composer, and there have been others who were more suited as composers of "serious music".


----------



## Ethereality

consuono said:


> No, Bernard Herrmann being superior is demonstrable just using film scores alone. Williams is more about themes than atmosphere.


You have to demonstrate a wider diversity of atmospheres to prove this point.





 _[from Jurassic Park]_




 _[from Harry Potter]_




_ [Choir from Harry Potter]_




_ [a Pastoral work, from Harry Potter]_




_ [from Harry Potter]_




_ [from Raiders of the Lost Ark]_




 _[from Memoirs of a Geisha]_




 _[from E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial]_




 _[from The Accidental Tourist, till 1:40]_




 _[from Hook, till 3:25]_




 _[from Star Wars]_




_ [from Star Wars]_




 _[from Star Wars, till 1:50]_




 _[from Star Wars]_




 _[from Star Wars]_




_ [from The Terminal, till 5:20]_




 _[from Close Encounters of the Third Kind]_




_ [from Superman]_

Usually this is where film nerds would say, Neener neener neener! Williams talent I was describing in my last post is: a rigorous double-standard where most composers usually only choose 1 of the following, Williams nicely combines both (a) atmosphere and (b) great melodic/harmonic combinations. He is like a greater version of Holst.

Or as I like to put it with my gaming hobby, in my favorite type of games, the story_ is_ the gameplay. There aren't both, like most games/composers; instead, both are the same exact thing. So with Williams, the themes_ are_ the atmospheres.


----------



## consuono

Ethereality said:


> You have to demonstrate a wider diversity of atmospheres to prove this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _[from Jurassic Park]_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _[from Harry Potter]_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _ [Choir from Harry Potter]_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _ [a Pastoral work, from Harry Potter]_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _ [from Harry Potter]_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _ [from Raiders of the Lost Ark]_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _[from Memoirs of a Geisha]_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _[from E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial]_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _[from The Accidental Tourist, till 1:40]_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _[from Hook, till 3:25]_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _[from Star Wars]_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _ [from Star Wars]_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _[from Star Wars, till 1:50]_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _[from Star Wars]_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _[from Star Wars]_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _ [from The Terminal, till 5:20]_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _[from Close Encounters of the Third Kind]_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _ [from Superman]_
> 
> Usually this is where film nerds would say, Neener neener neener! Williams talent I was describing in my last post is: a rigorous double-standard where most composers usually only choose 1 of the following, Williams nicely combines both (a) atmosphere and (b) great melodic/harmonic combinations. He is like a greater version of Holst.
> 
> Or as I like to put it with my gaming hobby, in my favorite type of games, the story_ is_ the gameplay. There aren't both, like most games/composers; instead, both are the same exact thing. So with Williams, the themes_ are_ the atmospheres.


It all sounds similar, really. Neener neener neener. Your links kinda prove my point.


----------



## Ethereality

Tbh, a lot of classical music sounds the same to me, and it seems to have nothing to do with tonality or returning to the tonic: it's more of that feeling of taking forever to get somewhere interesting, hearing the same harmonic meta-structure over and over--with Bach, Mahler, Brahms, you name it.

I thought you would say the above, actually, that's why I was asking for more examples of Herrmann. I could possibly believe you if you could sway me.

I also wonder where peoples' attention to detail in giving timestamped moments are on this forum. I feel like I'm the only one who does this.


----------



## consuono

Ethereality said:


> Tbh, a lot of classical music sounds the same to me, and it seems to have nothing to do with tonality or returning to the tonic: it's more of that feeling of taking forever to get somewhere interesting, hearing the same harmonic meta-structure over and over--with Bach, Mahler, Brahms, you name it.
> 
> I thought you would say the above, actually, that's why I was asking for more examples of Herrmann. I could possibly believe you if you could sway me.
> 
> I also wonder where peoples' attention to detail in giving timestamped moments are on this forum. I feel like I'm the only one who does this.


Look up the music for Citizen Kane, Fahrenheit 451, The Magnificent Ambersons, The Day the Earth Stood Still and others. I honestly don't think Williams has ever produced a score of even this quality by Hugo Friedhofer in 1946, and I don't really blame Williams. The writing of film scores has changed. And remember, I never said Williams can't write a good theme. I said there have been other composers more adept at writing standalone music:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLg-jS7VWuFqfoBQBjYaPLmw5kdrqPPCrE


----------



## Ethereality

Okay, I will be looking for the best. I can understand why you think those examples are all the same from a richness perspective in music. Williams is similar to Chopin in how he focuses on bigger ideas and moves them about, instead of focusing on the richness and details of arrangement. I'm concerned I wouldn't be _quickly _swayed by music that focuses more on details, like a lot of classical can be. Not being very into modern film scores either, I like Williams scores. Solve _that _riddle. Some of the best classical music from this forum sounds the same to me, and it seems to have nothing to do with tonality or returning to the tonic: it's more about hearing the same harmonic meta-structures oft repeated over and over--with Bach, Mahler, Brahms, you name it. Its problem for me is the time it takes to get somewhere interesting from a bigger perspective, or often never even doing so. I'm used to easily being charmed by the 'ideas' music brings. I admire Chopin and Williams for these traits. That being said, since I know the problem, I can understand your point.


----------



## Ethereality

Chopin, Tchaikovsky, and Williams are more fast-brained composers (compared to methodical composers) in that they very well understand the big idea of 'music as a whole' from an early age and simply move music along with the same talent anyone else does. It's hard for these people to work on details, and I do think Williams being fit for the industry in the 70s just coincidentally happened to be this kind of thinker. The idea of music is easily grasped, their learning and painstaking attention to details was never needed ever since they churned out their first tune. They just have passion for things to _move_ and be explored more linearly--instead of vertically. Hence, the music inherently sounds flat. From a classical perspective, I can sense that.


----------



## Ethereality

Slow-thinking or methodical composition can be listened to by empathizing with interrelated melodies and unified harmony, as the detailed form manifests this way the most efficiently, as a scientific rule.

Fast-thinking or fast composition can be listened to by empathizing with interrelated harmonies and unified melody, as the big-picture form manifests this way the most efficiently, as a scientific rule.


----------



## mikeh375

consuono said:


> Look up the music for Citizen Kane, Fahrenheit 451, The Magnificent Ambersons, The Day the Earth Stood Still and others. I honestly don't think Williams has ever produced a score of even this quality by Hugo Friedhofer in 1946, and I don't really blame Williams. The writing of film scores has changed. And remember, I never said Williams can't write a good theme. I said there have been other composers more adept at writing standalone music:
> https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLg-jS7VWuFqfoBQBjYaPLmw5kdrqPPCrE


Are you aware of Williams concert repertoire consuono? I particularly like his concertos, especially the ones for cello and violin. He is underrated for his concert work I feel.


----------



## mikeh375

Ethereality said:


> Chopin, Tchaikovsky, and Williams are more fast-brained composers (compared to methodical composers) in that they very well understand the big idea of 'music as a whole' from an early age and simply move music along with the same talent anyone else does. It's hard for these people to work on details, and I do think Williams being fit for the industry in the 70s just coincidentally happened to be this kind of thinker. The idea of music is easily grasped, their learning and painstaking attention to details was never needed ever since they churned out their first tune. They just have passion for things to _move_ and be explored more linearly--instead of vertically. Hence, the music inherently sounds flat. From a classical perspective, I can sense that.


I'm not quite following that Ethereality, I'll assume I'm missing the point. Composing is as much about the detail as it is the result as one feeds the other and that applies to film and concert music. In William's case, his scores are a fund of detail, bubbling with invention (and admittedly convention too in places, such is the medium of film). His concert works have much more musical heft of course..


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> Are you aware of Williams concert repertoire consuono? I particularly like his concertos, especially the ones for cello and violin. He is underrated for his concert work I feel.


I'll have to admit that I'm not as familiar with Williams' concert music as I should be, although I've listened to some of it, and it does have a different character from his film scores. I will say this for him though, and for most of the other film composers mentioned so far: his music seems to be accessible and written with his audience in mind, and not just a bunch of sound blobs for university faculty and professional music critics to stroke their chins over. The "charlatans" in my opinion are the types who produce that unlistenable pretentious goop. Maybe 50 years from now Williams will be remembered more for his concert music, who knows.


----------



## Fabulin

So... it looks like R. Strauss' processional fanfare for the annual ball of the Wiener Philharmoniker will be replaced by a work commissioned from Williams.

Also, Williams' new violin concerto is finished and will be premiered next summer at the festival in Tanglewood.

I don't know if there is a better thread to post such news, but I like this one for its Yankee Doodle factor.


----------



## aioriacont

honestly, very few of the composers are really amazing. Sure, there are Bach, Beethoven, Schubert, Debussy, Rameau, Bartok, Mahler, Messiaen, which are truly geniuses, but hell...check some of those prog metal composers nowadays, from bands like Opeth, Dream Theater, Nightwish, they *bleeeep*ing blow most of those Mozart, Handel, Haydn fakes out of the water!


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I couldn't disagree more! Or perhaps I could ... I _am_ open to the idea that prog metal bands blow the likes of Williams out of the water. But great composers have not been so rare. There have been literally hundred that are worthwhile (meaning have written music that really delivers). So I do wonder why anyone bothers with Williams or prog metal ... but I must acknowledge that I have never knowingly listened to the bands you name.


----------



## ribonucleic

The one thing I can say with certainty is that he'll be on a US postage stamp someday and we won't.


----------



## janxharris

aioriacont said:


> honestly, very few of the composers are really amazing. Sure, there are Bach, Beethoven, Schubert, Debussy, Rameau, Bartok, Mahler, Messiaen, which are truly geniuses, but hell...check some of those prog metal composers nowadays, from bands like Opeth, Dream Theater, Nightwish, they *bleeeep*ing blow most of those Mozart, Handel, Haydn fakes out of the water!


This is good music? Each to their own, but this is just about as bad as music gets for me.


----------



## Fabulin

aioriacont said:


> honestly, very few of the composers are really amazing. Sure, there are Bach, Beethoven, Schubert, Debussy, Rameau, Bartok, Mahler, Messiaen, which are truly geniuses, but hell...check some of those prog metal composers nowadays, from bands like Opeth, Dream Theater, Nightwish, they *bleeeep*ing blow most of those Mozart, Handel, Haydn fakes out of the water!





Enthusiast said:


> I _am_ open to the idea that prog metal bands blow the likes of Williams out of the water. But great composers have not been so rare. There have been literally hundred that are worthwhile (meaning have written music that really delivers). So I do wonder why anyone bothers with Williams or prog metal ... but I must acknowledge that I have never knowingly listened to the bands you name.


The likes of Williams, i.e. Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Verdi, and Mozart? That's an oddly narrow group to target...


----------



## mikeh375

Fabulin said:


> So... it looks like R. Strauss' processional fanfare for the annual ball of the Wiener Philharmoniker will be replaced by a work commissioned from Williams.
> 
> Also, Williams' new violin concerto is finished and will be premiered next summer at the festival in Tanglewood.
> 
> I don't know if there is a better thread to post such news, but I like this one for its Yankee Doodle factor.


Fabulin, a second vln concerto!! Wow I'll look forward to that. Good to know he is still writing for the concert hall.


----------



## Fabulin

mikeh375 said:


> Fabulin, do you mean a second vln concerto? Wow I'll look forward to that.


Yes, a second one, written for Anne-Sophie Mutter. She will be the one premiering it.


----------



## mikeh375

Fabulin said:


> Yes, a second one, written for Anne-Sophie Mutter.


....yaaaay...............


----------



## Fabulin

mikeh375 said:


> ....yaaaay...............


Although, technically, his second violin concerto was _Treesong for Violin and Orchestra_, written in 2000 for Gil Shaham


----------



## aioriacont

janxharris said:


> This is good music? Each to their own, but this is just about as bad as music gets for me.


I agree that this song in particular is very bad, and I really can't stand it. 
There are, however, much better examples of great Nightwish music which I will not bother posting here, since the opinions towards them will be biased anyway.

But yeah...this one from the link is really a low point for the band.


----------



## janxharris

aioriacont said:


> I agree that this song in particular is very bad, and I really can't stand it.
> There are, however, much better examples of great Nightwish music which I will not bother posting here, since the opinions towards them will be biased anyway.
> 
> But yeah...this one from the link is really a low point for the band.


Lots of members like non-classical music (there's a dedicated forum) so not so sure regard such 'blasting'. I do like a lot of prog too.


----------



## mikeh375

Fabulin said:


> Although, technically, his second violin concerto was _Treesong for Violin and Orchestra_, written in 2000 for Gil Shaham


yep, I have that CD. I guess you are right. Mutter's lyrical playing will be perfect for him I think.


----------



## Fabulin

mikeh375 said:


> yep, I have that CD. I guess you are right. Mutter's lyrical playing will be perfect for him I think.


They have a bit of story together. Mutter was once married to Williams' best friend, Andre Previn, who introduced them to each other. Over the past couple of years JW already arranged over a dozen pieces for her, and even already composed one brand new one, _Markings_.

They are good friends by now, and Mutter is a big fan. Last year she performed an all-Williams open air concert in Munich with the Royal Phil, while this year, back in January, she even stayed with the VPO to play in an encore as a first violinist (the concertmaster lent her his desk  ).

I think the match of the concerto and the performer will be very good


----------



## Coach G

John Williams is a great composer for film, and as someone who reached his coming of age just in time to partake in the culture of the original _Star Wars_ trilogy, Williams deserves credit for serving as a gateway for the big, brassy, and sweeping sounds that underlined George Lucas' _Star Wars_ message and mythology. In this sense, how far a leap does one have to take from the music of _Star Wars_ to Holst's _Planets_? An interview with Lucas revealed how he used well-known pieces of classical music as models for the sounds that he was after (i.e. "I want this part to sound like Wagner's _Ride of the Valkyries_; this to sound like Debussy's _Afternoon of a Faun_; I want the Cantina Band to sound like Benny Goodman; etc.).

I have only one CD that features Williams as a composer of strait-forward classical music of cello pieces that he made for and with Yo-Yo Ma, and I consider the music to be sincere and well-crafted. In that sense, I'd characterize Williams as good second-tier (Or third-tier?) American classical composer; not in the same league with Ives, Copland, and Barber; perhaps not even Walter Piston, William Schuman, or Roger Sessions. As much as people seem polarized when it comes to the music of John Cage or Philip Glass, at least Cage and Glass did bring something new and different to the fore, which makes them some form of "great". Still, John Williams is _numero uno_ when it comes to American composers for film, and I can't imagine the _Star Wars_ universe without him; and to be _numero uno_, in any field is a form of greatness.


----------



## mikeh375

Fabulin said:


> They have a bit of story together. Mutter was once married to Williams' best friend, Andre Previn, who introduced them to each other. Over the past couple of years JW already arranged over a dozen pieces for her, and even already composed one brand new one, _Markings_.
> 
> They are good friends by now, and Mutter is a big fan. Last year she performed an all-Williams open air concert in Munich with the Royal Phil, while this year, back in January, she even stayed with the VPO to play in an encore as a first violinist (the concertmaster lent her his desk  ).
> 
> I think the match of the concerto and the performer will be very good


I knew about Mutter Previn and Williams, but didn't know that Previn introduced them, obvious though it seems. BTW if you haven't heard Previn's concerto written for his then new beau Mutter, then I recommend it.


----------



## Fabulin

mikeh375 said:


> I knew about Mutter Previn and Williams, but didn't know that Previn introduced them, obvious though it seems. BTW if you haven't heard Previn's concerto written for his then new beau Mutter, then I recommend it.


I have not heard it yet. I am more aquainted with Previn the conductor  Thanks.


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## janxharris

aioriacont said:


> I agree that this song in particular is very bad, and I really can't stand it.
> There are, however, much better examples of great Nightwish music which I will not bother posting here, since the opinions towards them will be biased anyway.
> 
> But yeah...this one from the link is really a low point for the band.


Have you checked out the live version of Supper's Ready by Genesis? It's on the Seconds Out album. You spoke about certain songs outshining some of the great classical composers - well I'd still put this song above anything I have heard from Bach or Mozart.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Fabulin

hammeredklavier said:


>


I'm genuinely curious what is being compared here.

This would be more interesting, I think:








In those matters Prokofiev is to Williams like Buxtehude to Bach.


----------



## Luchesi

janxharris said:


> Have you checked out the live version of Supper's Ready by Genesis? It's on the Seconds Out album. You spoke about certain songs outshining some of the great classical composers - well I'd still put this song above anything I have heard from Bach or Mozart.
> 
> Just my opinion.


In this video (below) the composer is using music theory to offer something new. Just ignore the melodramatic story.

In your video not so much, it sounds like they're just piecing snippets together. Snippets we've heard thousands of times in pop music. But possibly, with repeated hearings. there's a larger pattern to it all. ...I'm often wrong and careless with my first judgments.


----------



## aioriacont

janxharris said:


> Have you checked out the live version of Supper's Ready by Genesis? It's on the Seconds Out album. You spoke about certain songs outshining some of the great classical composers - well I'd still put this song above anything I have heard from Bach or Mozart.
> 
> Just my opinion.


Genesis from Trespass until Wind and Wuthering is absolutely amazing. I would indeed rank Supper's Ready and the whole Foxtrot album as one of the greatest achievements in musical history, and I do hope it is remembered as such many years from now. I would indeed say that song tops anything I've heard until now (and I've heard much) by Mozart, but it would, IMO, never top the best of Bach (the two Passions and the Mass, specifically).

It is indeed, though, top there with the best mankind could produce.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Williams is a very fine film composer, although he's nowhere near a favorite of mine like Goldsmith and Morricone are. I'd say his more serious concert music isn't anything special, but I couldn't imagine _Star Wars_ or _Jaws_, for example, without his music accompanying these films.


----------



## 20centrfuge

I think Williams will be seen as one of the greatest motion picture composers ever. Sometimes I wonder how is music would have been if it were primarily written for the concert hall. Who knows? But I think it is wrong to discount his work because it was written primarily to accompany film.


----------



## janxharris

Luchesi said:


> In this video (below) the composer is using music theory to offer something new. Just ignore the melodramatic story.
> 
> In your video not so much, it sounds like they're just piecing snippets together. Snippets we've heard thousands of times in pop music. But possibly, with repeated hearings. there's a larger pattern to it all. ...I'm often wrong and careless with my first judgments.


I'd debate your points in a dedicated thread Luchesi, but I don't want to derail the thread any more than I already have.


----------



## janxharris

aioriacont said:


> Genesis from Trespass until Wind and Wuthering is absolutely amazing. I would indeed rank Supper's Ready and the whole Foxtrot album as one of the greatest achievements in musical history, and I do hope it is remembered as such many years from now. I would indeed say that song tops anything I've heard until now (and I've heard much) by Mozart, but it would, IMO, never top the best of Bach (the two Passions and the Mass, specifically).
> 
> It is indeed, though, top there with the best mankind could produce.


I keep trying those Bach works but it's never a good experience.

'We sit down in tears' is pleasant enough.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Neo Romanza said:


> Williams is a very fine film composer, although he's nowhere near a favorite of mine like Goldsmith and Morricone are. I'd say his more serious concert music isn't anything special, but I couldn't imagine _Star Wars_ or _Jaws_, for example, without his music accompanying these films.


I am not aware of serious concert music by Goldsmith or Morricone, that would stand apart from their film scores?

I think that outstanding film scores, including Star Wars and Jaws, are perfectly suitable to listen to without watching the film. Even more so, in this league I think watching the film without music is a worse experience than listening to the music without the film.


----------



## Enthusiast

aioriacont said:


> Genesis from Trespass until Wind and Wuthering is absolutely amazing. I would indeed rank Supper's Ready and the whole Foxtrot album as one of the greatest achievements in musical history, and I do hope it is remembered as such many years from now. I would indeed say that song tops anything I've heard until now (and I've heard much) by Mozart, but it would, IMO, never top the best of Bach (the two Passions and the Mass, specifically).
> 
> It is indeed, though, top there with the best mankind could produce.


I can vaguely remember advancing a similar argument for some similarly simplistic pop music but that was as a kid under the influence of amphetamine.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> I can vaguely remember advancing a similar argument for some similarly simplistic pop music but that was as a kid under the influence of amphetamine.


To imply that _Supper's Ready_ is simplistic would suggest you aren't familiar with it...but then you must be otherwise you couldn't have made your post.


----------



## Fabulin

> To imply that the music of John Williams is simplistic would suggest you aren't familiar with it...but then you must be otherwise you couldn't have made your post.


this thread in a nutshell


----------



## janxharris

Fabulin said:


> this thread in a nutshell


My only caveat with something like Star Wars would be it's borrowings (Korngold and Holst) - that said it's a terrific listen...not simplistic at all (not that simple IS bad).


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> To imply that _Supper's Ready_ is simplistic would suggest you aren't familiar with it...but then you must be otherwise you couldn't have made your post.


You are correct in assuming that I have integrity! I had Foxtrot (the album it was on) from around the age of 16 for around 10 years. It was probably the last half decent Genesis album. I saw them twice and found the first gig I attended entertaining. I listened to Foxtrot a lot and could probably still sing along to parts of it. As a product of its time and for the prog rock audience it was probably better than most but it has long seemed a bit pretentious to me even though I think Peter Gabriel was interesting. There is lots of popular music and jazz from its time that I do still value.


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> My only caveat with something like Star Wars would be it's borrowings (Korngold and Holst) - that said it's a terrific listen...not simplistic at all (not that simple IS bad).


I am quite content to admire and respect Williams as a talented composer of music for certain types of films (mostly blockbusters). But I am actually quite shocked that people who seem to love great classical music revere his concert music. But then the single most distressing thing about this forum for me is how little reverence many members have for music that I feel is truly great (yes, I mean Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms etc) so I have gotten used to it. I can understand respecting Williams's ability as a tune smith but when I see a lot of reverence for his concert music - and not just from his agents and bankers - it genuinely makes me very sad that our world is going to hell. I see it as the single biggest break with the classical tradition since it emerged.


----------



## Ethereality

I can appreciate Bruce Broughton

and John Williams.

The former seems to effortlessly express himself better, while the latter has great moments.


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> I see it as the single biggest break with the classical tradition since it emerged.


What is the 'it' you're referring to here?


----------



## JAS

Enthusiast said:


> I am quite content to admire and respect Williams as a talented composer of music for certain types of films (mostly blockbusters). But I am actually quite shocked that people who seem to love great classical music revere his concert music. But then the single most distressing thing about this forum for me is how little reverence many members have for music that I feel is truly great (yes, I mean Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms etc) so I have gotten used to it. I can understand respecting Williams's ability as a tune smith but when I see a lot of reverence for his concert music - and not just from his agents and bankers - it genuinely makes me very sad that our world is going to hell. I see it as the single biggest break with the classical tradition since it emerged.


I have _great_ reverence for Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms and many others. I also enjoy quite a bit of film music by John Williams (and some of his music for special events, such as the Olympics). I am not particularly fond of the few more formal concert works he has produced. (My collection of mostly orchestral film scores is nearly as large as my more traditional classical collection, although I generally listen more to my classical CDs and the local classical radio station. My film score collection obviously has more than just music by John Williams, although he has a large section, often in the form of a series of variations in releases of the same scores.) I would suggest that the single biggest break with the classical tradition since it emerged actually occurred almost a century ago, and has absolutely nothing at all to do with John Williams.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I don't have a problem with people liking film music. But having Williams revered for his concert music shocks me.


----------



## Enthusiast

MacLeod said:


> What is the 'it' you're referring to here?


Sorry. I thought it was clear -



> I can understand respecting Williams's ability as a tune smith but when I see a lot of reverence for his concert music - and not just from his agents and bankers - it genuinely makes me very sad that our world is going to hell. I see it as the single biggest break with the classical tradition since it emerged.


"It" is the reverence for the concert music that Williams produces.


----------



## JAS

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I don't have a problem with people liking film music. But having Williams revered for his concert music shocks me.


Do you mean concert forms of his film music, or things like his Tuba Concerto, his Prelude and Fuge and his Symphony #1? (I admit to having heard only a little of the latter since what I have heard has not appealed to me. There does not appear to be an actual recording of his symphony #1.) It may be that a certain amount of respect that he has earned through his film and TV work has granted a bit of fondness also for his concert works. Although that sort of thinking does not really work for me, I have made more effort to listen to the concert works of Miklos Rozsa due to my fondness for his film scores, and I am probably more forgiving of the parts I don't particularly care for than I would be for a composer for whom I did not already have some fond associations.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> I am quite content to admire and respect Williams as a talented composer of music for certain types of films (mostly blockbusters). But I am actually quite shocked that people who seem to love great classical music revere his concert music......I can understand respecting Williams's ability as a tune smith but when I see a lot of reverence for his concert music - and not just from his agents and bankers - it genuinely makes me very sad that our world is going to hell. I see it as the single biggest break with the classical tradition since it emerged.


I can't comment on Williams's concert music - perhaps I'll have a listen.



> But then the single most distressing thing about this forum for me is how little reverence many members have for music that I feel is truly great (yes, I mean Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms etc) so I have gotten used to it.


I think one should respect the success (in terms of longevity) that such composers have achieved but that doesn't mean one cannot have reservations - even about Bach or Mozart or any composer. It is difficult for each of us to comprehend another's perspective when there are differences. Even though I struggle with most Bach and Mozart, I still consider them the best that I have heard, so far, from those eras.

BTW - I have deep reservations regarding that recording of Supper's Ready on the Foxtrot album - I actually think it's awful.


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> "It" is the reverence for the concert music that Williams produces.


Thanks for the clarification.

So, the "reverence for the concert music that Williams produces" is "the single biggest break with the classical tradition" and this is why "our world is going to hell"?

You don't think this slighty hyperbolic?


----------



## Guest

20centrfuge said:


> I think Williams will be seen as one of the greatest motion picture composers ever.


I'm still troubled by this opening statement, though not specifically because it refers to Williams. It's this business of considering the worth of a film score composer's works somehow separated from the movie itself. I like many of the movies he has scored - but that might have more to do with the film direction, script, acting, production design, effects etc. For example, _Jaws _and _CE3K_ are in my top 40 movies - but the _Harry Potter _films are a long way down the list - maybe not even in it at all.

On the other hand, my top ten movies were scored by a variety of composers. Do Adolph Deutsch, Allan Gray, Carter Burwell and Johan Johansson belong in the same league as Williams?


----------



## Ethereality

Shout out to James Horner:


----------



## ribonucleic

Ethereality said:


> Shout out to James Horner


An echoing shout. [Affectionate joke about Horner's self-plagiarism.]

He'll always have a special place in my heart. The spaceship battle in _Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan_ was the first time I ever noticed film music as a distinct element of the experience.


----------



## ribonucleic

MacLeod said:


> Do Adolph Deutsch, Allan Gray, Carter Burwell and Johan Johansson belong in the same league as Williams?


Only Jerry Goldsmith can bear the slightest comparison to Williams. And even then it's Scottie Pippen next to Michael Jordan.


----------



## Guest

ribonucleic said:


> Only Jerry Goldsmith can bear the slightest comparison to Williams. And even then it's Scottie Pippen next to Michael Jordan.


I have no objection to Goldsmith, but that's not my point is it?


----------



## Neo Romanza

NLAdriaan said:


> I am not aware of serious concert music by Goldsmith or Morricone, that would stand apart from their film scores?
> 
> I think that outstanding film scores, including Star Wars and Jaws, are perfectly suitable to listen to without watching the film. Even more so, in this league I think watching the film without music is a worse experience than listening to the music without the film.


I was talking about John Williams' concert music not Goldsmith or Morricone who, to my knowledge, never composed any concert music.


----------



## JAS

Neo Romanza said:


> I was talking about John Williams' concert music not Goldsmith or Morricone who, to my knowledge, never composed any concert music.


Both have written music for concert halls that is not associated with a film. I did not care for the few pieces by Goldsmith that I have heard, although I like much of his film music. I have not heard any of Morricone's concert works, except the adaptations of his scores reworked for cello and orchestra, which are very nice. (Goldsmith had perhaps 6 or 7 works written expressly for the concert hall, and Morricone apparently has a pretty extensive list of such works.)


----------



## Neo Romanza

JAS said:


> Both have written music for concert halls that is not associated with a film. I did not care for the few pieces by Goldsmith that I have heard, although I like much of his film music. I have not heard any of Morricone's concert works, except the adaptations of his scores reworked for cello and orchestra, which are very nice.


Outside of their film music, I have no desire to listen to any of the afore mentioned film composers' more serious music. It's rather different in the earlier days with composers like Korngold, Shostakovich, Honegger, etc. as these were composers who had a reputation as being serious classical composers. I don't know maybe I'm just a snob, but I could never take Williams, Goldsmith or Morricone too seriously. But I look at film music as its own little niche and there are many, many people who collect recordings of film scores.


----------



## pianozach

When discussing film scores, John Williams now dominates the Top 10, Top 20, Top 100 lists of *Best Film Scores*.

When discussing *Classical Music of the 20th Century* Williams is a footnote. Even most of Williams' fans can't name a single non-film work of his.

I'm not discounting his work . . . his music is brilliant, but will always be framed by his association with film.

I'm thinking that part of his popularity is decidedly because he's not attempting to be an "art" composer. Music from 1945-2020 is pointedly NOT _*that*_ type of throwback music; it is far more adventurous and out-of-the-box. It certainly has its place, and only history will sort out what sort of Classical Music was the most important of the 2nd half of the 20th Century.


----------



## Guest

pianozach said:


> When discussing film scores, John Williams now dominates the Top 10, Top 20, Top 100 lists of *Best Film Scores*.


Depends which list you're looking at.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI's_100_Years_of_Film_Scores

3 in the top 25 is hardly dominant.


----------



## Fabulin

pianozach said:


> When discussing *Classical Music of the 20th Century* Williams dominates the Top 10, Top 20, Top 100 lists of *Best Film Scores*.


Like Wagner the operas.

As for MacLeod's all-inclusive list, let's consider this: https://www.ranker.com/list/best-operas/bustermcdermott
Finding a list like that does not diminish Wagner's standing as a composer greater than Puccini and Verdi.

If you look at companion lists AFI provided, "greatest laughs", "greatest villains", it does not quite make them King Solomon, but rather a cultural guide for tourists that reminds them what films and historical names even exist.

As for the question of Adolph Deutsch and Co., here is my tiering:
https://tiermaker.com/list/music/composers-ranked-by-their-film-scores-482983/696335

*B* Giacchino, Deutsch, Kaper
*B+* Walton, Bax, A. Newman, Silvestri
*A- *Barry, Jarre, Bruns, Kamen, Rota, Powell, Broughton, Previn, Desplat
*A *Zimmer, Newton-Howard, North, Vaughan Williams, Horner, Elfman, Menken, Poledouris, Tiomkin
*A+* E. Bernstein, M. Steiner, W. Alwyn, Schnittke, Waxman, Copland, Huppertz
*S-* Rózsa, Shore, Shostakovich, Korngold, Prokofiev
*S* Goldsmith, Herrmann, Morricone
*S+* Williams

I've forgotten a few names when making the template (Mancini, Saint-Saens, Corigliano, Goldenthal, Glass) I recommend their music too.


----------



## JAS

Neo Romanza said:


> Outside of their film music, I have no desire to listen to any of the afore mentioned film composers' more serious music. It's rather different in the earlier days with composers like Korngold, Shostakovich, Honegger, etc. as these were composers who had a reputation as being serious classical composers. I don't know maybe I'm just a snob, but I could never take Williams, Goldsmith or Morricone too seriously. But I look at film music as its own little niche and there are many, many people who collect recordings of film scores.


My reply was only to correct the record, so to speak, since you said that they composed no concert music, which they have. Not being interested in it is an entirely different matter, and I will not argue _for_ their music in that realm since what I have heard of it is not in my area of interest.


----------



## Neo Romanza

JAS said:


> My reply was only to correct the record, so to speak, since you said that they composed no concert music, which they have. Not being interested in it is an entirely different matter, and I will not argue _for_ their music in that realm since what I have heard of it is not in my area of interest.


I never said that Goldsmith or Morricone composed any concert music. I was only talking about John Williams' concert music. There was no correction that needed to be made on your part.


----------



## JAS

Neo Romanza said:


> I was talking about John Williams' concert music not Goldsmith or Morricone who, to my knowledge, never composed any concert music.


There is no way to make this read as you seem to wish it to read. My point was that _all three_ of the people you mention _have_ composed concert music, hence the correction, minor as it might be.


----------



## Neo Romanza

JAS said:


> There is no way to make this read as you seem to wish it to read. My point was that _all three_ of the people you mention _have_ composed concert music, hence the correction, minor as it might be.


Which I acknowledge and have decided to move on, but you haven't.


----------



## Fabulin

I like this joke:


----------



## aioriacont

janxharris said:


> I keep trying those Bach works but it's never a good experience.
> 
> 'We sit down in tears' is pleasant enough.


maybe you can try listening to specific sections, for example the Chorus and Arias, which can be helpful to get into the works slowly, and then, after a while, including the full work (including recitatives, to have the real awesome experience), and then you're set.
I would really recommend that you give those some more tries, because those are certainly grower works. Their beauty reveal little by little. I believe St John Passion would be the most accessible at the moment. 
Also, it can be a matter of the version. Some versions kind of screw up the work. For HIP, I recommend Gardiner and Masaaki Suzuki's versions of the Mass and the two Passions. For non-HIP, I recommend Karl Richter (any recording, but mainly the live ones you can find on youtube and are not available in audio formats) and Rilling's ones.

I remember hating even Genesis in first listens, and now I think so highly of that Trespass to W&W to the point I admit those albums had a huge impact on my view of music back in the days and I never get tired of them. Same thing happened to me regarding a lot of Bach's work.


----------



## Guest

Fabulin said:


> Like Wagner the operas.
> 
> As for MacLeod's all-inclusive list, let's consider this: https://www.ranker.com/list/best-operas/bustermcdermott
> Finding a list like that does not diminish Wagner's standing as a composer greater than Puccini and Verdi.
> 
> If you look at companion lists AFI provided, "greatest laughs", "greatest villains", it does not quite make them King Solomon, but rather a cultural guide for tourists that reminds them what films and historical names even exist.


The AFI list tends too much towards the established and dead composers for my liking. It suggests a conservatism in its analysis by which the fanfare and memorable melody seem to do particularly well. The more subtle scores without 'big themes' are overlooked. What we can see is that Williams does well enough in this list, but there are plenty of other composers who have done great movies. For all of them, however, the question I ask below still applies.



pianozach said:


> I'm thinking that part of his popularity is decidedly because he's not attempting to be an "art" composer.


I'm thinking that part of his popularity is decidedly because he composes for mainstream popular cinema. I am not denigrating the man's work, by the way. I like many of the films which he has scored, and I can recognise how well some of those scores add to a film's emotional content. But Williams became much better known among the general public after he began his associations with Lucas and Spielberg: of course he's going to look at least ubiquitous because they are. Before that, his association with Irwin Allen - another popular mainstream TV/film producer - obviously did him no harm either. His twinkly tunes for Harry Potter may be the most memorable thing about what are not exactly great movies, but they are certainly popular - because the books were bestsellers to begin with.

What I'm questioning is how we measure the contribution made by a composer to a film and thus compare what Williams brings with what others bring.

I wonder if _The Deer Hunter _would have been a greater film if it had been scored by Williams instead of Stanley Myers? Would it have been a different film? Might it have sold more seats at the box office?

Looking at his past track record, he doesn't do much for other producers/directors. He can get by working for Spielberg. Brian Percival must have considered himself fortunate to get him for _The Book Thief _back in 2013, the last feature Williams did for someone other than the Lucas/Spielberg axis! It only made it to 121 in the US box office for that year, (92nd worldwide) so Williams didn't bring quite the same all-conquering magic (unless he did, and the film would have bombed completely without him).

There were, and are, many other composers who have done very successful jobs, but without the same publicity that Williams gets by association with popular filmmakers. Good as he is, if he is king of the movie composers, it's not solely on the merit of the scores.


----------



## pianozach

MacLeod said:


> Depends which list you're looking at.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI's_100_Years_of_Film_Scores
> 
> 3 in the top 25 is hardly dominant.


I think it is. 12% of a list of greatest film scores. That's impressive.

AFI. I respect their choices. Realistic, and not fawning over Williams as other lists do. Even so Williams occupies their #1 spot with the score for Star Wars, and #14 for E.T. And the list is an edit of their Top 100.

Other lists have equally diverse listings. *AmericanMusicPreservation* doesn't have Williams in their Top 10 at all. But Williams gets 8 film scores in their Top 100. That's 8%, or two of every 25. Impressive.

*Udiscovermusic* give *Williams* 10 spots in its Top 50. Double impressive. So does *DigitalDreamDoor*, and another 5 in its Top 101-200.


----------



## janxharris

aioriacont said:


> maybe you can try listening to specific sections, for example the Chorus and Arias, which can be helpful to get into the works slowly, and then, after a while, including the full work (including recitatives, to have the real awesome experience), and then you're set.
> I would really recommend that you give those some more tries, because those are certainly grower works. Their beauty reveal little by little. I believe St John Passion would be the most accessible at the moment.
> Also, it can be a matter of the version. Some versions kind of screw up the work. For HIP, I recommend Gardiner and Masaaki Suzuki's versions of the Mass and the two Passions. For non-HIP, I recommend Karl Richter (any recording, but mainly the live ones you can find on youtube and are not available in audio formats) and Rilling's ones.
> 
> I remember hating even Genesis in first listens, and now I think so highly of that Trespass to W&W to the point I admit those albums had a huge impact on my view of music back in the days and I never get tired of them. Same thing happened to me regarding a lot of Bach's work.


Thanks for this aioriacont - very helpful. I will begin with the (Gardiner) Mass as I have sampled it before.


----------



## Guest

pianozach said:


> I think it is. 12% of a list of greatest film scores. That's impressive.
> 
> AFI. I respect their choices. Realistic, and not fawning over Williams as other lists do. Even so Williams occupies their #1 spot with the score for Star Wars, and #14 for E.T. And the list is an edit of their Top 100.
> 
> Other lists have equally diverse listings. *AmericanMusicPreservation* doesn't have Williams in their Top 10 at all. But Williams gets 8 film scores in their Top 100. That's 8%, or two of every 25. Impressive.
> 
> *Udiscovermusic* give *Williams* 10 spots in its Top 50. Double impressive. So does *DigitalDreamDoor*, and another 5 in its Top 101-200.


Do any of these lists explain how they arrive at their choices? I couldn't find the methodology for the AFI.



pianozach said:


> Williams occupies their #1 spot with the score for Star Wars


All this does is confirm that Williams scored one of the most popular movies of all time. It doesn't confirm that it was a great score (even if, on other criteria, it is agreed that it is a great score.)


----------



## janxharris

aioriacont said:


> I remember hating even Genesis in first listens, and now I think so highly of that Trespass to W&W to the point I admit those albums had a huge impact on my view of music back in the days and I never get tired of them. Same thing happened to me regarding a lot of Bach's work.


I believe your experience of initial dislike is quite common - certainly that has been mine. Interesting that you enjoy the same albums of Genesis as I do (though I would include Nursery Crime).

Listening to the B minor Mass now. It remains a real endurance test. Any highlights you would cite?


----------



## aioriacont

janxharris said:


> I believe your experience of initial dislike is quite common - certainly that has been mine. Interesting that you enjoy the same albums of Genesis as I do (though I would include Nursery Crime).
> 
> Listening to the B minor Mass now. It remains a real endurance test. Any highlights you would cite?


I am indeed including NC to the Genesis albums. I meant all albums from Trespass until W&W. I'm actually not so crazy about Lamb, since it loses, IMO, a bit of the "fairy tale" "transcendental" imaginary Genesis so uniquely manages to build in their music in all those albums from that era. But IMO, trespass, NC, foxtrot, SEBTP, ATOTT and WW are absolute masterpieces.

For highlights of the Mass, I think the Second and Third movements from the first part are catchy as hell (or heaven haha), for a Mass. Also the two Osanna, which are really essentially the same melody. 
It is a very catchy work iMO, i still suffer with other Masses, so i recommend skipping the opening kyrie for a while, listen to those tracks I mentioned above, and then try to come back to the kyrie because it is pure heaven.
Happy listening!!!


----------



## Fabulin

MacLeod said:


> The AFI list tends too much towards the established and dead composers for my liking. It suggests a conservatism in its analysis by which the fanfare and memorable melody seem to do particularly well. The more subtle scores without 'big themes' are overlooked. What we can see is that Williams does well enough in this list, but there are plenty of other composers who have done great movies. For all of them, however, the question I ask below still applies.


First of all, you are arguing based on other people's lists instead of your own reason. This is fallacious. Some degree of memory of over 300+ film scores, and the study of sheet music of at least 15 major film composers, is what lead me to mine.

I don't think you realize that Williams has plenty of very subtle tracks and writing in many of his scores, that are as good as anyone elses. Williams is the king of film composers, because he virtually did everything others could do, and better (except: electronics and experimental ensembles), and then did some things nobody else has really done (so: Korngold could beat the classics to a standstill, North could not, Poledouris could create lite versions of them, and Williams could improve every temp track he was given, and give it a new melodic identity.

This is all in "exam conditions" of several weeks work with all other things to keep in mind at the same time. Williams is a magnificent composer because if you tried the "several weeks test" a hundred times 
1. on even the most illustrious of his contemporaries, they wouldn't have achieved such results. Do you recall a story I posted a couple of times, how Stravinsky asked for a year to write an hour of film score and has been shown the door? Not a single composer in the second half of the 20th century went on to prove that the way Williams writes is achievable to many others too. I wonder why? Why did arrogant Morricone never demonstrate his superiority other than in words of disdain full of fallacies. (he considered a march in space to be inapropriate (********, it was a fantasy war movie in space coating), and suggested he would have done a fugue---now _this _would have been inapropriate, and is just a shallow attempt at bragging----especially ironic considering that Williams has a better porfolio of fugal writing for orchestra...)

2. Nor would many great historical composers of theatrical music, whose music in its effect can be most directly compared to his, ahve achieved comparable results in such a time (Tchaikovsky, Wagner, Verdi, R. Strauss, Puccini, Korngold---with the sole exception of Mozart, perhaps).

What I'm saying is, even for those who consider him a tremendously talented composer, but a "stylistic dinosaur," or whatever, with his 200+ hours of music composed - he still should have the respect due at least comparable to Saint-Saens. This means, if you see Saint-Saens on a 35. spot on some list, it's very apt to ask where is Williams, whose music, while at the same time in melody and orchestration more comparable to greatest masters such as Tchaikovsky, shows seamless transitions between tonality, semi-tonality, and atonality, and his fluent skills in jazz, augmented tonality, and polytonality, just to name a few things that are not so easy as what Saint-Saens has been doing. Not to mention great counterpoint. Williams has got to be one of the best orchestral counterpunctualists of his generation.

As someone once said, "Goldsmith could do anything, and Williams was always a step ahead of Goldsmith, and two ahead of Horner".
By 1975 Williams was more than able to succeed Bernard Herrmann as a composer of Close Encounters of the Third kind.

Williams is far, far more flexible than Korngold, who always did similar things, whether in opera or film, and is a better composer for brass, winds, and percussion, at least as good in harmony, and better in counterpoint. Not to mention he wrote 10 times the number of scores Korngold did, out of which at least several dozen are of comparable quality. Some people don't realize that, because they think that Star Wars was one film score of 80 minutes, and not (by now: 22 hours of music!). AFI and similar list-makers never mention other episodes of Star Wars separately if they mention the first one. Keep that in mind. If Wagner's Ring had even more operas than it has now, it would have been a much bigger deal to lump them all together in comparison with singular operas.)
The same with Indiana Jones, of which Williams has written 3, not one. This is crucial, because it is plainly obvious that in this series every score is on a very comparable level. If one deserves to be on a list of greatest scores, Williams should be taking 3 spaces there. Those who mention greatest film scores know that recommending one score by Williams can lead to the discovery of others, and leave more spaces for others. I'm saying that again because you may not realize that people polled by AFI likely only know the first score in both the mammoth Star Wars cycle, and in the Indy trilogy. The same with The Lost World: Jurassic Park---a great score more in the Planet of the Apes direction than the first JP.



MacLeod said:


> I'm thinking that part of his popularity is decidedly because he composes for mainstream popular cinema. I am not denigrating the man's work, by the way. I like many of the films which he has scored, and I can recognise how well some of those scores add to a film's emotional content. But Williams became much better known among the general public after he began his associations with Lucas and Spielberg: of course he's going to look at least ubiquitous because they are. Before that, his association with Irwin Allen - another popular mainstream TV/film producer - obviously did him no harm either. His twinkly tunes for Harry Potter may be the most memorable thing about what are not exactly great movies, but they are certainly popular - because the books were bestsellers to begin with.


Williams could have financially retired in 1975 on the basis of the work he has done so far, plus _Jaws_. If he was a typical film composer, this would have been his only hit---but no, he was on a meteoric rise. What he is known for has a dubious merit, unless we behave like blind people discussing colours "in theory", and constantly having to rely on the word of others instead of our own ears. We don't have to.



MacLeod said:


> What I'm questioning is how we measure the contribution made by a composer to a film and thus compare what Williams brings with what others bring.
> 
> I wonder if _The Deer Hunter _would have been a greater film if it had been scored by Williams instead of Stanley Myers? Would it have been a different film? Might it have sold more seats at the box office?


_Deer Hunter_ would have been a different (better) film with Williams writing for it. He was at one of his peaks, straight from Star Wars and CE3K, and could tremendously improve any film with music. Being an even more affecting film thanks to memorable music would probably have done it good with box office and critics alike.



MacLeod said:


> Looking at his past track record, he doesn't do much for other producers/directors. He can get by working for Spielberg. Brian Percival must have considered himself fortunate to get him for _The Book Thief _back in 2013, the last feature Williams did for someone other than the Lucas/Spielberg axis! It only made it to 121 in the US box office for that year, (92nd worldwide) so Williams didn't bring quite the same all-conquering magic (unless he did, and the film would have bombed completely without him).


He is not dependent on them lol. He has been one of the most sought after composers in Hollywood as early as early 1970s, and his status only grew since then. He could accept many other projects if he wanted, or even pursued them(!) himself, but he prefers simple friendly loyalty to George and Steven. If they do a project and ask him, he gives them a priority. Simple as that.
As for smaller films for other directors, he does them when they interest him either from a topic perspective, or from a potential for writing music different than what he has done before.
To give some exaples, he scored Rosewood in the 1990s and The Book Thief in the 2010s both for very modest fees, because he was simply interested. In the cases of The Book Thief and Harry Potter, it was Williams who "sent a discreet note" of interest in a project, and was given the jobs.
The thing many fans bemoan is that directors around the year 2000 started saying nonsense that Williams would have been unable to score their films with edgy music (compare: The Lost World (1997), CE3K(1977), The Fury(1978), Revenge of the Sith(2005), War of the Worlds (2005)).
Or "more modern sound" (A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001), Minority Report (2002).
Hollywood is not a land of geniae, and especially directors are very musically ignorant. To contrast with that, Williams befriended Spielberg when Spielberg started discussing Bela Bartok with him. Lucas is also an educated man, who knows a lot of operatic and concert hall repertoire.



MacLeod said:


> There were, and are, many other composers who have done very successful jobs, but without the same publicity that Williams gets by association with popular filmmakers. Good as he is, if he is king of the movie composers, it's not solely on the merit of the scores.


Williams is underrated because people constantly talk the films instead of the music, whether his or not his. Stop caring about the other departments in films and focus on scores, and the picture looks very different... If you want to know the real scores whose actual quality is inflated by their films and cheap gimmicks, try Titanic, Lawrence of Arabia, and Gone With the Wind.


----------



## Guest

Fabulin said:


> First of all, you are arguing based on other people's lists instead of your own reason. This is fallacious. Some degree of memory of over 300+ film scores, and the study of sheet music of at least 15 major film composers, is what lead me to mine.


I'm not arguing based on lists at all. I simply fished out a list off the internet which, in my opinion, did not support pianozach's claim in post #507 that _"John Williams now dominates the Top 10, Top 20, Top 100 lists of *Best Film Scores*."_

I'm not going to get into your credentials and mine. Suffice to say that I'm an amateur but regular film goer and classical music lover who has heard more than enough film scores - and, more importantly, watched more than enough films over the last 55+ years - to be able to form a reasonable opinion of my own. Thanks.

You write at some length (and occasionally patronisingly so) but still don't address the question I posed which is, in fact, not really about Williams alone. If you weren't so set on defending him from what you perceive is an attack, you might give some consideration to what I actually asked. I'll repeat it here. (Perhaps some other posters might also have a view that isn't so focused on one composer above all others.)

How do we measure the contribution made by a composer's score to a film? (and most emphatically _not_ how great is a particular score in terms of its musical merit alone). And having decided on the how, let's then give some consideration to the extent to which Williams meets those criteria (after all, the thread is about Williams, so I'm not proposing we switch to spending all our time talking about Goldsmith, Morricone or Herrmann.!)


----------



## ribonucleic

fabulin said:


> if you want to know the real scores whose actual quality is inflated by their films and cheap gimmicks, try... Lawrence of arabia...


i will fight you

[The site doesn't let you do all caps, apparently. But read that in all caps.]


----------



## Fabulin

MacLeod said:


> How do we measure the contribution made by a composer's score to a film? (and most emphatically _not_ how great is a particular score in terms of its musical merit alone). And having decided on the how, let's then give some consideration to the extent to which Williams meets those criteria (after all, the thread is about Williams, so I'm not proposing we switch to spending all our time talking about Goldsmith, Morricone or Herrmann.!)


Music in films, in the most general sense, is there to convey what an image, word, and other sound effect cannot, to augment what they _can _ convey, or both. To what extent such contribution is invited depends on the film. The greatest director-composer collaborations have music actually take the lead and tell the story emotionally, when the image is just general imagery that gets perceived by the viewer through the lenses of the emotion that the music evokes. For example a lone figure walking in the desert with horror music playing seems like a walking menace, a lone figure walking to heroic music seems like someone admirable, possibly who the audience wants to be or cheer for, and a lone figure walking to sad music is who the audience pities or empathizes with. Mysterious music would have a yet different effect on the character interpretation, and ambiguous music would likely be associated with the scenery more than with the character. If you add the layer of characters and concepts being represented by themes, the music can have even more complex relations if it evokes more, shall we say, culture-based information. The flexibility of the style of music is very important (Korngold and Herrmann are prime examples of high-end composers whose music always sounds, respectively, Viennese, and heavy & brooding), because the most fitting and optimal musical choices for any given scene can be very different from the most fitting choices a scene before, and a scene to follow.

In more music-heavy films, seamlessness of storytelling through music depends on the coherence and fluency, on the flow of music from one event to another. Meanwhile the more the style of music is tightly matched to what is most optimal for a given scene, the harder it is to achieve such coherence. The two composers of film scores most accomplished across various genres (Williams and Goldsmith, but to a certain extent also Elmer Bernstein before them) have developed synthesizing stylistic abilities to achieve both goals at the same time. This requires incredible musical knowledge and skills. Compare the scores of Schnittke, where more often one style ends, and another begins. This is far easier.

I said it requires skills, but it can still be music of varying quality, and as a result, of varying _power_. A listener can feel the mood while hearing well chosen but not amazingly fine-tuned music, or FEEL the mood, when in addition to matching the picture, the music is great with a capital G, if you know what I mean. The difference between a score that "works" and a score that "excells at work".

That's why it is anything but unimportant that Williams' music goes an extra mile to be great without the film too. This is what gives it an edge over many comparable scores of Goldsmith, who saw music he was delivering as very disposable, and did not bother too much conceiving it as something listenable without the picture. Even after having scores finished he did not care too much to make quality concert suites out of this music.

After 1977 Williams became more business-like in ensuring the longevity of his music, seeing that there was some demand and potential, but up until Star Wars was finished, his mindset was the same as Goldsmith's, and he did not expect the music of Jaws or Star Wars to ever be heard again. An LP release of Star Wars was ensured, but he did not expect it to go beyond little niche market. In fact, it was the LSO musicians who first started talking among themselves that this music was going to be big thing.
I'm saying that, because despite not expecting any more reward than what the contract said (100,000 USD), Williams still ensured Star Wars was as good as it was as pure music. He was given a 1% of Star Wars box office profits independently later, as a form of gratitude, with Lucas saying that his work was the only thing that turned out better than it was expected to (and it was expected to match a temp track full of classics anyway!). This focus on technical merit mattered very much for the effect in films.

Herrmann did focus on technical merit too, but he was very much whom Piston would have called a "sequence of chords" composer, not a melodic composer, and his music always sacrifices either scene-to-scene variety, or seamlessness, whereas Williams manages to avoid having to do too much of such trade-offs. For this reason the best Herrmann scores stand up to some very good Williams scores, but not to his best ones. Williams was something of Herrmann's friend-student, and was very critical of the lack of listenability outside of the picture of some of Herrmann's scores back in the 1970s.

A side note is that while Williams did not sabotage the longevity of his music through inaction the way Goldsmith did, he did not resort to propaganda activity. Had he used his multi-million fortune to propagate his music and person, it would have been much different. He could have well established a localised Bayreuth-like cult around that already in the mid 1980s. Instead, he was a conductor of Boston Pops, trying to bring the music of others to the light, not unlike what Herrmann did at the CBS radio. It was feared that he would use this position mostly to propagate his own music, and he did not. Meanwhile the official internet page of Morricone (Williams doesn't even have one) openly calls Morricone the greatest living film composer. 
http://www.enniomorricone.org/


> Ennio Morricone is rightly considered* the world's greatest living film composer, a legend whose work has reached far beyond the scorched desert-scapes of Almeria (A Few Dollars More) and the tumultuous waters of Iguazu Falls (The Mission). Much sought after by filmmakers the world over for his matchless** versatility and productivity


*Bluff!
*Another bluff!

This propaganda has some effect, considering that...

Morricone is a bit of a different competitor, because his scores are much, much shorter, and on a much smaller scale. In many parameters, his music cannot be directly compared with that of the "Hollywood / UK line" of composers. He is a very attractive counterculture hero figure for all sorts of industry professionals in Europe who lack the budgets to support the heavy, expensive Hollywood style, as well as for those who dislike large orchestral classical music and relate more to small ensemble work. If I were millionrainbows, I would say that it comforts some that less can be seen as better than more. The Morricone cult is a real and active thing, (the official facebook page styles him as simply "maestro", just like the megalomaniac Toscanini styled himself to cab drivers), while Williams has no offical internet website, no official facebook, and he is called maestro by others, never by himself.

So... the Goldsmith vs. Williams fandom rivalry is as often a within-the-Hollywood-tradition discussion, however broad it might be(!), while Morricone vs. Williams is a Holllywod vs anti-Hollywood discussion.

An example how Williams and Morricone are seen as the two greatest living film composers nowadays is that they received the award of the Spanish Princess of Asturia jointly this year, and the very popular Hans Zimmer did not (Mancini was also popular and pop-like in his time, and I've never seen him a part of the conversation about the very greatest film composers).

To me Morricone is one of the greatest film composers in history, but he is inside a bubble that he proudly helps inflate himself, and as the time goes on, this bubble will lose some air. Sure, over time the classic films of both composers will become more and more obscure, but the music Williams has written has a concert potential that makes him the most performed living composer in the world, and Morricone does not. The question between the two will be over when both kick the bucket and Williams' tomes of scores go to Julliard. I have some contact with a couple music scholars specializing in film scores, and their work about JW gets more and more intimidating every year, especially concerning his third and final Star Wars trilogy. And that is with scholars having to work with their own ears, limited published materials, and unofficial materials.


----------



## JAS

A score can also give a film an overall tone, or to help keep a film with disparate parts together as a cohesive whole.


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> A score can also give a film an overall tone,


Well...yes, which is what I had in mind when I asked earlier what _The Deer Hunter _would have been like had it been scored by someone other than Stanley Myers (though I made the mistake of specifying Williams ). I chose that movie merely as a well regarded movie I picked more or less at random from 1979 (when Williams scored the generally poorly regarded 1941!). If it was scored by someone else, the tone would not have been the same - not necessarily better or worse, but certainly different

But my question - clearly proving elusive to articulate - was how we _measure _the contribution music makes. Yes, it adds to the tone, the atmosphere, the emotional impact etc etc etc. But to what extent, when considered alongside the visual image (framing, lighting, shot etc), the acting, the editing?

One of my favourite scenes in _Close Encounters _actually has no music at all: evidently, the great Spielberg decided he didn't need the great Williams to add anything at all to the scene set in the Air Traffic Control Tower. I offer that as an easy example of the myriad choices made by the director with regard to which components go into any given scene. It's not simply a matter of having the right composer. I'm quite sure that there are examples of a highly regarded composer being prevented from providing a great score simply because the director (or, in the case of _Alien_, the editor) didn't like what was on offer and chose something else. There is no way of knowing how alternative choices might have turned out, either for the film or the score.

Ironically, one gets to test this kind of judgement when watching silent movies, for which several scores have often been written. Once I found the 'right' soundtrack, _The General _became a very watchable Keaton movie, shorn of some of the typical sentimentality that disfigures so much of the period's output (Chaplin was especially guilty, IMO). Angelin Fonda's score is 'great' because of the contribution to the movie's impact - regardless of whether the musical content stands up as "quality music that could become 'canon'".


----------



## JAS

MacLeod said:


> . . . But my question - clearly proving elusive to articulate - was how we _measure _the contribution music makes. Yes, it adds to the tone, the atmosphere, the emotional impact etc etc etc. But to what extent, when considered alongside the visual image (framing, lighting, shot etc), the acting, the editing?


I don't think you really _can_ measure it. It is a personal response, even if it might be shared by many others without prompting. And many viewers may not even recognize how or that it is working on them in any particular way, even if it is.


----------



## Bulldog

For me, the script, direction and acting each has more significance than the musical score.


----------



## pianozach

MacLeod said:


> Do any of these lists explain how they arrive at their choices? I couldn't find the methodology for the AFI.
> 
> All this does is confirm that Williams scored one of the most popular movies of all time. It doesn't confirm that it was a great score (even if, on other criteria, it is agreed that it is a great score.)


1. No. I think they use a panel of "experts".

2. Well, yeah. But, a film becomes popular based on its components, of which the score can be a very large one. So can the acting, directing, cinematography, editing, and includes location scouting, casting, and a million other things.

Star Wars would likely NOT have had the same impact had they used some budget rate film composer, like, say, Bill Conti. Conti would likely have hit all the same moments, but I doubt it would have had the depth of Williams' arrangements.

Unfortunately there are not all that many instances where you can see a film with different scores. But they do exist. Sometimes a different composer will be used for English speaking audiences than presentations in other languages. And there are a few films where a score was out-and-out replaced, such as the very famous instance of *Alex North*'s score for *2001: A Space Odyssey*. And North's score is available.

For comparison, the embedded video shows how North's original score may have sounded over the opening credits and initial scene.






.

To illustrate the point even further, here's a tutorial showing a scene scored 5 different ways.






.

And this guy scores a scene four different ways: Drama, Suspense, Horror, and Inspirational.






.

The other 'famous' example is *Ridley Scott*'s 1985 fantasy classic *LEGEND*, which has dueling soundtracks. You may be more familiar with the soundtrack provided by *TANGERINE DREAM*. But Scott's original choice to score the film was industry veteran and film score legend *Jerry Goldsmith*. Goldsmith feels it's one of his best scores, but the film didn't "test" well with American audiences. So in the US, a different edit of the film was created and Tangerine Dream was brought in to score the new edit.

Which is better? I couldn't tell ya. But the *Goldsmith* score would likely not work on top of the United States cut, and the *Tangerine Dream* score would likely not work on top of the European cut.

These may be the most famous examples of rejected scores, but there are plenty of films with rejected complete scores: *The Exorcist*, *Air Force One* (Goldsmith replaced Randy Newman), the 2005 *King Kong* (with Howard Shore's score replaced at the last minute with one by James Newton Howard), and Hitchcock's *Torn Curtain* (he replaced the "old fashioned" Bernard Herrmann score with one by John Addison).

There are plenty of *silent films* that have many different scores available. Obviously, when silents were originally released, they were accompanied live, and the "score", as it were, was left to the discretion of the theater organist or pianist. But as they gained traction as a legitimate art form, music for silent films rapidly became standardized, and it wasn't long before "suggested" music lists (and even scores) accompanied the films to the theaters. And shortly before the changeover to "talkies", some films even had actual scores.

As so many silent films are now in the Public Domain, new scores for them keep popping up here and there. There's the famous pop genre re-scoring of *Metropolis* in 1984, in addition to over a dozen others.

In January a new score by Jeff Beal for F.W. Murnau's *Sunrise* premiered.

But back to *John Williams* . . . there's some very good reasons why he was so dominant as a film composer . . . he's excellent at this genre. He understands composing AND composing for film.


----------



## pianozach

MacLeod said:


> . . .
> 
> Ironically, one gets to test this kind of judgement when watching silent movies, for which several scores have often been written. Once I found the 'right' soundtrack, _The General _became a very watchable Keaton movie, shorn of some of the typical sentimentality that disfigures so much of the period's output (Chaplin was especially guilty, IMO). Angelin Fonda's score is 'great' because of the contribution to the movie's impact - regardless of whether the musical content stands up as "quality music that could become 'canon'".


I've actually accompanied *The General* live.

I assembled some PD music, some original stuff, some classical, and left room for some open improvisation.


----------



## JAS

pianozach said:


> I've actually accompanied *The General* live.
> 
> I assembled some PD music, some original stuff, some classical, and left room for some open improvisation.


I think that it takes a particularly skill set to play a score to a film, just as being in a marching band requires special skills.


----------



## pianozach

Bulldog said:


> For me, the script, direction and acting each has more significance than the musical score.


Years ago I saw a comparison of scenes from some western genre film (I think it was *The Searchers*) both with and without Max Steiner's score.

The difference will make you a believer.

*WHAT WOULD YOUR FAVORITE MOVIE SOUND LIKE WITHOUT A SCORE?
*

https://utahsymphony.org/explore/2017/09/what-would-your-favorite-movie-sound-like-without-a-score/


----------



## Red Terror

Bulldog said:


> For me, the script, direction and acting each has more significance than the musical score.


Indeed. A film should not rely on a score to make its point, otherwise it is not a successful work of art as it cannot stand without 'enhancements'.


----------



## Guest

pianozach said:


> But back to *John Williams* . . . there's some very good reasons why he was so dominant as a film composer . . . he's excellent at this genre. He understands composing AND composing for film.


Thanks pianozach - you echo a number of points I made in my last post, and your last post is exactly right: he's excellent at the genre.

However.



pianozach said:


> Star Wars would likely NOT have had the same impact had they used some budget rate film composer, like, say, Bill Conti. Conti would likely have hit all the same moments, but I doubt it would have had the depth of Williams' arrangements.


This is not just pure speculation about Bill Conti - maybe he would have done a fine job, who knows (why pick on him?) - but discounts the dozens of other composers around at the time who might also have done just as good a job - if not better. Checking the list of films released in 1977, there are many films whose composers might have done just as well. For example,

Peter Ivers
Elmer Bernstein
Lalo Schifrin
Michael Small
John Addison
Michel Legrand
Ennio Morricone
Tangerine Dream (??)
Laurence Rosenthal
Jerry Goldsmith
John Barry
etc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_in_film

Are we really saying that, given the instruction to write something like The Planets, not one of these could have done something to pass muster? As I said, we can't rewrite history (though we can play at it with the wonders of modern technology.)


----------



## Fabulin

MacLeod said:


> Are we really saying that, given the instruction to write something like The Planets, not one of these could have done something to pass muster?


Compare Alex North's score to _2001: A Space Odyssey _(which has just been linked) to _Star Wars _and conclude the answer. Morricone, Goldsmith, and Bernstein (the others are not serious choices for this project) would have delivered music no better than what Kubrick had rejected.

Consider Goldsmith's _Capricorn One_ (1978) and _Star Trek the Motion Picture_ (1979), which were assignments trying to capitalize on the Star Wars music craze. Good music? Sure. Star Wars level? No. And Goldsmith was the best Williams substitute directors could get (not the first, and not the last time, _nota bene_).


----------



## Guest

pianozach said:


> *WHAT WOULD YOUR FAVORITE MOVIE SOUND LIKE WITHOUT A SCORE?
> *
> 
> https://utahsymphony.org/explore/2017/09/what-would-your-favorite-movie-sound-like-without-a-score/


Chilling - as if something unexpected might be about to happen. It proves nothing of course, only that as you yourself have observed, the same scene will impact differently with different music - it's not just a matter of what is scored by the composer, but what is wanted by the director for the scene. That Williams excelled in providing what was wanted, to order, doesn't prove he is a 'great composer', only that he is, as I've already acknowledged, a great composer of film music: but there are many, and there have been many.


----------



## Guest

Fabulin said:


> Compare Alex North's score to _2001: A Space Odyssey _(which has just been linked) to _Star Wars _and conclude the answer. Morricone, Goldsmith, and Bernstein (the others are not serious choices for this project) would have delivered music no better than what Kubrick had rejected.


Let's stick with Williams and _Star Wars _and my question.


----------



## Fabulin

MacLeod said:


> Let's stick with Williams and _Star Wars _and my question.


Consider Goldsmith's Capricorn One (1978) and Star Trek the Motion Picture (1979), which were assignments trying to capitalize on the Star Wars music craze. Good music? Sure. Star Wars level? No. And Goldsmith was the best Williams substitute directors could get (not the first, and not the last time, nota bene).

How much evidence are you willing to reject?


----------



## pianozach

MacLeod said:


> Thanks pianozach - you echo a number of points I made in my last post, and your last post is exactly right: he's excellent at the genre.
> 
> However.
> 
> This is not just pure speculation about Bill Conti - maybe he would have done a fine job, who knows (why pick on him?) - but discounts the dozens of other composers around at the time who might also have done just as good a job - if not better. Checking the list of films released in 1977, there are many films whose composers might have done just as well. For example,
> 
> Peter Ivers
> Elmer Bernstein
> Lalo Schifrin
> Michael Small
> John Addison
> Michel Legrand
> Ennio Morricone
> Tangerine Dream (??)
> Laurence Rosenthal
> Jerry Goldsmith
> John Barry
> etc
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_in_film
> 
> Are we really saying that, given the instruction to write something like The Planets, not one of these could have done something to pass muster? As I said, we can't rewrite history (though we can play at it with the wonders of modern technology.)


I picked on *Conti* only because his score for the triumphant workout music in *Rocky*, and how it's similar to the fanfares used by *Williams*. Yet Conti relies on a rhythm section to get it to work. It's also more diatonic in nature than the flat sixth scale Williams uses for the throne room fanfare. Williams' use of brass has more depth than Conti's (who seems to be limited to trumpets and trombones).

That's _*not*_ to say that if *Conti* had been hired, he wouldn't have approached it differently than he did for *Rocky*, he may have added french horns and synth pads and military snare, who knows?


----------



## pianozach

MacLeod said:


> Thanks pianozach - you echo a number of points I made in my last post, and your last post is exactly right: he's excellent at the genre.
> 
> However.
> 
> This is not just pure speculation about Bill Conti - maybe he would have done a fine job, who knows (why pick on him?) - but discounts the dozens of other composers around at the time who might also have done just as good a job - if not better. Checking the list of films released in 1977, there are many films whose composers might have done just as well. For example,
> 
> Peter Ivers
> Elmer Bernstein
> Lalo Schifrin
> Michael Small
> John Addison
> Michel Legrand
> Ennio Morricone
> Tangerine Dream (??)
> Laurence Rosenthal
> Jerry Goldsmith
> John Barry
> etc
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_in_film
> 
> Are we really saying that, given the instruction to write something like The Planets, not one of these could have done something to pass muster? As I said, we can't rewrite history (though we can play at it with the wonders of modern technology.)


I daresay that several of these on your list *could* have risen to the occasion: Barry, Goldsmith, E. Bernstein. I'll bet George Martin might have excelled as well.


----------



## Guest

Fabulin said:


> Consider Goldsmith's Capricorn One (1978) and Star Trek the Motion Picture (1979), which were assignments trying to capitalize on the Star Wars music craze. Good music? Sure. Star Wars level? No. And Goldsmith was the best Williams substitute directors could get (not the first, and not the last time, nota bene).
> 
> How much evidence are you willing to reject?


I'll reject anything that doesn't match my worldview, obviously. It's a common failing on internet forums.


----------



## Guest

pianozach said:


> I'll bet George Martin might have excelled as well.


Yes!! Pepperland transferred to Tattoine!


----------



## Guest

Bulldog said:


> For me, the script, direction and acting each has more significance than the musical score.


Well, I might not go that far. I've just been looking at the BFI's 100 greatest movies of all time, and there are movies where music made an important contribution - though they almost certainly earned their reputation on the script, direction, acting and cinematography combined (and music, in the case of the Bernard Herrmann films!)

https://www.bfi.org.uk/greatest-films-all-time

"Pah, BFI, what do they know!"


----------



## Fabulin

MacLeod said:


> Well, I might not go that far. I've just been looking at the BFI's 100 greatest movies of all time, and there's no sign of either _Star Wars _or Williams (I don't think - it was a quick scan). But there are movies where music made an important contribution - though they almost certainly earned their reputation on the script, direction, acting and cinematography combined (and music, in the case of the Bernard Herrmann films!)
> 
> https://www.bfi.org.uk/greatest-films-all-time
> 
> "Pah, BFI, what do they know!"


Yet again you appeal to higher powers for help.


----------



## Guest

Fabulin said:


> Yet again you appeal to higher powers for help.


I was responding to Bulldog's point that music is of lesser significance than other components. What's wrong with pointing to a list of highly regarded movies and observing that at least some of them will have had an important musical contribution?


----------



## Fabulin

MacLeod said:


> I was responding to Bulldog's point that music is of lesser significance than other components. What's wrong with pointing to a list of highly regarded movies and observing that at least some of them will have had an important musical contribution?


Now you edited it out of your post, but in the original phrasing you singled out "there is no sign of either Star Wars nor Williams", contrasted with "but there are movies where music made an important contribution" and concluded your post with a sarcastic "Pah, BFI, what do they know!". In the context of our discussion it did not look like as if you suddenly started talking to Bulldog at all.


----------



## Guest

Fabulin said:


> Now you edited it out of your post, but in the original phrasing you singled out "there is no sign of either Star Wars nor Williams", contrasted with "but there are movies where music made an important contribution" and concluded your post with a sarcastic "Pah, BFI, what do they know!". In the context of our discussion it did not look like as if you suddenly started talking to Bulldog at all.


Yes. And I acknowledged that I edited the reference to Williams out. It was an irrelevance to the point I really wanted to make.


----------



## Knorf

As a commercial artist, that is to say, in repackaging other people's creativity to enhance the saleability and impact of a consumer product, John Williams is almost without peer.

His concert works, however, are dire.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

He would be a modern day Rossini if he actually has Rossini's talent.


----------



## Fabulin

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> He would be a modern day Rossini if he actually has Rossini's talent.


If he had Rossini's talent in addition to what he has now, he would have been Mozart.


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> I don't think you really _can_ measure it. It is a personal response, even if it might be shared by many others without prompting. And many viewers may not even recognize how or that it is working on them in any particular way, even if it is.


I don't think you can either, so thanks for saying so.



Fabulin said:


> Consider Goldsmith's _Capricorn One_ (1978) and _Star Trek the Motion Picture_ (1979), which were assignments *trying to capitalize on the Star Wars music craze*.


I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that Jerry Goldsmith wrote these scores as part of a '_Star Wars _music craze'. In other words, that he saw _Star Wars _and attempted to mimic, or jump on the bandwagon, or something?

_Capricorn One_, AFAIK, was first released at the end of 1977 (in Japan, according to IMDb). It's possible, I suppose, that Goldsmith knew of Williams' _Star Wars _score before he wrote his own. He might even have been prescient enough to realise that the film was going to become a phenomenon before he wrote his own.

But this seems improbable. _Capricorn One _was a poor movie; the score made no impression on me at the time, but that hardly constitutes evidence that Goldsmith is a poor composer.

All of this is a side issue. No-one is disputing that Williams is a master of film score composition, especially for mainstream popular movies, notably by blockbuster directors (discounting _Fiddler on the Roof_, which was not an Oscar for original composition). What is disputed is what some seem to suggest which is that he is the 'greatest ever', the only composer whose film work is worthy of recognition: everyone else (now and in the past) is sub-standard, though no-one has offered any supporting evidence beyond the naming of films and assertions that their scores are great. ("Look, look - _Star Wars_!")

Given how long he has been in the business, 4 Oscars for original composition maybe more than anyone else, but that still leaves an awful lot of other reputable composers who've worked with other reputable directors on other reputable films. I'm not holding up the Oscars as some kind of absolute arbiter, but as a starting point for anyone who wants to find all the other composers whose work for mainstream movies has been recognised.

Anyone would think that througout the film business, everyone without exception wants Williams and any other composer is second best ("Cor, strewth, I've been lumbered with Zimmer yet again!")


----------



## Fabulin

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that Jerry Goldsmith wrote these scores as part of a '_Star Wars _music craze'. In other words, that he saw _Star Wars _and attempted to mimic, or jump on the bandwagon, or something?


Williams gave producers confidence in a large symphonic orchestra again, so guess what did they want for their space-themed films?



MacLeod said:


> _Capricorn One_, AFAIK, was first released at the end of 1977 (in Japan, according to IMDb). It's possible, I suppose, that Goldsmith knew of Williams' _Star Wars _score before he wrote his own. He might even have been prescient enough to realise that the film was going to become a phenomenon before he wrote his own.


Filming begun in January 1977, and the release was scheduled for February 1978. Star Wars premiered in May 1977. By the time Goldsmith got employed, Star Wars was all the rage in Hollywood. The release ultimately happened in June 1978.



MacLeod said:


> But this seems improbable. _Capricorn One _was a poor movie; the score made no impression on me at the time, but that hardly constitutes evidence that Goldsmith is a poor composer.


Tough luck. Capricorn One is a decent film and a rather famous Goldsmith score. Still, it is a far cry from Star Wars. Do you discount everything that points to Goldsmith not being on par with Williams in those matters?



MacLeod said:


> All of this is a side issue. No-one is disputing that Williams is a master of film score composition, especially for mainstream popular movies, notably by blockbuster directors (discounting _Fiddler on the Roof_, which was not an Oscar for original composition).


Do you realize that those films: Jaws, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jurassic Park, E.T.---became blockbusters in the first place in a large part thanks to Williams? You may not believe me, but that's what Lucas and Spielberg have said both back then and over the years. This is what Hitchcock said of Herrmann's contributions back in the day. This is what the screenwriters of LOTR said when they heard Howard Shore's music. "Half of the film"---they say.



MacLeod said:


> What is disputed is what some seem to suggest which is that he is the 'greatest ever', the only composer whose film work is worthy of recognition: everyone else (now and in the past) is sub-standard, though no-one has offered any supporting evidence beyond the naming of films and assertions that their scores are great. ("Look, look - _Star Wars_!")


Nobody said that he is the only one worthy of recognition. Literally nobody. You are inventing statements and making a strawman.



MacLeod said:


> Given how long he has been in the business, 4 Oscars for original composition maybe more than anyone else, but that still leaves an awful lot of other reputable composers who've worked with other reputable directors on other reputable films. I'm not holding up the Oscars as some kind of absolute arbiter, but as a starting point for anyone who wants to find all the other composers whose work for mainstream movies has been recognised.


Oscars are a total farse. Goldsmith won only once, and Morricone only a lifetime achievement. Elfman did not win for his magnificent Batman in 1989, and yet garbage sound design of Joker won in 2020. Williams is severely underrated too, because the rule on excluding sequel scores from consideration was lifted only in 2003. Garbage.



MacLeod said:


> Anyone would think that througout the film business, everyone without exception wants Williams and any other composer is second best ("Cor, strewth, I've been lumbered with Zimmer yet again!")


Anyone would think that throughout the classical music, everyone without exception wants Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven. _Another _strawman?


----------



## Guest

Fabulin said:


> Capricorn One is a decent film


A moot point. Let's not get sidetracked.



Fabulin said:


> Do you realize that those films: Jaws, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jurassic Park, E.T.---became blockbusters in the first place in a large part thanks to Williams?


No, I don't realise because it's just not true. As others have said, movies should be able to stand on their merits without music playing a disproportionate role. (And please stop patronising me with your 'do you realise'.)



Fabulin said:


> Nobody said that he is the only one worthy of recognition. Literally nobody. You are inventing statements and making a strawman.


That's right. Nobody said it, and I didn't quote anyone who did. What I said was,



MacLeod said:


> what some seem to suggest


And here are the posts where, IMO, the hyperbole of the poster 'seems to suggest'



20centrfuge said:


> I think Williams will be seen as one of the greatest motion picture composers ever.





ribonucleic said:


> Only Jerry Goldsmith can bear the slightest comparison to Williams. And even then it's Scottie Pippen next to Michael Jordan.





pianozach said:


> When discussing film scores, John Williams now dominates the Top 10, Top 20, Top 100 lists of *Best Film Scores*.





Fabulin said:


> *B* Giacchino, Deutsch, Kaper
> *B+* Walton, Bax, A. Newman, Silvestri
> *A- *Barry, Jarre, Bruns, Kamen, Rota, Powell, Broughton, Previn, Desplat
> *A *Zimmer, Newton-Howard, North, Vaughan Williams, Horner, Elfman, Menken, Poledouris, Tiomkin
> *A+* E. Bernstein, M. Steiner, W. Alwyn, Schnittke, Waxman, Copland, Huppertz
> *S-* Rózsa, Shore, Shostakovich, Korngold, Prokofiev
> *S* Goldsmith, Herrmann, Morricone
> *S+* Williams


(The idea of tiering film composers in this way is a nonsense.)



pianozach said:


> I think it is. 12% of a list of greatest film scores. That's impressive.
> 
> AFI. I respect their choices. Realistic, and not fawning over Williams as other lists do. Even so Williams occupies their #1 spot with the score for Star Wars, and #14 for E.T. And the list is an edit of their Top 100.
> 
> Other lists have equally diverse listings. *AmericanMusicPreservation* doesn't have Williams in their Top 10 at all. But Williams gets 8 film scores in their Top 100. That's 8%, or two of every 25. Impressive.
> 
> *Udiscovermusic* give *Williams* 10 spots in its Top 50. Double impressive. So does *DigitalDreamDoor*, and another 5 in its Top 101-200.





Fabulin said:


> Williams is the king of film composers, because he virtually did everything others could do, and better (except: electronics and experimental ensembles), and then did some things nobody else has really done


In fact, the entirety of your post #522 waxes hyperbolically lyrical about Williams, disses not only other film composers but suggests that not even classical composers could have worked within the time constraints Williams faced...except Mozart 'perhaps'!

(As for the Oscars, I'd already made plain why I made reference to it, so no need to tell me what I already know about their value.)


----------



## pianozach

MacLeod said:


> I was responding to Bulldog's point that music is of lesser significance than other components. What's wrong with pointing to a list of highly regarded movies and observing that at least some of them will have had an important musical contribution?


Yes.

A "film" is an amalgam of all of the individual elements. That's why there's 5 minutes of credits at the end of a film . . . just so you can appreciate how many people and departments it requires to create 2 to 3 hours of cinematic art.

It's NOT "just" the actors, or the director, or the cinematographer, or the writers, or the costumer or makup designer. If ONE of these sucks, it affects the entire film.

Likewise, if ONE of these components, like the SCORE, for instance, is extraordinary, it elevates the film. If ALL of the elements are great, the film becomes greater than the sum of its parts . . . it reaches that cinema "magic" place.


----------



## pianozach

Fabulin said:


> Williams . . . .
> 
> Oscars are a total farse. Goldsmith won only once, and Morricone only a lifetime achievement. Elfman did not win for his magnificent Batman in 1989, and yet garbage sound design of Joker won in 2020. Williams is severely underrated too, because the rule on excluding sequel scores from consideration was lifted only in 2003. Garbage.
> . . .


Ah. The Oscars. Yes, they're sometimes farcical, elevating some films that are drivel, and ignoring others that are truly great.

Sometimes.

Overall, they're just an indicator.

But add other film award organizations, and other music organizations that give awards, like the Grammies, and you can see a trend.

*John Williams* was nominated for 52 Academy Awards, winning 5; 
6 Emmy Awards, winning 3; 
25 Golden Globe Awards, winning 4; 
71 Grammy Awards, winning 25; 
and has received 7 British Academy Film Awards.

With 52 Oscar nominations, Williams currently holds the record for the most Oscar nominations for a living person, and is the second most nominated person in Academy Awards history behind Walt Disney with 59.

In 1980 Williams received an Honorary Doctorate of Music from Berklee College of Music. Williams received an Honorary Doctor of Music degree from Boston College in 1993 and from Harvard University in 2017.

In 2009 Williams received the National Medal of Arts at the White House in Washington, D.C., for his achievements in symphonic music for films, and "as a pre-eminent composer and conductor [whose] scores have defined and inspired modern movie-going for decades."

Since 1988, Williams has been honored with 15 Sammy Film Music Awards, the longest-running awards for film music recordings.

Williams has been inducted into the American Classical Music Hall of Fame and the Hollywood Bowl Hall of Fame. Williams was honored with the annual Richard Kirk award at the 1999 BMI Film and TV Awards, recognizing his contribution to film and television music.

In 2004 he received Kennedy Center Honors.

He won a Classic Brit Award in 2005 for his soundtrack work of the previous year.

In 2012 Williams received the Brit Award for Outstanding Contribution to Music.

In 2013 Williams was presented with the Ken Burns Lifetime Achievement Award

In 2005 the American Film Institute selected Williams's score to 1977's Star Wars as the greatest American film score of all time. His scores for Jaws and E.T. also appeared on the list, at No. 6 and No. 14, respectively. He is the only composer to have three scores on the list. Williams received the AFI Life Achievement Award in June 2016, becoming the first composer to receive the award.

JOHN WILLIAMS has some serious cred.


----------



## Guest

pianozach said:


> Yes.
> 
> A "film" is an amalgam of all of the individual elements. That's why there's 5 minutes of credits at the end of a film . . . just so you can appreciate how many people and departments it requires to create 2 to 3 hours of cinematic art.
> 
> It's NOT "just" the actors, or the director, or the cinematographer, or the writers, or the costumer or makup designer. If ONE of these sucks, it affects the entire film.
> 
> Likewise, if ONE of these components, like the SCORE, for instance, is extraordinary, it elevates the film. If ALL of the elements are great, the film becomes greater than the sum of its parts . . . it reaches that cinema "magic" place.


I agree with most of this. But I'm not convinced that many critics often leave the cinema praising a film's soundtrack when the rest of the key components have been below par. Fans, on the other hand...


----------



## pianozach

MacLeod said:


> In fact, the entirety of your post #522 waxes hyperbolically lyrical about Williams, disses not only other film composers but suggests that not even classical composers could have worked within the time constraints Williams faced...except Mozart 'perhaps'!


There's a point there . . . I'd never hire *Mussorgsky* to score a film, unless I wanted it finished 10 years later


----------



## pianozach

MacLeod said:


> I agree with most of this. But I'm not convinced that many critics often leave the cinema praising a film's soundtrack when the rest of the key components have been below par. Fans, on the other hand...


I can think of two films where the soundtrack was lauded by critics while the film was trashed by them

*Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band*, starring Peter Frampton and the Bee Gees, with special cameo appearances from Billy Preston, Earth Wind & Fire, Alice Cooper and Aerosmith. The album was selling well until the film opened, and then both tanked. The soundtrack debuted at #7 and stayed at #5 for six weeks. Then it made history as being the first record to "*return platinum"*, with over four million copies of it taken off store shelves and shipped back to distributors. Of course, _now_ everyone trashes the record, but the reviews were mixed at the time, and the sales were great.

The other is *Magical Mystery Tour*. Despite widespread media criticism of the *Magical Mystery Tour* film, the soundtrack was a critical and commercial success.


----------



## Guest

pianozach said:


> I can think of two films where the soundtrack was lauded by critics while the film was trashed by them
> 
> *Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band*, starring Peter Frampton and the Bee Gees, with special cameo appearances from Billy Preston, Earth Wind & Fire, Alice Cooper and Aerosmith. The album was selling well until the film opened, and then both tanked. The soundtrack debuted at #7 and stayed at #5 for six weeks. Then it made history as being the first record to "*return platinum"*, with over four million copies of it taken off store shelves and shipped back to distributors. Of course, _now_ everyone trashes the record, but the reviews were mixed at the time, and the sales were great.
> 
> The other is *Magical Mystery Tour*. Despite widespread media criticism of the *Magical Mystery Tour* film, the soundtrack was a critical and commercial success.


Well, yes...but I'd suggest something else was going on there..wouldn't you??


----------



## Luchesi

pianozach said:


> I can think of two films where the soundtrack was lauded by critics while the film was trashed by them
> 
> *Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band*, starring Peter Frampton and the Bee Gees, with special cameo appearances from Billy Preston, Earth Wind & Fire, Alice Cooper and Aerosmith. The album was selling well until the film opened, and then both tanked. The soundtrack debuted at #7 and stayed at #5 for six weeks. Then it made history as being the first record to "*return platinum"*, with over four million copies of it taken off store shelves and shipped back to distributors. Of course, _now_ everyone trashes the record, but the reviews were mixed at the time, and the sales were great.
> 
> The other is *Magical Mystery Tour*. Despite widespread media criticism of the *Magical Mystery Tour* film, the soundtrack was a critical and commercial success.


Money-paying fans wanted to believe that Sgt Pepper's was a serious masterpiece. And look at what they did to it. It's no wonder it flopped.


----------



## Fabulin

pianozach said:


> There's a point there . . . I'd never hire *Mussorgsky* to score a film, unless I wanted it finished 10 years later


Tchaikovsky composed the Dame Pique in 4 months 20 days and that was considered a great speed for a late romantic opera. The Nutcracker took 14 months. Swan Lake took 1 year with some ideas already pre-pondered for 2 years. Beethoven, Wagner, and Verdi also liked to write for months and years.

Meanwhile virtually all greatest Williams scores were composed in 8 weeks each, fully synchronized to the picture.

As for the baseless dispute of my comparison to Mozart, let's consider this:

Mozart overnight:




Williams overnight:


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> You are correct in assuming that I have integrity! I had Foxtrot (the album it was on) from around the age of 16 for around 10 years. It was probably the last half decent Genesis album. I saw them twice and found the first gig I attended entertaining. I listened to Foxtrot a lot and could probably still sing along to parts of it. As a product of its time and for the prog rock audience it was probably better than most but it has long seemed a bit pretentious to me even though I think Peter Gabriel was interesting. There is lots of popular music and jazz from its time that I do still value.


Of course it's fine that Supper's Ready has not retained it's interest for you, but to describe it as _simplistic pop_ is baffling to me. This instrumental section is simplistic? The harmony right from the beginning of the song is very unusual - so too in the "The Guaranteed Eternal Sanctuary Man" section (which is recapitulated in the finale ("As Sure As Eggs Is Eggs").

There is nothing wrong with simplistic per se, but you obviously find it so (you mention pretentious - but this and simplicity would apply to some classical, indeed, any music as well).


----------



## Enthusiast

What can I say? It is how I feel. I'm sorry. I know and celebrate (I value enthusiasm!) that the music is important to you.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> What can I say? It is how I feel. I'm sorry. I know and celebrate (I value enthusiasm!) that the music is important to you.


No problem Enthusiast.


----------



## pianozach

Luchesi said:


> Money-paying fans wanted to believe that Sgt Pepper's was a serious masterpiece. And look at what they did to it. It's no wonder it flopped.


Up until the film, both the *Bee Gees* AND *Peter Frampton* were riding high.

*The Bee Gees* had scored big with *Saturday Night Fever*, and Frampton was riding high after his double live album *Frampton Comes Alive! *became the best-selling album of 1976.

And they were conned into doing the film. They were told The Beatles were involved with it (nope, they weren't), and by the time they figured out the Beatles WEREN'T involved the ink on the contracts was already dry. They were also "flattered" into it . . . they were told they were bigger than the Beatles. For the Bee Gees especially, they'd spent their entire careers trying to shake off the notion by the public that they were Beatles wannabes.

Even *George Martin* let himself be conned into producing it, rationalizing if he didn't do it, someone else could "ruin" it.

Even "6th Beatle" *Billy Preston* agreed to a cameo and solo song.

Frankly, the soundtrack album wasn't awful. But it wasn't an earth-shattering musical masterpiece either. I'm not a fan of the Bee Gee vocals, but an awful lot of people at the time WERE. There were some stand-out tracks (_*Come Together*_ by *Aerosmith*, and _*Got To Get You Into My Life*_ by *Earth Wind & Fire*), but in the end the stank of the film rubbed off on the soundtrack album and it was the first to be returned Platinum.


----------



## pianozach

I find it amusing that a thread about John Williams has inspired an incredible amount of side discussion.


----------



## Fabulin

pianozach said:


> I find it amusing that a thread about John Williams has inspired an incredible amount of side discussion.


As long as it's not a spiral of hate, but a friendly musical discussion, I think that's a good thing.

As for how is the industry doing during the pandemic, here's from Joseph Williams (JW Jr.)


----------



## JAS

pianozach said:


> I find it amusing that a thread about John Williams has inspired an incredible amount of side discussion.


Isn't that the usual for TC threads? (other than those that immediately wither and die, of course)


----------



## tdc

He has some ok music, but 38 pages of discussion? In my opinion he is just not that interesting. Those that aren't interested in his music should treat these threads as they treat his music - ignore it.

That is about all I care to say on the topic.


----------



## pianozach

tdc said:


> He has some ok music, but 38 pages of discussion? In my opinion he is just not that interesting. Those that aren't interested in his music should treat these threads as they treat his music - ignore it.
> 
> That is about all I care to say on the topic.


I'd say that 38 pages seems appropriate. He's heralded, prolific, famous for his music, and America's best loved living composer.

The discussion centers just as much on whether film scores are Classical Music as much as it does on whether Williams' music is Classical or "charlatan" (inferring, I guess, that he's a 'poser').


----------



## Fabulin

tdc said:


> He has some ok music, but 38 pages of discussion?


He has some ok music, plenty of good and very good music, and plenty of great music. I agree that 38 pages of contesting his greatness is surprisingly many.


----------



## hammeredklavier

tdc said:


> He has some ok music, but 38 pages of discussion? In my opinion he is just not that interesting. Those that aren't interested in his music should treat these threads as they treat his music - ignore it.
> That is about all I care to say on the topic.


The sadism in this comment is just priceless.

"
_38 pages of discussion? About John Williams?_








"


----------



## Bulldog

Fabulin said:


> He has some ok music, plenty of good and very good music, and plenty of great music. I agree that 38 pages of contesting his greatness is surprisingly many.


I'd say there have been as many positive Williams postings as negative ones. So change 38 to 19 - you'll be on more solid footing.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Good artist copy, great artist steal.

I think John Williams is great.


----------



## Fabulin

hammeredklavier said:


> The sadism in this comment is just priceless.
> 
> "
> _38 pages of discussion? About John Williams?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "


Is that Hedwig?


----------



## Fabulin

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Good artist copy, great artist steal.
> 
> I think John Williams is great.


I've always understood Stravinsky's use of "steal" as "confiscate". I wonder if, had he lived to 1977, at 95 he would have grasped the irony.

Anyway, Williams is not the one who has "stolen" music in there. It was George Lucas who put the temp with things like "the B-side that nobody ever plays" of a recording containing a part of the Rite of Spring into the film. Williams' job was to not end up like Alex North in 1968 and not have his music replaced by the classics. He passed the test with flying colours.

For example, some time ago, myself and prof. Mark Richards, a music researcher (I was just an assistant, really), concluded, based on oral, textual, and notational evidence, that what is commonly refered to as "Star Wars Main Title" was a recomposition of the film's finale---a shorter version with a fanfare added at the beginning of the throne room scene, where the temp were Dvorak's 9th and Elgar's _Land of Hope_. It had actually little or nothing to do with Korngold.


----------



## mikeh375

Yes, confiscate. I think Stravinsky had to own and make music his (Pergolesi), in much the same way as Picasso was ocassionally influenced by the past....(Velasquez).


----------



## Luchesi

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Good artist copy, great artist steal.
> 
> I think John Williams is great.


Yes, but if young people or new listeners think it's CM then they'll miss out on most of CM(?)

Welcome to the forum!


----------



## Fabulin

Luchesi said:


> Yes, but if young people or new listeners think it's CM then they'll miss out on most of CM(?)


I have no idea how did you make that leap. Williams is a great gate to the classical world. His music inspired some of the current orchestra musicians to go pro in the first place.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Fabulin said:


> I've always understood Stravinsky's use of "steal" as "confiscate". I wonder if, had he lived to 1977, at 95 he would have grasped the irony.
> 
> Anyway, Williams is not the one who has "stolen" music in there. It was George Lucas who put the temp with things like "the B-side that nobody ever plays" of a recording containing a part of the Rite of Spring into the film. Williams' job was to not end up like Alex North in 1968 and not have his music replaced by the classics. He passed the test with flying colours.
> 
> For example, some time ago, myself and prof. Mark Richards, a music researcher (I was just an assistant, really), concluded, based on oral, textual, and notational evidence, that what is commonly refered to as "Star Wars Main Title" was a recomposition of the film's finale---a shorter version with a fanfare added at the beginning of the throne room scene, where the temp were Dvorak's 9th and Elgar's _Land of Hope_. It had actually little or nothing to do with Korngold.


Thanks for enlighten me for my uninformed joke.


----------



## Luchesi

Fabulin said:


> I have no idea how did you make that leap. Williams is a great gate to the classical world. His music inspired some of the current orchestra musicians to go pro in the first place.


Ask a bunch of students, "Would you rather study Star Wars music or a superb example of a large work that has a long tradition, is a famous building block in the history of the art and is something you can learn from?".


----------



## Fabulin

Luchesi said:


> Ask a bunch of students, "Would you rather study Star Wars music or a superb example of a large work that has a long tradition, is a famous building block in the history of the art and is something you can learn from?".


Studying the music of Williams is what a wise young composer would do. The wealth of what can be learned from him about melody, harmony, counterpoint, orchestration, dramatic choices, and combining styles is tremendous.

It recalls me how the forbidden Wagner was also "leading young learners astray" back in the second half of the 19th century, and students had to fetch his scores in secret, because teachers were slow to catch on, despite decades of Wagner's presence.


----------



## Luchesi

Fabulin said:


> Studying the music of Williams is what a wise young composer would do. The wealth of what can be learned from him about melody, harmony, counterpoint, orchestration, dramatic choices, and combining styles is tremendous.
> 
> It recalls me how the forbidden Wagner was also "leading young learners astray" back in the second half of the 19th century, and students had to fetch his scores in secret, because teachers were slow to catch on, despite decades of Wagner's presence.


Young composers maybe, but for the oodles of students who are new to CM, it's a time-consuming detour into film music.

For me it's a matter of what they intended to do, Wagner and Williams. Where they were coming from in the long tradition and what they advanced in the art of music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

pianozach said:


> he's a 'poser'


he's not just a 'poser', he's a 'com poser'.


----------



## Ethereality

I always thought Uematsu is a lot better soundtrack composer, especially when it comes to those 'big themes' everyone always remembers; ie. if you're satisfied by now with the trivial details of sweeping orchestration and want a real lesson on leitmotif, you'll soon realize this is the guy. This  performance of Tour de Japon, all the movements are good except the first one.

I'd say his music is a more fluid and penetrating experience than actiony film music, even in his synth there's somehow even more depth. Neither of the composers in this thread are Classical based on the majority of forms they use, but Uematsu is covered by a lot more musicians due to his massive oeuvre of memorable themes, it only takes one of his osts to be a testament to that. But that's my take from being familiar with both composers' entire oeuvres. He's ranked right under Williams but that's a much greater honor than Williams's position, as games don't have near the popularity of film. Williams gives me much more sameness; at times in films that effect is necessary.


----------



## tdc

pianozach said:


> I'd say that 38 pages seems appropriate. He's heralded, prolific, famous for his music, and *America's best loved living composer.*


Among casual music listeners, with little knowledge of classical music maybe. Among listeners that are specifically interested in classical music, and composers, I'm certain others such as Reich and Adams are more loved and respected than Williams. At least they have distinct compositional voices. Williams does not, he is more of an arranger I think. His compositions can sound pleasing but they do not sound inspired or very original, as a composer he does not really have anything to say.

Perhaps that is why in a recent poll posted here among composition students when asked to list their 5 favorite composers Reich was high on the list, Williams was not on the list at all.


----------



## tdc

I know I was going to try and stay out of this thread, lol. I did good for the first 37 pages.


----------



## NLAdriaan

tdc said:


> Among casual music listeners, with little knowledge of classical music maybe. Among listeners that are specifically interested in classical music, and composers, I'm certain others such as Reich and Adams are more loved and respected than Williams. At least they have distinct compositional voices. Williams does not, he is more of an arranger I think. His compositions can sound pleasing but they do not sound inspired or very original, as a composer he does not really have anything to say.
> 
> Perhaps that is why in a recent poll posted here among composition students when asked to list their 5 favorite composers Reich was high on the list, Williams was not on the list at all.


Well, yes, if you ask Wagner fans what their top 5 opera's are, you know what to expect, if you ask Mozart fans, etc.

Everyone is biased and preoccupied.

I fully agree with your analysis of Williams compositional originality. But it is hard to deny that Williams has something to say. He made some pretty original melodies and gained an audience that Reich and Adams can only dream of. Of course he hitchhiked along with Lucas and Spielberg, but the films would not have been the same without his music. Even within this pretty snobby forum, I guess that when asked at gunpoint, Williams'popularity will be ahead of Reich's and Adams'.


----------



## Guest

NLAdriaan said:


> I guess that when asked at gunpoint, Williams'popularity will be ahead of Reich's and Adams'.


But for composing something other than they compose, surely? Are they comparable? Reich and Adam aren't exactly well known for their film scores


----------



## hammeredklavier

tdc said:


> I know I was going to try and stay out of this thread, lol. I did good for the first 37 pages.


But your patience eventually ran out, and you had to do this, lol:



hammeredklavier said:


> "
> _38 pages of discussion? About John Williams?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "


meanwhile, in case you haven't noticed - a thread about a "mere" conductor (which you're also "staying out" of) has generated twice as many pages of discussion...


----------



## aioriacont

Ethereality said:


> I always thought Uematsu is a lot better soundtrack composer, especially when it comes to those 'big themes' everyone always remembers; ie. if you're satisfied by now with the trivial details of sweeping orchestration and want a real lesson on leitmotif, you'll soon realize this is the guy. This  performance of Tour de Japon, all the movements are good except the first one. .


Nobuo Uematsu, Yasunori Mitsuda, Yoko Shimomura and Yuki Kajiura are geniuses.


----------



## Ethereality

aioriacont said:


> Nobuo Uematsu, Yasunori Mitsuda, Yoko Shimomura and Yuki Kajiura are geniuses.


Exactly. What are your personal favorite tracks from them? It's incredibly hard for me to not like the music of Uematsu, I think he's the pinnacle of contemporary soundtrack from the past 50 years of film, TV and gaming. An OST like FFX for example, with just tracks like _Al Bhed Tribe's Chi, Assault, Silence Before The Storm, Sprouting, Luca, Tidus's Theme,_ and _Yuna's Theme,_ make me wonder why this kind of music didn't happen until the 90s. And so many other celebrated OSTs. From Mitsuda, _Bonds of Sea and Fire_ is heaven, its appearance in _Leftovers_ at 1:37 is pure adventure without the BS.


----------



## NLAdriaan

MacLeod said:


> But for composing something other than they compose, surely? Are they comparable? Reich and Adam aren't exactly well known for their film scores


Adams at least composed some opera, 'City Noir' which is inspired by the 'noir' filmgenre and 'short ride in a fast machine', which is program music telling the story of Adams passenger's ride in a Lamborghini'. How about Adams 'the wound dresser' and Williams music for 'Saving private Ryan'? I have seen Reich performing Drumming to accompany a modern ballet. So far the staged music and down to earth themes.

Williams' film music can also be perfectly listened to without the images (which however is a theme already chewed on extensively in this and many other threads).

So, I would say nothing keeps us from comparing these composers?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

NLAdriaan said:


> Adams at least composed some opera, 'City Noir' which is inspired by the 'noir' filmgenre and 'short ride in a fast machine', which is program music telling the story of Adams passenger's ride in a Lamborghini'. How about Adams 'the wound dresser' and Williams music for 'Saving private Ryan'? I have seen Reich performing Drumming to accompany a modern ballet. So far the staged music and down to earth themes.
> 
> Williams' film music can also be perfectly listened to without the images (which however is a theme already chewed on extensively in this and many other threads).
> 
> So, I would say nothing keeps us from comparing these composers?


Is there anything to gain from such comparison? Isn't it obvious who are more artistic and who is more popular?


----------



## Guest

NLAdriaan said:


> Adams at least composed some opera, 'City Noir' which is inspired by the 'noir' filmgenre and 'short ride in a fast machine', which is program music telling the story of Adams passenger's ride in a Lamborghini'. How about Adams 'the wound dresser' and Williams music for 'Saving private Ryan'? I have seen Reich performing Drumming to accompany a modern ballet. So far the staged music and down to earth themes.
> 
> Williams' film music can also be perfectly listened to without the images (which however is a theme already chewed on extensively in this and many other threads).
> 
> So, I would say nothing keeps us from comparing these composers?


It depends on the points of comparison. In the case I was responding to, it was 'popularity'. The three composers concerned are popular for different things, that's all.


----------



## aioriacont

Ethereality said:


> Exactly. What are your personal favorite tracks from them? It's incredibly hard for me to not like the music of Uematsu, I think he's the pinnacle of contemporary soundtrack from the past 50 years of film, TV and gaming. An OST like FFX for example, with just tracks like _Al Bhed Tribe's Chi, Assault, Silence Before The Storm, Sprouting, Luca, Tidus's Theme,_ and _Yuna's Theme,_ make me wonder why this kind of music didn't happen until the 90s. And so many other celebrated OSTs. From Mitsuda, _Bonds of Sea and Fire_ is heaven, its appearance in _Leftovers_ at 1:37 is pure adventure without the BS.


I agree with that. From Nobuo, I love Dancing Mad, Balamb Garden, Jenova Complete....there are so many amazing works. I usually prefer to listen to the OST from begning to end, though. Since they are very long, I usually listen to them while at work.

From Mitsuda, I love the Chrono and Xeno series osts he created, and his solo album Kirite. His most recent OST, for Azure Revolution, is very good too.

Special tracks for me, from Mitsuda are: 
"Scars of Time", "Dream of the Shore Near Another World", "People Imprisoned by Destiny", "Frozen Flame" (all these from Chrono Cross);
the haunting "The One Who Is Torn Apart" and "Premonition" (these two from Xenogears);
"Schala's Theme" and "Wind Scene" (Chrono Trigger);
"Scorning Blade" and "Nocturne" from his solo album Kirite;
the Last Battle theme and the haunting Nephilium from Xenosaga;
"Sword of a lost legend" from Deep Labyrinth;
"Battle with the Devil" from an cinniùint;
"Astaroth" from Shadow Hearts;
"Point of No Return" from "Sailing to the World";
"Richer" from Valkyria Azure Revolution;


----------



## mikeh375

tdc said:


> Among casual music listeners, with little knowledge of classical music maybe. Among listeners that are specifically interested in classical music, and composers, I'm certain others such as Reich and Adams are more loved and respected than Williams. At least they have distinct compositional voices. Williams does not, *he is more of an arranger I think*. His compositions can sound pleasing but they do not sound inspired or very original, as a composer he does not really have anything to say.
> 
> Perhaps that is why in a recent poll posted here among composition students when asked to list their 5 favorite composers Reich was high on the list, Williams was not on the list at all.


I have never met a player who's been on a Williams' sessions who did not enjoy the part he was given. That is not just about arranging, that is also about excellence in composition. He is patently more than an arranger.


----------



## aioriacont

pianozach said:


> I'd say that 38 pages seems appropriate. He's heralded, prolific, famous for his music, and America's best loved living composer.
> 
> .


America is a whole continent. People should stop naming USA as "America".


----------



## Bulldog

aioriacont said:


> America is a whole continent. People should stop naming USA as "America".


You are technically correct, but it is ever so common for United States citizens to declare themselves Americans. For better or worse, that's the way it will continue.


----------



## aioriacont

Bulldog said:


> You are technically correct, but it is ever so common for United States citizens to declare themselves Americans. For better or worse, that's the way it will continue.


but the right should be "USAeeeans"


----------



## JAS

aioriacont said:


> America is a whole continent. People should stop naming USA as "America".


Maybe, but it ain't gonna happen.


----------



## tdc

mikeh375 said:


> I have never met a player who's been on a Williams' sessions who did not enjoy the part he was given. That is not just about arranging, that is also about excellence in composition. He is patently more than an arranger.


Admittedly on reflection I was being exaggerative in saying he is more of an arranger, as I think you are being exaggerative in saying that if a musician enjoys the part, it means the composer is excellent. I think what you described is an aspect of attaining compositional excellence, but it is more than that. My comment is reflective of how his music strikes me. I do not hear a deeply unique personal voice in Williams music, In a sense what I hear is closer to a well put together collection of sounds.

That said I know it takes real skill and talent to do what Williams does, I do respect that. I think the work of Williams and many of the video game composers in this thread can be actually very good. But I still think this kind of composition represents a kind of middle ground between lighter music and proper classical. I don't want to criticize it too much but when I see a Williams fan boy in another thread criticizing a composer like Brahms or Bach, I just feel like pointing out that there is a difference here in what these kinds of composers have achieved. In my view the quality of the artistic statements should be put in proper perspective.


----------



## mikeh375

tdc said:


> Admittedly on reflection I was being exaggerative in saying he is more of an arranger, as I think you are *being exaggerative in saying that if a musician enjoys the part, it means the composer is excelle*nt. I think what you described is an aspect of attaining compositional excellence, but it is more than that.


Point agreed except in this case, I did mean (and the players did too) , that the composer _is_ excellent. It's not just the superbly written part, it is also the musician's involvement with the score too.


----------



## Luchesi

aioriacont said:


> America is a whole continent. People should stop naming USA as "America".


2 continents

{The message you have entered is too short.}


----------



## Luchesi

tdc said:


> Admittedly on reflection I was being exaggerative in saying he is more of an arranger, as I think you are being exaggerative in saying that if a musician enjoys the part, it means the composer is excellent. I think what you described is an aspect of attaining compositional excellence, but it is more than that. My comment is reflective of how his music strikes me. I do not hear a deeply unique personal voice in Williams music, In a sense what I hear is closer to a well put together collection of sounds.
> 
> That said I know it takes real skill and talent to do what Williams does, I do respect that. I think the work of Williams and many of the video game composers in this thread can be actually very good. But I still think this kind of composition represents a kind of middle ground between lighter music and proper classical. I don't want to criticize it too much but when I see a Williams fan boy in another thread criticizing a composer like Brahms or Bach, I just feel like pointing out that there is a difference here in what these kinds of composers have achieved. In my view the quality of the artistic statements should be put in proper perspective.


"In my view the quality of the artistic statements should be put in proper perspective."

Yes, and if we don't, there are consequences. We should discuss these. It's about the survival of CM, wouldn't Mr. Williams agree?


----------



## JAS

tdc said:


> . . . That said I know it takes real skill and talent to do what Williams does, I do respect that. I think the work of Williams and many of the video game composers in this thread can be actually very good. But I still think this kind of composition represents a kind of middle ground between lighter music and proper classical. I don't want to criticize it too much but when I see a Williams fan boy in another thread criticizing a composer like Brahms or Bach, I just feel like pointing out that there is a difference here in what these kinds of composers have achieved. In my view the quality of the artistic statements should be put in proper perspective.


Just for the sake of perspective, where does the music of Brian Ferneyhough, John Cage or Boulez fall? Also, Von Suppe, Offenbach and Johann Strauss.


----------



## Fabulin

mikeh375 said:


> Point agreed except in this case, I did mean (and the players did too) , that the composer _is_ excellent. It's not just the superbly written part, it is also the musician's involvement with the score too.


No joke. The VPO had to arrange a special autograph session for the musicians. Some even had him sign their instruments.
















I've recently watched a stream where the Berlin Phil members mentioned that they tried to get him to conduct in Berlin for years, but he [sadly] declined invitations. Some of them made trips to the USA to play under him there instead 



Luchesi said:


> "In my view the quality of the artistic statements should be put in proper perspective."
> Yes, and if we don't, there are consequences. We should discuss these. It's about the survival of CM, wouldn't Mr. Williams agree?


The Viennese invited him to see the manuscripts of some notable historical works:

__
http://instagr.am/p/B7k3Mp6g8FM/



> The "Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in Wien"‚ (celebrating their 150th anniversary) left us speechless. We have been marvelling over the original scores of Beethoven's Eroica , Schuberts Unfinished, works of Mozart, Bach and Brahms!!!!
> Even some of the members of the Vienna Phil (at the right) were speechless …
> 
> And then off to yet another TV interview with the great master. I am so grateful that our two performances have been filmed; it was a truly historic event playing with John Williams at the occasion of his debut in Vienna.


And together with the violinist Anne Sophie Mutter he became a "godfather" of Beethoven's violin concerto manuscript.

__
http://instagr.am/p/B7k2z_igq0j/



> John Williams in Vienna - our first stop after fab rehearsals with the one and only @viennaphilharmonic was at the @nationalbibliothek were we became "Paten" for the manuscript of Beethoven's violin concerto!


And now he was commissioned to compose a new processional to replace Richard Strauss' as the signature fanfare of the Vienna Phil.

His initial (1977) commitment to recording his scores with the London Symphony Orchestra came about when the director Andre Previn asked him to help keep the orchestra afloat financially. I'm not an expert on IP laws, but I've heard an Australian conductor say the following:


> "Because of the success of Star Wars, the instant success, now all of a sudden fans, the general public, were into orchestras. All of a sudden the orchestras at the time saw an opportunity to play this in concert and get young people in the doors. It's one of the original ideas which now the orchestras have been doing for a long time, but [back then] people were doing bootleg versions, they were transcribing their best version of the score to play in concert, and of course they are all... not very good. John Williams caught wind of this very quickly, and thought to himself 'I could either squash this, or I could release them properly' and in actual fact, to his credit, he could have charged an awful lot of money for those scores. But he actually said "No, I want orchestras to be able to make money from this, because I love orchestras and I want them to survive, so if they make some money and get some new audiences, and have young people fall in love with the orchestra, and it's going to be through my music, fine". So he actually ended up putting all these official suites very early on, and sold them to orchestras where they could own the parts, and that was really unusual, because normally you had to wait for things to get out of copyright before you could own the parts in any affordable way, and he thought "No. Just for these couple hundred dollars you can own the parts, you can play as many times as you want, no royalties needed". Orchestras all around the world embraced that".


Williams is also a patron of the Tanglewood Music Center, and educational institution.

So yes, he cares for the tradition, and is a living part of it.


----------



## pianozach

Bulldog said:


> You are technically correct, but it is ever so common for United States citizens to declare themselves Americans. For better or worse, that's the way it will continue.


Quite true. The Brits refer to them as Americans as well, and I think all of the English speaking countries probably do likewise.

In the parts of America south of the "American" border we're referred to as "norteamericanos" (except, probably in Brazil, where they speak Portugese).

In Canada I think they refer to us as "The U.S." or "The States". They don't call themselves "Americans", opting instead for "Canadians", or, in a pinch, "North Americans".


----------



## Luchesi

He composed a sonata in the early 50s, but here he is playing pop piano (1956). I wish I had his imagination!


----------



## JAS

^^^ I would happily settle for his bank account. With that, I could buy people with all the imagination I might need.


----------



## mikeh375

Fabulin said:


> No joke. The VPO had to arrange a special autograph session for the musicians. Some even had him sign their instruments.
> 
> View attachment 139310
> 
> View attachment 139311
> 
> 
> I've recently watched a stream where the Berlin Phil members mentioned that they tried to get him to conduct in Berlin for years, but he [sadly] declined invitations. Some of them made trips to the USA to play under him there instead
> 
> The Viennese invited him to see the manuscripts of some notable historical works:
> 
> __
> http://instagr.am/p/B7k3Mp6g8FM/
> 
> And together with the violinist Anne Sophie Mutter he became a "godfather" of Beethoven's violin concerto manuscript.
> 
> __
> http://instagr.am/p/B7k2z_igq0j/
> 
> And now he was commissioned to compose a new processional to replace Richard Strauss' as the signature fanfare of the Vienna Phil.
> 
> His initial (1977) commitment to recording his scores with the London Symphony Orchestra came about when the director Andre Previn asked him to help keep the orchestra afloat financially. I'm not an expert on IP laws, but I've heard an Australian conductor say the following:
> 
> Williams is also a patron of the Tanglewood Music Center, and educational institution.
> 
> So yes, he cares for the tradition, and is a living part of it.


great post Fabulin.


----------



## Luchesi

Here he is much older. Flying fingers!


----------



## aioriacont

John Williams was an amazing composer. I just wish he would not have died today. Sad news.


----------



## Fabulin

aioriacont said:


> John Williams was an amazing composer. I just wish he would not have died today. Sad news.


Did you spring straight out of this joke, trollissimo?

https://comb.io/E5Pguk


----------



## adriesba

aioriacont said:


> John Williams was an amazing composer. I just wish he would not have died today. Sad news.



What? John Williams is not dead.


----------



## tdc

JAS said:


> Just for the sake of perspective, where does the music of Brian Ferneyhough, John Cage or Boulez fall? Also, Von Suppe, Offenbach and Johann Strauss.


The music of Ferneyhough, Cage and Boulez falls outside the scope of this thread. However I will say that because I feel the way I do about Williams music, does not mean I am giving an endorsement to every avant-garde composer.

Von Suppe, Offenbach and Strauss I am not deeply familiar with, but from what I know of them, their music is less backward looking than that of John Williams.


----------



## JAS

tdc said:


> The music of Ferneyhough, Cage and Boulez falls outside the scope of this thread. However I will say that because I feel the way I do about Williams music, does not mean I am giving an endorsement to every avant-garde composer.


I will count that as a dodge. I don't think that it is outside the scope of the thread precisely because it is at the very heart of the thread. If we want to answer the question of what is outside of the canon, then we need to have some idea of what is considered inside the canon.



tdc said:


> Von Suppe, Offenbach and Strauss I am not deeply familiar with, but from what I know of them, their music is less backward looking than that of John Williams.


So Williams is clearly part of a tradition because he is "backward looking." (There is no way to be "backward looking" and _not_ part of a tradition. That would simply be illogical. What is one looking back upon if not the tradition?) Thus, your only problem with him seems to be that he adheres to the tradition in a more historical sense and does not embrace more modern aspects of classical music composition. I would further suggest that his broad appeal is precisely because he does not, generally, follow the dictates of more modern forms. His success and acclaim are not only a mark of his skill, but a thumb in the eye for composers who embraced drastic changes to the traditions, changes that pushed much of the audience to the side. Williams is proof that a more traditional approaches are neither exhausted nor dead.


----------



## tdc

JAS said:


> I will count that as a dodge. I don't think that it is outside the scope of the thread precisely because it is at the very heart of the thread. If we want to answer the question of what is outside of the canon, then we need to have some idea of what is considered inside the canon.
> 
> So Williams is clearly part of a tradition because he is "backward looking." (There is no way to be "backward looking" and _not_ part of a tradition. That would simply be illogical. What is one looking back upon if not the tradition?) Thus, your only problem with him seems to be that he adheres to the tradition in a more historical sense and does not embrace more modern aspects of classical music composition. I would further suggest that his broad appeal is precisely because he does not, generally, follow the dictates of more modern forms. His success and acclaim are not only a mark of his skill, but a thumb in the eye for composers who embraced drastic changes to the traditions, changes that pushed much of the audience to the side. Williams is proof that a more traditional approaches are neither exhausted nor dead.


It is not a dodge, and you have not even addressed any of my points to Williams. I have not argued in any of these posts that Williams is outside of the canon. I am simply pointing out that he has not contributed much to the evolution of the style. I enjoy some of his music and I don't have a problem with others enjoying it, nor do I care whether or not one calls him classical music.

It seems you are not able to discern the nuances of this issue and are rather looking at it in a very black and white way. We can look at any of the big names in classical music that are considered more on the conservative side like Bach or Brahms, and still observe them being more innovative and of their time than Williams. Of course all music draws from the past, but what keeps the art form vital is building on that tradition rather than staying in one place. Otherwise we would still be listening only to medieval chant.

I'm pointing out that it is not accurate to consider Williams among other great or important composers of the past, (for example sporting an avatar that shows Williams as being right alongside Beethoven). He has some nice music but he has not achieved anything in music that warrants that kind of comparison or honor.


----------



## JAS

tdc said:


> It is not a dodge, and you have not even addressed any of my points to Williams. I have not argued in any of these posts that Williams is outside of the canon. I am simply pointing out that he has not contributed much to the evolution of the style. I enjoy some of his music and I don't have a problem with others enjoying it, nor do I care whether or not one calls him classical music.
> 
> It seems you are not able to discern the nuances of this issue and are rather looking at it in a very black and white way. We can look at any of the big names in classical music that are considered more on the conservative side like Bach or Brahms, and still observe them being more innovative and of their time than Williams. Of course all music draws from the past, but what keeps the art form vital is building on that tradition rather than staying in one place. Otherwise we would still be listening to medieval chant.
> 
> I'm pointing out that it is not accurate to consider Williams among other great or important composers of the past, (for example sporting an avatar that shows Williams as being right alongside Beethoven). He has some nice music but he has not achieved anything in music that warrants that kind of comparison or honor.


I, personally, would not put Williams right next to Beethoven, but then there are few composers I would put in that league, and perhaps none that I would put on that same pedestal. (And that isn't really the premise of the thread.) I consider Williams to be a brilliant practitioner of well defined forms. The idea that evolution is the most important contribution a composer can make to music is nonsense. (I think that Williams is at least as important as a number of other composers who you seem to think not worthy of your time. It is fine if you don't care for his work, or the work of other composers I have listed. No one appeals to everyone.) Creating well wrought works within existing lines can be just as important. Many who claim to have pushed such evolution, forcing music in new directions, have only created monsters.


----------



## Fabulin

tdc said:


> I'm pointing out that it is not accurate to consider Williams among other great or important composers of the past, (for example sporting an avatar that shows Williams as being right alongside Beethoven). He has some nice music but he has not achieved anything in music that warrants that kind of comparison or honor.


That's a second cowardly indirect ad personam from you, so I intervene.

Know that considering the corny third raters Offenbach and von Suppe innovative in comparison with Williams betrays your ignorance of both sides and humiliates your general high horse attitude---and as for the argument about 'good' music being deeply in touch with the trends popular among _some _contemporaries, it is sheepish to not take into consideration that whether such interaction is actually good or bad depends precisely on what said trends are.

Clearly within the time that was given to him, Williams has built on the classical _and _jazz traditions, picked what was best, and left out the rest. Through prolific work showing a combination of skills that, judging by their results, knows no direct comparison in music history, he is by all means a figure comparable to those already in the pantheon. How high the spot is, will ultimately be decided by posterity.

What is clear even today, however, and what has been clear for quite some time, is that he acted as precisely the composer the times called for, and did so with such dilligence and intellect that it is only natural that for a want of directly comparable competitors he is seen by many as a champion among composers of the final quarter of the 20th century and beyond.

Edit: My avatar expresses the spirit of being an eternal student of those that came before us, correct in the context of Williams' attitude towards both the composer he respects the most, and life in general. Why attack it?


----------



## Bulldog

Fabulin said:


> Clearly within the time that was given to him, Williams has built on the classical _and _jazz traditions, picked what was best, and left out the rest. Through prolific work showing a combination of skills that, judging by their results, knows no direct comparison in music history, he is by all means a figure comparable to those already in the pantheon. How high the spot is, will ultimately be decided by posterity.
> 
> What is clear even today, however, and what has been clear for quite some time, is that he acted as precisely the composer the times called for, and did so with such dilligence and intellect that it is only natural that for a want of directly comparable competitors he is seen by many as a champion among composers of the final quarter of the 20th century and beyond.


You must be a fan of his. Assuming it's okay with you, I'll continue to not care much for the man's music.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Fabulin said:


> That's a second cowardly indirect ad personam from you, so I intervene.
> 
> Know that considering the corny third raters Offenbach and von Suppe innovative in comparison with Williams betrays your ignorance of both sides and humiliates your general high horse attitude---and as for the argument about 'good' music being deeply in touch with the trends popular among _some _contemporaries, it is sheepish to not take into consideration that whether such interaction is actually good or bad depends precisely on what said trends are....


This thread has really changed many of my preconceived notion of John Williams as mostly a crowd pleaser who is just good at appropriating ideas from the late romantic classical work.

Personally he reminds me of the the great overture writers and the Strauss family that were very good at writing good music that connects with the general public but had very little else to say about music.

And I do think he is the last of his kind because film score composition seem to have moved on to be much less structured and atmospheric. I am not sure if he will have the same legacy as someone like Hans Zimmer because I can't imagine myself to write music in his style for films or other new media in the future.


----------



## Fabulin

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> This thread has really changed many of my preconceived notion of John Williams as mostly a crowd pleaser who is just good at appropriating ideas from the late romantic classical work.
> 
> Personally he reminds me of the the great overture writers and the Strauss family that were very good at writing good music that connects with the general public but had very little else to say about music.


Part of the reason why 20th century composers in general get a lot of respect is how much more complicated the field has become. Even ignoring that J. Strauss melodies are just... not the same league of skill at all, writing Strauss-era music is much easier than this:


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Fabulin said:


> Part of the reason why 20th century composers in general get a lot of respect is how much more complicated the field has become. Even ignoring that J. Strauss melodies are just... not the same league of skill at all, writing Strauss-era music is much easier than this...


Eye opening! Thank you for the reply.


----------



## tdc

Fabulin said:


> That's a second cowardly indirect ad personam from you, so I intervene.
> 
> Know that considering the corny third raters Offenbach and von Suppe innovative in comparison with Williams betrays your ignorance of both sides and humiliates your general high horse attitude---and as for the argument about 'good' music being deeply in touch with the trends popular among _some _contemporaries, it is sheepish to not take into consideration that whether such interaction is actually good or bad depends precisely on what said trends are.
> 
> Clearly within the time that was given to him, Williams has built on the classical _and _jazz traditions, picked what was best, and left out the rest. Through prolific work showing a combination of skills that, judging by their results, knows no direct comparison in music history, he is by all means a figure comparable to those already in the pantheon. How high the spot is, will ultimately be decided by posterity.
> 
> What is clear even today, however, and what has been clear for quite some time, is that he acted as precisely the composer the times called for, and did so with such dilligence and intellect that it is only natural that for a want of directly comparable competitors he is seen by many as a champion among composers of the final quarter of the 20th century and beyond.
> 
> Edit: My avatar expresses the spirit of being an eternal student of those that came before us, correct in the context of Williams' attitude towards both the composer he respects the most, and life in general. Why attack it?


Well, perhaps you are right about Offenbach and von Suppe, I don't listen much to their music, you probably listen to it more. I don't listen that much to John Williams either, so I'm sure your knowledge of that also exceeds mine. I don't spend a lot of time listening to composers that to me don't seem to have very much interesting to say. Knock yourself out with that. But if you are going to spend your time here trying to convince people that Williams is the real deal while taking shots at established great composers like Brahms in my view it only hurts your cause and reveals your own lack of discernment in regards music. It also gives me more motivation to speak my mind about John Williams music every chance I get. If you can't tell the difference between Williams and the past greats from history then I probably won't be able to explain it to you.

I will tell you that I care about music and I care about art. That is what motivates me, I am not interested in attacking you, only in pointing out some of your ideas about music, and your avatar are in my view ridiculous.


----------



## mikeh375

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> This thread has really changed many of my preconceived notion of John Williams as mostly a crowd pleaser who is just good at appropriating ideas from the late romantic classical work.
> 
> Personally he reminds me of the the great overture writers and the Strauss family that were very good at writing good music that connects with the general public but had very little else to say about music.
> 
> *And I do think he is the last of his kind because film score composition seem to have moved on to be much less structured and atmospheric. I am not sure if he will have the same legacy as someone like Hans Zimmer because I can't imagine myself to write music in his style for films or other new media in the future.*


The difference is the advent of the DAW and samples. Williams uses neither, preferring a piano, stopwatch and a Steenbeck for playback (correct Fabulin?) The DAW has democratised and subsequently dumbed down the art of scoring and composing.


----------



## Fabulin

mikeh375 said:


> The difference is the advent of the DAW and samples. Williams uses neither, preferring a piano, stopwatch and a Steenbeck for playback (correct Fabulin?) The DAW has democratised and subsequently dumbed down the art of scoring and composing.


Actually I don't know what he uses for playback. I will ask some guys who might know.

What I _do _know is that for _Solo: A Star Wars Story_ (2018) when the producers asked him for mock-ups, he hired a full orchestra of freelancers and recorded the "mock-ups" with them :lol:

The Family Guy joke was kind of right, actually.


----------



## mikeh375

Fabulin said:


> Actually I don't know what he uses for playback. I will ask some guys who might know.
> 
> What I _do _know is that for _Solo: A Star Wars Story_ (2018) when the producers asked him for mock-ups, he hired a full orchestra of freelancers and recorded the "mock-ups" with them :lol:
> 
> The Family Guy joke was kind of right, actually.


...love that. I'd like to imagine the producers felt awkward asking for changes but perhaps not. Even I remember the days when we'd hire musicians for a demo. That soon stopped when the industry went digital. I love his allegiance and still have that myself.


----------



## Fabulin

mikeh375 said:


> ...love that. I'd like to imagine the producers felt awkward asking for changes but perhaps not. Even I remember the days when we'd hire musicians for a demo. That soon stopped when the industry went digital. I love his allegiance and still have it myself.


Not much is known - he, the co-composer John Powell, and the director Ron Howard spotted the film together, then Williams wrote the main theme in a concert version and recorded some cues in L.A.. Finally Powell adapted what Williams wrote and composed the rest (with further aid from Williams) and recorded the final score at Abbey Road.

Edit: Williams apparently (supposedly?) watches films on some sort of projector.


----------



## mikeh375

Fabulin said:


> Edit: Williams apparently (supposedly?) watches films on some sort of projector.


That will probably be a Steenbeck......


----------



## MatthewWeflen

It's been a while since I've poked my nose in here. I've been listening to Rossini overtures lately, and they really stick in the head, and are nicely orchestrated..... much like John Williams' film music.


----------



## Fabulin

mikeh375 said:


> That will probably be a Steenbeck......
> 
> View attachment 139397


I've seen him use a moviola in a behind the scenes material from 1980. That was a long time ago, but Spielberg's editor for example used such device into this century, so who knows...

Films shot digitally require a different solution probably.


----------



## Ethereality

tdc said:


> That said I know it takes real skill and talent to do what Williams does, I do respect that. I think the work of Williams and many of the video game composers in this thread can be actually very good. But I still think this kind of composition represents a kind of middle ground between lighter music and proper classical.


I tend to agree with your assessments in this thread. However so long as we're never saying "He seems like a good and talented composer, but not my cup of tea" or "He's not as great as Classical music, but I can tell he has skill." That dichotomy doesn't exist. The only dichotomies in question for anyone should be _subjective preference _and _ experience_, never a pretentious claim that one understands a composer has skill and yet doesn't like them. I don't think that's what you were saying, but I wanted to emphasize this fallacy for its own sake: the skills of a composer are demonstrated by how much people like them and people's experience with music. If one doesn't personally enjoy Williams' presence among Classical greats, like I think 99% of the historical participants of this forum, then keep it at that: Say he doesn't have the skill. _That _makes sense. When it comes to this composer's recent attention on this forum, only these 2 dichotomies are being represented. And it's not subjective taste. It's experience. Further experience in Classical music will enlighten this issue. The same fallacy shows with popular composers like Chopin, Pachelbel, Holst. When people begin their musical journey, it's the popular composers who will be vastly overrated at first. Those with more experience comparing works will be, as a whole, taken more seriously. In the arts, experienced critics with unique perspectives are so well-established and respected, because we're able to get a diverse and open-minded survey from them. If there ever were a third dichotomy to a composer's worth, it would be looking at these _conflicting experienced opinions_. I did this with our recent Greatest Composers Survey by Art Rock, and it turned out that Wagner had the most conflicting opinions from this forum, thus his real rank went up due to this. When it comes to Williams, there hasn't been any evidence that people are interested from their 10~20 years of experience listening to diverse genres of Classical. I only say this because I've had my introductory time with Williams that I've enjoyed, and his placement among the greats is mostly a figment of the imagination. This realization can't happen by comparing Williams to similar composers. It can only happen from comparing him with dissimilar composers, gaining true experience. We should leave it at that.


----------



## Alfacharger

MatthewWeflen said:


> It's been a while since I've poked my nose in here. I've been listening to Rossini overtures lately, and they really stick in the head, and are nicely orchestrated..... much like John Williams' film music.


John Williams knows his Rossini!


----------



## Fabulin

Ethereality said:


> The only dichotomies in question for anyone should be _subjective preference _and _ experience_, never a pretentious claim (...)
> 
> I only say this because (...) his placement among the greats is mostly a figment of the imagination. We should leave it at that.


The philosophical continuity between the opening and the ending of your post appears to be a bit wonky.


----------



## Ethereality

The two dichotomies, subjective preference and experience, are correlated to the human trends we notice for artistic worth. For instance, Classical critics, Classical enthusiasts, and Pop critics alike, mostly converge to agreeing on the Big 3. Diverse experience is key to proving that there is indeed a trend: when you look at _experienced_ listeners, they agree more. This doesn't mean everyone; like if I didn't like Mozart, I can't then claim he's 'skillful' because he's one of the greats. That's faulty reasoning. Only people who like someone can convincingly say why they think they're skillful, otherwise you're crushing your own argument. So there's no 'philosophical discontinuity.' I also added a last sentence.


----------



## Ethereality

I have to say, Williams best most iconic thing is probably the first minute and thirty seconds of this:






Most of his pieces have semblance to earlier film, but this feels unique and iconic.


----------



## hammeredklavier

tdc said:


> your avatar are in my view ridiculous.











I thought you never cared for Beethoven. At least you acknowledge his status and significance in classical music. =)



tdc said:


> I also agree with the verbose comment earlier in the thread. Beethoven's musical phrases seem very "wordy", like someone who rants and rants, and just when you think they are getting to the point they explode about another topic. It grates me. When Beethoven is being solemn and slow it is a grandiose and over the top way. Everything is always too much with him. Mahler and Bruckner may be longer time wise, but they aren't so 'chatty' like that. I agree with Chopin's comments on him, I think Beethoven turned his back on eternal principles, this is why *I see him as actually a little bit outside of what I love about classical music.* Beethoven is his own thing, and for me it is not related to what I enjoy about music. *If his music never existed it wouldn't bother me.*


----------



## Ethereality

Bahaha, isn't this the third time now he's commented on someone's avatar.


----------



## Guest

Interesting interview with Alex Ross

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/persons-of-interest/the-force-is-still-strong-with-john-williams


----------



## tdc

Ethereality said:


> Bahaha, isn't this the third time now he's commented on someone's avatar.


Nope only two, Enthusiast's and Fabulin's.

I genuinely appreciate Enthusiast changing his avatar and I like the new one (thanks!), and I don't blame Fabulin for not changing his. I was being cranky and a little unreasonable, I get that way from time to time.

For the record when I get argumentative in a thread like that sometimes I just need to take time away from here and I sometimes will ignore that thread forever after, for reasons to do with not wanting to waste a lot of time on internet arguing and not wanting to get banned. This doesn't mean I think I'm always right and don't care to read other people's views. In this case I think I over reacted and became too argumentative with Fabulin.

So if I appear to have ignored any posts, that is the reason. I haven't even read all the posts in this thread since my comment, but I read some.


----------



## ribonucleic

Late breaking update: It turns out Williams can’t read music! Can’t even carry a tune! And his real name is Herman Feinblatt!

Charlatan, for sure.


----------



## Luchesi

Ethereality said:


> I tend to agree with your assessments in this thread. However so long as we're never saying "He seems like a good and talented composer, but not my cup of tea" or "He's not as great as Classical music, but I can tell he has skill." That dichotomy doesn't exist. The only dichotomies in question for anyone should be _subjective preference _and _ experience_, never a pretentious claim that one understands a composer has skill and yet doesn't like them. I don't think that's what you were saying, but I wanted to emphasize this fallacy for its own sake: the skills of a composer are demonstrated by how much people like them and people's experience with music. If one doesn't personally enjoy Williams' presence among Classical greats, like I think 99% of the historical participants of this forum, then keep it at that: Say he doesn't have the skill. _That _makes sense. When it comes to this composer's recent attention on this forum, only these 2 dichotomies are being represented. And it's not subjective taste. It's experience. Further experience in Classical music will enlighten this issue. The same fallacy shows with popular composers like Chopin, Pachelbel, Holst. When people begin their musical journey, it's the popular composers who will be vastly overrated at first. Those with more experience comparing works will be, as a whole, taken more seriously. In the arts, experienced critics with unique perspectives are so well-established and respected, because we're able to get a diverse and open-minded survey from them. If there ever were a third dichotomy to a composer's worth, it would be looking at these _conflicting experienced opinions_. I did this with our recent Greatest Composers Survey by Art Rock, and it turned out that Wagner had the most conflicting opinions from this forum, thus his real rank went up due to this. When it comes to Williams, there hasn't been any evidence that people are interested from their 10~20 years of experience listening to diverse genres of Classical. I only say this because I've had my introductory time with Williams that I've enjoyed, and his placement among the greats is mostly a figment of the imagination. This realization can't happen by comparing Williams to similar composers. It can only happen from comparing him with dissimilar composers, gaining true experience. We should leave it at that.


I disagree. Whether we think a composer is skilled? How does that categorize them?

It's about INTENT. Ask him if he intended to compose classical music. They (film composers) know very well what the difference is. It's history and development and advancement and the intent to advance the art of CM. There's a long history and they know it very well.


----------



## Fabulin

Luchesi said:


> It's about INTENT. Ask him if he intended to compose classical music. They (film composers) know very well what the difference is. It's history and development and advancement and the intent to advance the art of CM. There's a long history and they know it very well.


It's all about the goddamn notes on the paper; ideologies are for those who are no good with that.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Fabulin said:


> It's all about the goddamn notes on the paper; ideologies are for those who are no good with that.


If we view films as the modern-day version of "opera", then John Williams is the Rossini of our time. Context does matter for evaluation.


----------



## Luchesi

Fabulin said:


> It's all about the goddamn notes on the paper; ideologies are for those who are no good with that.


So emotional, you sound like you would be surprised if you asked Mr. Williams whether he intended to compose classical music (or not). I mean I don't know what you would expect him to say.


----------



## Fabulin

Luchesi said:


> So emotional, you sound like you would be surprised if you asked Mr. Williams whether he intended to compose classical music (or not). I mean I don't know what you would expect him to say.


Don't make a fool of yourself by guessing my knowledge. It would be wiser of you to speak of music as written and audible, or not to speak at all.


----------



## 1996D

Ethereality said:


> I have to say, Williams best most iconic thing is probably the first minute and thirty seconds of this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of his pieces have semblance to earlier film, but this feels unique and iconic.


His orchestral works are probably nearly as good as Dvorak's and Bruckner's but he's a clear step below the top tier composers. He recycles his thematic material so in that way he's a lot like Liszt.

He's of limited creative depth but he's technically sound and has some originality.


----------



## Fabulin

1996D said:


> His orchestral works are probably nearly as good as Dvorak's and Bruckner's but he's a clear step below the top tier composers. He recycles his thematic material so in that way he's a lot like Liszt.
> 
> He's of limited creative depth but he's technically sound and has some originality.


Recycles thematic material? Do you mean he does it like Wagner (motifs), or like Bruckner (sightly better each time)?

I agree that he is a step below top tier (Mozart, Beethoven). I've never claimed otherwise.


----------



## 1996D

Fabulin said:


> Recycles thematic material? Do you mean he does it like Wagner (motifs), or like Bruckner (sightly better each time)?
> 
> I agree that he is a step below top tier (Mozart, Beethoven). I've never claimed otherwise.


Yes like Liszt and Bruckner, Berlioz too, except they actually did improve their themes and all three used colour much better. The Jurassic Park theme is a perfect example of his inadequacy; the first 30 seconds are beautiful but he does nothing with it; completely messes up the rest with his lack of creative depth.

Wagner used thematic transformation only because his operas are 4 hours long, otherwise he wouldn't have had the need. To use it so extensively in a 7 minute work shows a true lack of creativity.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Fabulin said:


> Recycles thematic material? Do you mean he does it like Wagner (motifs), or like Bruckner (sightly better each time)?
> 
> I agree that he is a step below top tier (Mozart, Beethoven). I've never claimed otherwise.


Please enlighten me who are the these second their composers and how can John Williams be compared to them.

Are Tchaikovsky or Dvorak or Bruckner second tier orchestral music composers, in your opinion?

Where is the structure ingenuity in John Williams' programatic work?

For a layman like me, all I can hear is an obvious use of motifs (nowhere near the craftiness of Wagner), great orchestration and interesting effects, atmospheric harmonic language but nothing extraordinary.


----------



## JAS

I am missing the line of argumentation in this thread. If Williams is somehow lesser than Tchaikovsky or Dvorak (or rather their compositions), he doesn't belong in the canon?


----------



## Luchesi

Fabulin said:


> Don't make a fool of yourself by guessing my knowledge. It would be wiser of you to speak of music as written and audible, or not to speak at all.


Your knowledge? Tell us about it, if you want to.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

JAS said:


> I am missing the line of argumentation in this thread. If Williams is somehow lesser than Tchaikovsky or Dvorak (or rather their compositions), he doesn't belong in the canon?


There are those who claim that John Williams is as "good" as the greats. This is a justification for him to be in the canon.

If Williams is less than Tchaikovsky or Dvorak, then this line of argument does not work. But it does not imply that he doesn't belong in the canon for some other reasons.


----------



## Bulldog

1996D said:


> Yes like Liszt and Bruckner, Berlioz too, except they actually did improve their themes and all three used colour much better. The Jurassic Park theme is a perfect example of his inadequacy; the first 30 seconds are beautiful but he does nothing with it; completely messes up the rest with his lack of creative depth.


To me, the first 30 seconds is the worst part of the theme (so soft and comforting, pathetic).


----------



## Gordontrek

This debate is wearisome. Why does John Williams _need_ to have the technical skill of Beethoven, Dvorak, Bruckner, or Tchaikovsky? I believe this has already been argued. JW's job was to write film music, and he is as good at his job as anyone ever has been. Why does he need to be able to outdo Wagner? Writing for film is a whole different animal from composing symphonic works or operas, and as far as I know, John Williams has never made any pretense of being able to equal his counterparts in the classical world on their turf.

How about I flip the script here. Take John Williams' contemporaries in the classical world, the ones who are regarded for their innovation and ingenuity. Could they do John Williams' job? Could they do it as well as he can? I think not. As much as I admire them, John Corigliano, Joan Tower, and Arvo Pärt could _not_ have written Star Wars, nor anything else John Williams wrote. Just like Williams couldn't have written anything they wrote.

This basically comes down to a real fish-riding-a-bicycle job. Verdi never wrote a symphony. Who cares? He didn't need to. That wasn't his idiom.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Gordontrek said:


> As much as I admire them, John Corigliano, Joan Tower, and Arvo Pärt could _not_ have written Star Wars


Erich Korngold could:


----------



## Fabulin

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Please enlighten me who are the these second their composers and how can John Williams be compared to them.
> 
> Are Tchaikovsky or Dvorak or Bruckner second tier orchestral music composers, in your opinion?
> 
> Where is the structure ingenuity in John Williams' programatic work?
> 
> For a layman like me, all I can hear is an obvious use of motifs (nowhere near the craftiness of Wagner), great orchestration and interesting effects, atmospheric harmonic language but nothing extraordinary.


I am skeptical of you being able to call yourself a layman and judge Williams' music as "nothing extraordinary" at the same time.

About tiers you may ask 1996D, for it was his words I was responding to.

For structure ingenuity you may start with E.T., Close Encounters, and the third trilogy of Star Wars scores.


----------



## Fabulin

Bwv 1080 said:


> Erich Korngold could:


Don't be silly. Korngold's operas, scores, and other works all sound the same. He wouldn't be able to out-Holst Holst, out-Dvorak Dvorak, write atonal passages well, write jazz harmonies as well as Williams did, etc. Besides, they are not the same level melodically. Only Tchaikovsky was consistently on Williams' level in that.

As for King's Row and other fanfares, Korngold's brass writing was inferior to Max Steiner (interlocking, creating spaces within tuttis) not to mention Williams, who is considered something of a brass god.

I love Korngold's music and general musicianship, and I am something of a completionist of what is available about him, but as good as Williams he was not. As a prodigy, certainly yes. As a mature composer---no.


----------



## JAS

As a staunch Korngold fan, I cry TREASON!


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Fabulin said:


> I am skeptical of you being able to call yourself a layman and judge Williams' music as "nothing extraordinary" at the same time.


"nothing extraordinary" as it doesn't sound extraordinary to a layman's ear. It is a meaningful statement. I did not rule out the possibility that it is "extraordinary" for a professional composer, but I haven't seen people claiming that.

The harmonic language in Messian's organ work sounds absolutely extraordinary to this layman's ear. So does many other contemporary modern composers.



Fabulin said:


> For structure ingenuity you may start with E.T., Close Encounters, and the third trilogy of Star Wars scores.


But I wouldn't compare them to a Bruckner or a Tchaikovsky symphony. John Williams is a successful, talented, influential composer but I don't see what's so great about his music.

I agree that he is just as great as (if not more) overture writers such as Suppe and Offenbach. If that's what canon means then I am perfectly fine with.


----------



## 1996D

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> *There are those who claim that John Williams is as "good" as the greats*. This is a justification for him to be in the canon.
> 
> If Williams is less than Tchaikovsky or Dvorak, then this line of argument does not work. But it does not imply that he doesn't belong in the canon for some other reasons.


He's not, any musicologist can prove this. I'd do it myself but for the lack of interest; his structure is very simple.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

1996D said:


> He's not, any musicologist can prove this. I'd do it myself but for the lack of interest; his structure is very simple.


Even if I tend to agree, I am not so sure, given that I only have a superficial knowledge of composition. I would like to hear what an "expert" says on this even if it's a radical view.


----------



## 1996D

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Even if I tend to agree, I am not so sure, given that I only have a superficial knowledge of composition. I would like to hear what an "expert" says on this even if it's a radical view.


He's a good film score composer but not much more. Thomas Newman and James Horner are better if we're to judge on creativity.

Though for coming up with corny themes and simple music with good orchestration Williams is at the top.


----------



## Guest

James Horner more creative than John Williams? Examples please. Thanks.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

1996D said:


> He's a good film score composer but not much more. Thomas Newman and James Horner are better if we're to judge on creativity.
> 
> Though for coming up with corny themes and simple music with good orchestration Williams is at the top.


I am sorry but to my ears, James Horner is even more "corny and simple".


----------



## 1996D

MacLeod said:


> James Horner more creative than John Williams? Examples please. Thanks.


Much more originality, Williams stole almost everything. Titanic and Braveheart sound completely original.


----------



## Fabulin

1996D said:


> Much more originality, Williams stole almost everything. Titanic and Braveheart sound completely original.


Please keep trolling out of this discussion, thank you.


----------



## 1996D




----------



## JAS

I don't think bashing one composer elevates another, but seriously . . .

https://www.thetemptrack.com/2016/1...james-horners-music-for-star-trek-ii-and-iii/


----------



## 1996D

JAS said:


> I don't think bashing one composer elevates another, but seriously . . .
> 
> https://www.thetemptrack.com/2016/1...james-horners-music-for-star-trek-ii-and-iii/


Williams stole on every single one of his movies though, there are countless articles and videos on it. His movies are always dumbed-down blockbusters as well, Braveheart and Titanic are decent movies.


----------



## 1996D




----------



## Fabulin

1996D said:


> Williams stole on every single one of his movies though, there are countless articles and videos on it. His movies are always dumbed-down blockbusters as well, Braveheart and Titanic are decent movies.


There are countless idiots spouting nonsense about Williams, that much we can see already. If you want to champion James Horner, feel free to start a charlatan/canon thread about him.


----------



## 1996D

Fabulin said:


> There are countless idiots spouting nonsense about Williams, that much we can see already. If you want to champion James Horner, feel free to start a charlatan/canon thread about him.


I think they're both film composers and not one is significantly above another as to compare him to actual composers. There are many more good film composers - there is nothing remarkable about Williams other than the fact he writes for the mega-blockbuster children's "give me your cash" movies.

He's known because everyone on earth has seen at least one of his movies, and he's copied Strauss and Tchaikovsky among others, and that makes him memorable.


----------



## Luchesi

1996D said:


> I think they're both film composers and not one is significantly above another as to compare him to actual composers. There are many more good film composers - there is nothing remarkable about Williams other than the fact he writes for the mega-blockbuster children's "give me your cash" movies.
> 
> He's known because everyone on earth has seen at least one of his movies, and he's copied Strauss and Tchaikovsky among others, and that makes him memorable.


For me, what's important about this is what young people are being taught.


----------



## 1996D

A good film score for a great movie. To all the Williams lovers: if he was such a composer wouldn't he score great movies instead of cash grabs?


----------



## 1996D

The other composer I mentioned Thomas Newman, who is also more original than Williams and for better movies. Highly original first couple of minutes, of course does nothing with it because he's a film composer, but just to prove there are many more.

To say that Williams is something above the others is ridiculous even if his orchestration is on par with Dvorak and Bruckner. They are not serious artists, they are money oriented.


----------



## Fabulin

1996D said:


> They are not serious artists, they are money oriented.


There is and will be zero historical evidence for this calumny. It is against Williams' character.


----------



## pianozach

1996D said:


> A good film score for a great movie. To all the Williams lovers: if he was such a composer wouldn't he score great movies instead of cash grabs?


Don't be silly.

*Saving Private Ryan
Schindler's List
Seven Years in Tibet*

Great films.

But, what, precisely, makes a movie *"great"* anyway? Are the *Harry Potter* and *Star Wars* films any less "great" simply because of genre?

Are the scores for those films any less great than *Casablanca, Gone With the Wind* or *King's Row*? It doesn't really matter though - you can't really compare these things anyway, any more than you can determine which Symphony is "better": Beethoven's 3rd, Dvorak's 9th, Mozart's Jupiter, or Shostakovich's No 10. They're all great, and all different.

Just like pop songs . . . . what's better, *Bohemian Rhapsody, Carry On My Wayward Son, Roundabout*, or _*Good Vibrations*_?


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> The other composer I mentioned Thomas Newman, *who is also more original than Williams and for better movies. *Highly original first couple of minutes, of course does nothing with it because he's a film composer, but just to prove there are many more.


I'm really not sure whether the quality of the films should be considered. Korngold wrote film music for multiple Hollywood films and I really doubt all of them were some high-quality dramas full of philosophical contemplations. I wouldn't say he wasn't a serious composer. Many operatic composers also wrote music for not-so-genius plots - aren't they serious composers then? Of course I don't exclude the possibility that there's some underlying reason for pointing out the quality of the films but if it's just about the quality, I think it's irrelevant for evaluating the composer. A film composer is supposed to support and musically express the action, no matter how stupid it is.


----------



## Fabulin

A good counterexample to the pompous "great film" theory is Jerry Goldsmith, who wrote imaginative music even for trash films.


----------



## JAS

1996D said:


> The other composer I mentioned Thomas Newman, who is also more original than Williams and for better movies. Highly original first couple of minutes, of course does nothing with it because he's a film composer, but just to prove there are many more.


My favorite Thomas Newman score is from Little Women, but no, I don't see how anyone can seriously say that he is more original than Williams.


----------



## Alfacharger

JAS said:


> My favorite Thomas Newman score is from Little Women, but no, I don't see how anyone can seriously say that he is more original than Williams.


When Williams was having some health issues. He suggested that Thomas Newman compose the score to Spielberg's film "Bridge of Spies".

Now some Thomas Newman!






Something from Thomas's sister, Maria.


----------



## Guest

I have no objection to the music of James Horner. There was a time when you could guess the music was his, he was so ubiquitous. I just doubt that if 'creativity' or 'originality' are criteria, his scores were _more _creative than Williams.

As I've argued before however, there is to more to successful film scoring than originality or creativity. The problem is that few here seem to want to discuss it, even when a thread is created for this purpose.

Never mind. Thomas Newman is one of the composers I had in mind when we were thinking about who else seems to be successful aside from Williams and Zimmer (in the mainstream movie composer category).

As for the quality of the film...it's difficult not to take it into consideration if a film's success is about how all the parts add up. That's not to say that all films must be 'deep and meaningful'. I'm very happy to defend movies that some scorn as 'mere' entertainment. A score should be serviceable. Like the score for _Ice Cold in Alex_ (Leighton Lucas) which is highly derivative, but does the job.

How many of us watch films we don't enjoy, just so we can hear a fantastic score? Not often, if at all. And how often do we enjoy films but hate their scores? Not often (if at all) Are there enough hours in the day to waste time doing this? So it seems to me to be difficult to separate the score from the movie in judging what is a good score.

Then there are movies that make very spare use of music. Last night I watched _All The President's Men _(for the umpteenth time). David Shire must have been very pleased if he was paid a decent rate per bar!


----------



## Fabulin

What about unrelated imagery evoked by music? The music of Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Bruckner, Shore, Williams, and may other composers tends to evoke imagery representing impressions that we have of it. It's involuntary and can hardly ever become fixed, unless someone has little active imagination.

One can imagine a wizard, a codebraker, a messenger, nature, a freight train, a barbaric horde or a heroic band. The visions of sacrifices, personal tragedies, or other deep feelings can also change from listen to listen. Any music that evokes emotion or a sense of space and movement will be digested slightly different each time.

I assure you, MacLeod, that even relative simpletons associate good music with many diverse things, and would gladly see varying uses of it. Youtube comment sections are full of that.

I'm saying this, because this is not the first time you imply that (most?) people like Williams' music only/mostly because it was tagged to images of spaceships and lazers, and, more crucially, that they would stop liking it if the pictorial memories of the film were erased.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Fabulin said:


> What about unrelated imagery evoked by music? The music of Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Bruckner, Shore, Williams, and may other composers tends to evoke imagery representing impressions that we have of it. It's involuntary and can hardly ever become fixed, unless someone has little active imagination.
> 
> One can imagine a wizard, a codebraker, a messenger, nature, a freight train, a barbaric horde or a heroic band. The visions of sacrifices, personal tragedies, or other deep feelings can also change from listen to listen. Any music that evokes emotion or a sense of space and movement will be digested slightly different each time.
> 
> I assure you, MacLeod, that even relative simpletons associate good music with many diverse things, and would gladly see varying uses of it. Youtube comment sections are full of that.
> 
> I'm saying this, because this is not the first time you imply that (most?) people like Williams' music only/mostly because it was tagged to images of spaceships and lazers, and, more crucially, that they would stop liking it if the pictorial memories of the film were erased.


I have to disagree, the imagery that emerged from "pure music" is poetic (natural and unforced) and imaginative (not fixed). But there are many musical elements in John Williams' music that simply "depict" certain actions on the screen. They are literal and they are not poetic, they enhance what's on the screen but leave no room for imagination and wandering thought.

In Wagner's immolation scene, the imagery in listener's mind is not simply a depiction of what's happening on the stage but also give hints on how to interpret Brunhilde's action and entire the work.


----------



## Fabulin

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I have to disagree, the imagery that emerged from "pure music" is poetic (natural and unforced) and imaginative (not fixed). But there are many musical elements in John Williams' music that simply "depict" certain actions on the screen. They are literal and they are not poetic, they enhance what's on the screen but leave no room for imagination and wandering thought.
> 
> In Wagner's immolation scene, the imagery in listener's mind is not simply a depiction of what's happening on the stage but also give hints on how to interpret Brunhilde's action and entire the work.


As I said, maybe not to people of small imagination.


----------



## ribonucleic

1996D said:


> A good film score for a great movie. To all the Williams lovers: if he was such a composer wouldn't he score great movies instead of cash grabs?


I've got some bad news for you about Ennio Morricone.


----------



## Luchesi

ribonucleic said:


> I've got some bad news for you about Ennio Morricone.



On 6 July 2020, Morricone died at the Università Campus Bio-Medico in Rome, aged 91, as a result of injuries sustained during a fall


----------



## Alfacharger

ribonucleic said:


> I've got some bad news for you about Ennio Morricone.


i don't understand this post. Leonard Bernstein wrote the score to "On the Waterfront".






John Williams did compose a short set of variations on themes by L. Bernstein.


----------



## Guest

Fabulin said:


> What about unrelated imagery evoked by music? The music of Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Bruckner, Shore, Williams, and may other composers tends to evoke imagery representing impressions that we have of it. It's involuntary and can hardly ever become fixed, unless someone has little active imagination.


What about it?



Fabulin said:


> I assure you, MacLeod, that even relative simpletons associate good music with many diverse things, and would gladly see varying uses of it. Youtube comment sections are full of that.


Do you? Why do you feel the need to assure me of this? I don't understand the point you are making.



Fabulin said:


> I'm saying this, because *this is not the first time you imply *that (most?) *people like Williams' music only/mostly because it was tagged to images of spaceships and lazers*, and, more crucially, that t*hey would stop liking it if the pictorial memories of the film were erased*.


I don't recall saying either of these things now or before. Please quote me.

I _did _refer to the fact that Williams of late has confined himself to working (mostly) with Spielberg and Lucas*, and that before that, he was, notably, working with Irwin Allen. All three of these director/producers worked in the mainstream, often on blockbusters. This makes it difficult to judge how successful he was 'cinematically' speaking, because he didn't face the challenge of working for an unknown or 'art house' director on a low budget or non-mainstream movie. Actually, I don't doub that he could do a decent job of scoring, say, _Mr Turner_, had Mike Leigh wanted him. Note also that, unlike some posters here, I've not denigrated his work. I like his scores and they have enhanced my enjoyment of (recalling movies I saw on release) _Jane Eyre, The Poseidon Adventure, The Towering Inferno, Jaws, Family Plot, Black Sunday, Star Wars, CE3K, Jurassic Park..._[etc]. I think he is highly effective at what he does.

What I have been trying to say is that for any well known composer of films we're all familiar with, it can be difficult to judge the 'greatness' of the music on the audience because it's already too late to measure the combined impact of cinematic components, and to single out the score without recognising the acting, the editing, the cinematography, the sound etc is to denigrate the work of those contributors. In my opinion, excessive claims have been made about the importance of Williams' contribution to the films he has scored, and to his rank among other film composers. I'm not a fan of ranking at all, and think it absurd to suggest that just because he has scored some highly successful, popular mainstream movies, he is "the greatest film composer of all time." (But we went round the block on this one already. We surely don't need to do it again?)

*In the last 20 years, he has scored only three feature films for other directors.


----------



## mikeh375

1996D said:


> He's a good film score composer but not much more. Thomas Newman and *James Horner* are better if we're to judge on creativity.
> 
> Though for coming up with corny themes and simple music with good orchestration Williams is at the top.


 Horner was and is well known for his plagiarism within the industry, much more so than Williams. At least Williams had enough creativity about him to make any influence his own, such is his all encompassing mastery. Besides judging the end result of any composer's score without any consideration of the processes behind the creative decisions is completely unfair - it's not only the composer who is involved, there is great pressure and influence from 'temp' tracks and directors and producers..

I've had to deal with many temp tracks in my career, but never once did I get sued. On one or two occasions when I was pushed to get closer to a temp, I did so and my work was sent to a musicologist but the music was given the ok every time. Temps are a creative restriction and barrier that sometimes cannot be overcome, but Horner's record in borrowing from the temp and elsewhere is quite disproportionally overwhelming and blatant.

The Britten Estate sued Horner because of an almost note for note rip from 'Sanctus' in Britten's War Requiem, which Horner 'lifted' for a cue in 'Troy'. The number of instances of "better (than Williams') creativity" can be seen below...from wiki. (the bold highlight is mine). The writer's opinion here is not solitary.

I will defer to Fabulin, but I don't think Williams has ever been sued for plagiarising in his film work - it's highly unlikely given his mastery of all things composition.

The "fanboy stance" here is pitiful indeed - as it usually is when it involves the very obvious, irrefutable acts of plagiarism committed by James Horner in every phase, in (almost) every score of his career. Sure enough, quotations and even rip-offs of classical - or other film music - sources are part and parcel of the film composer's job, as he or she must routinely write too much music too quickly. However, Horner is a special case in that* his "thefts" are the most blatant, least creative in all of film music*, with the possible exception of Bill Conti. A few examples of note-for-note, bar-for-bar rip-offs may suffice: "Stealing the Enterprise" from STAR TREK II, better known as Prokofiev's "The Death of Tybalt" from ROMEO AND JULIET; Aram Khachaturian's "Adagio" from GAYANEH pops up in at least THEE (count 'em) Horner scores: ALIEN, PATRIOT GAMES and CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER - plagiarizing one's own rip-offs repeatedly is no mean feat! Parts of "The Chase" from COCOON were once known as a section from Benjamin Britten's SINFONIA DA REQUIEM; Sergei Prokofiev tunrs up as a "role model" over and over and over, be it GLORY, or BATTLE BEYOND THE STARS (with whole phrases from ALEXANDER NEWSKY's "Battle on the Ice" intact), or even the opening of AN AMERICAN TAIL, which "just accidentally" opens with the same line as Prokofiev's 1st VIOLIN CONCERTO. And then there is the "Main Title" from RED HEAT, lifted wholesale(!) from Prokofiev's OCTOBER CANTATA! Brittern is also "alluded to" oin a regular basis, his WAR REQUIEM is memorably used in Horner's TESTAMENT. How the main theme from Robert Schumann's RHENISH SYMPHONY made it into WILLOW is anybody's guess. And isn't that a motif from Béla Bartók's THE WOODEN PRINCE right there in the opening cue for THE LAND BEFORE TIME? The list is virtually endless, and I don't even wanna go into Horner's frequent cannibalizing his own music, or his previous thefts. The man is a miracle. He still has written a lot of genuinely thrilling and original film music, let there be no mistake.


----------



## Guest

This is from Wiki, right Mike?



mikeh375 said:


> Aram Khachaturian's "Adagio" from GAYANEH pops up in at least THEE (count 'em) Horner scores: *ALIEN*, PATRIOT GAMES and CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER


Whoever wrote this needs to check their sources (or their spelling) more carefully. _Alien _doesn't belong here - perhaps it should have been _Aliens?

_Plagiarist or not, the score for _Aliens _worked pretty well I thought.


----------



## Guest

[inadvertent duplicate]


----------



## mikeh375

MacLeod said:


> This is from Wiki, right Mike?
> 
> Whoever wrote this needs to check their sources (or their spelling) more carefully. _Alien _doesn't belong here - perhaps it should have been _Aliens?
> 
> _Plagiarist or not, the score for _Aliens _worked pretty well I thought.


Yes, from Wiki MacL. It should be Aliens as Goldsmith did the original. I thought the film and score were great too. I hear Bartok at the beginning.

Any casual search should bring up references and articles on Horner's (and Williams' for that matter) plagiarism.


----------



## Guest

mikeh375 said:


> Yes, from Wiki MacL. It should be Aliens as *Goldsmith did the original*. I thought the film and score were great too. I hear Bartok at the beginning.
> 
> Any casual search should bring up references and articles on Horner's (and Williams' for that matter) plagiarism.


But you know about the 'Goldsmith' score for Alien?


----------



## mikeh375

MacLeod said:


> But you know about the 'Goldsmith' score for Alien?


do tell......................


----------



## Guest

mikeh375 said:


> do tell......................


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_(soundtrack)



> The music was performed by the National Philharmonic Orchestra and conducted by Lionel Newman. However, the music was not originally used or heard as intended. The score was substantially cut for the film's released versions, and some recordings from other sources were added, notably portions of Goldsmith's original score for the 1962 film _Freud_ (which were that film's _Main Title_, as well as the tracks _Charcot's Show_ and _Desperate Case_[SUP][8][/SUP]), and the first movement (adagio) from Howard Hanson's 1930 "Symphony No. 2, Romantic" for the film's end credits.[SUP][9][/SUP]


In fact, Terry Rawlings, the editor, 'added' the other music when he was putting on a temp track. The bonus material on the anniversary/boxed set I have has interviews with Terry, Jerry and Ridley about how the score was mangled. Jerry was not a happy bunny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxG81zyM3w8&t=28s


----------



## mikeh375

MacLeod said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_(soundtrack)
> 
> In fact, Terry Rawlings, the editor, 'added' the other music when he was putting on a temp track. The bonus material on the anniversary/boxed set I have has interviews with Terry, Jerry and Ridley about how the score was mangled. Jerry was not a happy bunny.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxG81zyM3w8&t=28s


Great find MacL, it explains the double edged sword that is a temp track very well, especially in part 2. I don't know about you, but I could've handled a 3 hour version of Alien, that film terrified me when I first saw it on the big scream. I loved seeing Goldsmith in that interview, he looked just as I remembered him when I met him.

The problem with temps is that the director and editor get used to the music in the background as they are editing -a process that can take many weeks before the composer gets involved. Sometimes they are so used to image with a temp that they not prepared to change, as evidenced in the documentary and this creates pressure on the composer to get as close as possible to the temp. Temps are great for pacing and editors will always cut with that in mind. They are also great as an indicator of mood, but their somewhat insidious musical/thematic imprinting onto the editor and directors mind is a big headache for a composer who wants to come up with original music.

Zimmer had to clearly endure temp issues in Gladiator thanks to Scott's penchant for classical temps. There is a scene after the first battle in Germany that is the morning after and Crowe's character is walking through the camp. The music is so obviously based on the romance from Prokofiev's Lieutenant Kije.


----------



## Guest

mikeh375 said:


> Great find MacL, it explains the double edged sword that is a temp track very well


Exactly so. It also highlights that even the film makers themselves 'see' and 'hear' different things when they watch a movie, and when they shuffle the music around. The audience gets what it's given, of course, and may or may not like it, regardless of who composed it! It's interesting to hear Goldsmith say that he can't write 'visually'; that that is what the director and cinematographer do; that he has to write 'emotionally'.

I saw _Alien _in its first week run in Leicester Square on 70mm. The cinema was full, and was one of those marvellous collective experiences (as I had enjoyed with _Jaws_) when everyone leaps out of their seats at the scary bits. Wherever the music had come from, it played its part - as did the musicless parts where the sounds took over. Some of the reviews at the time were less than complimentary, but I loved it, especially the production design, costume, photography that reflected Scott's visual flair.



mikeh375 said:


> Zimmer had to clearly endure temp issues in Gladiator thanks to Scott's penchant for classical temps. There is a scene after the first battle in Germany that is the morning after and Crowe's character is walking through the camp. The music is so obviously based on the romance from Prokofiev's Lieutenant Kije.


_Gladiator _is one of the few soundtrack albums I own. I don't recall that bit of Prokofiev - I'll give it a listen. Funny to hear how Zimmer's studio recycled some of it (at least, to my ears) for _Pirates of the Caribbean._


----------



## mikeh375

MacLeod said:


> Exactly so. It also highlights that even the film makers themselves 'see' and 'hear' different things when they watch a movie, and when they shuffle the music around. The audience gets what it's given, of course, and may or may not like it, regardless of who composed it! It's interesting to hear Goldsmith say that he can't write 'visually'; that that is what the director and cinematographer do; that he has to write 'emotionally'.
> 
> I saw _Alien _in its first week run in Leicester Square on 70mm. The cinema was full, and was one of those marvellous collective experiences (as I had enjoyed with _Jaws_) when everyone leaps out of their seats at the scary bits. Wherever the music had come from, it played its part - as did the musicless parts where the sounds took over. Some of the reviews at the time were less than complimentary, but I loved it, especially the production design, costume, photography that reflected Scott's visual flair.


Yes, Scott got his visual flair from his advertising work. Incredibly, we might have been in the same audience.......I hope he finishes the latest trilogy in the series.


----------



## mikeh375

MacLeod said:


> ...........................
> 
> _Gladiator _is one of the few soundtrack albums I own. I don't recall that bit of Prokofiev - I'll give it a listen. Funny to hear how Zimmer's studio recycled some of it (at least, to my ears) for _Pirates of the Caribbean._


Track 4 on the CD...'Earth', especially at the key change about 1'10" in.


----------



## Guest

mikeh375 said:


> Track 4 on the CD...'Earth'


Got it...and yes, the similarity is clear.


----------



## Fabulin

mikeh375 said:


> I will defer to Fabulin, but I don't think Williams has ever been sued for plagiarising in his film work - it's highly unlikely given his mastery of all things composition.
> 
> A few examples of note-for-note, bar-for-bar rip-offs may suffice:


I've heard that the IP laws or practices were quite different in 1977, and Williams "got away". Hollywood was considered a separate, frowned upon world by many outside it, and lawsuits across the ocean were unlikely. Local ones were a different matter... To quote Erich Korngold "I steal from Richard Strauss, and you can steal from Richard Strauss, but don't you steal from me!"

Afterwards Williams' scores became harder to sue (if we can phrase it that way) because the sources became more obscure both in kind and degree.

There is one reasonably known lawsuit (pulled through wayback machine):



> film score daily
> Les Baxter v. John Williams Lawsuit Recap
> by Lukas Kendall
> 
> We recently printed a letter asking about a lawsuit that happened a while back involving Les Baxter and John Williams over the theme to E.T.
> 
> Reader Robert Delaney was helpful enough to pull the court data as to exactly what happened. However, he accessed them through the Lexis-Nexis database which is a copyrighted presentation of the public records, so I'm not at liberty to reprint the full legal document here.
> 
> However, longtime FSM columnist Mike Murray is acquainted with these records due to his profession and was kind enough to provide a summary. The following then is MY interpretation of Mike's summary of the court history, as well as Robert Delaney's email to me of what he read. (In other words, in this column about plagiarizing, I'm plagiarizing our trusted correspondents below!)
> 
> 1) November 2, 1983: Les Baxter sued John Williams, claiming that the theme to E.T. was plagiarized from a selection of Baxter's "Passions" 10-inch LP, "Joy," which dates from 1954 (released on Capitol Records). In addition to Williams, identified as "John T. Williams," MCA, Inc., Universal City Studios, Inc, Music Corporation of America, MCA Records, Inc., and Merchandising Corporation of America were named as defendants.
> 
> Williams did concede that he was familiar with "Joy" and had performed it in concert. However, in 1984 the judge ruled that to the layman, "Joy" and E.T. were not substantially similar, and it was not necessary to submit the case to a jury trial.
> 
> 2) 1985: Baxter appealed, saying that in a technical field like music, laymen may not know what to listen for and that he should be allowed to have experts point out to a jury where the similarities are. This appellate court agreed that the lower Federal District court was in error when it granted summary judgment dismissing Baxter's copyright infringement suit against Williams etc as a matter of law. The appellate court reversed the District court and remanded the case back for a jury trial. That was a 1987 decision.
> 
> 3) 1987: Williams and other defendants appealed that decision to the US Supreme Court which denied certiori (i.e. refused to hear it) (Williams v.Baxter, 484 US 954 {1987)).
> 
> 4) The case proceeded to jury trial after which the jury found that the portion of Baxyer's song that was substantially similar to Williams' E.T. Theme was not original material protected by copyright.
> 
> 5) 1990: That jury verdict was appealed and affirmed by the Ninth Circuit (Federal) Court of appeals with a citation of Baxter v. MCA, INC et al, 907 F.2d 154.
> 
> In other words, Williams "walked."
> 
> But wait, that's not all...!
> 
> Reader Thomas Morrow was kind enough to send the FSM office a tape of the Baxter composition, an interesting seven-movement piece broken down as "Despair," "Ecstasy," "Hate," "Lust," "Terror," "Jealousy" and "Joy."
> 
> So, what's the deal? I can understand how Baxter must have freaked when he heard E.T. because there is a melodic gesture in Williams's theme that is also found in "Joy." If you think of the theme from E.T. (the most famous theme, the flying music), it's the part where, after the first two notes outline a fifth, the melody descends: da-da-da-da-DA-da. (In the Baxter, this motive is preceded by an upward motion of a fourth, so the contour is the same, but the pitches are different.) Baxter probably also went bananas because "Joy" has a "big finish" where the motive that's similar to E.T. is slowed down and orchestrated in a way similar to E.T.'s "big finish."
> 
> Anyway, MY opinion, and solely my opinion, based on judging the two pieces of music, is that the judicial system came up with the correct verdict in siding with Williams. It's a coincidence. I understand that Williams was very convincing to the jury when he described the rather scientific method in which he came up with the E.T. theme (it cannily outlines a sensation of flight). I also understand he played piano on "Joy" in concert in the '60s, but what did he do, sit there and think, aha! I'll copy Les Baxter!
> 
> There's been a lot of film music which truly is plagiarized of copyrighted material but this isn't it. In E.T. alone, there's more of an argument to be made for similarity between one of the action sequences and a Howard Hanson symphony. But "Joy" is a zany, short, '50s, almost bachelor pad piece for female voice and jazzy orchestra and E.T. is a film score reflecting the emotional bond and journey of a boy and an alien. They happen to share around six notes of a melodic line (most of it step-wise motion -- in other words, part of a scale), and some coincidences of orchestration and variation. That's it. It's too bad that this probably disturbed Les Baxter to no end and that a lot of time and money was spent litigating... but that's life.
> 
> Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. This column is not meant to be a definitive record or interpretation of a legal proceeding. If anybody identifies anything as incorrect in the above, please contact:
> 
> [email protected]


Williams' side offered to pay Baxter off for half a million dollars, but he refused.

To my ears the music is dissimilar. I find it bizarre that H. Mancini encouraged his good (and initially reluctant) friend Baxter to sue another friend, Williams, over _this _






Williams was also sued after Jurassic Park by someone convinced that a tune of his lullaby has been stolen, but that was judged as a frivolous lawsuit.

Where there is a famous film, there will be lawsuits, especially concerning stories and music.

The Holst foundation sued Hans Zimmer over this:




and lost.

I found nothing on interactions of any sort between Williams and the Holsts.


----------



## mikeh375

..the curse of the temp again in Gladiator. 'Mars' is a classic 'go to' temp.

Thanks for that really informative post Fabulin. There is a big difference between using common stock material, ie standard, basic melodic shapes and downright plagiarism with intent to sound alike. The Williams v Baxter is an example of a case that if it would have been a successful outcome for Baxter, everyone would be suing everyone else given the commonality of tonal music.

In every musical aspect from tempo, harmony, through to scoring it is immediately apparent that there is no intention to even refer to the Baxter track in ET. The creative input of Williams vastly overwhelms the one similarity.


----------



## mikeh375

^^^^following on. Here's Horner at his most blatant. If you know Britten's War Requiem, be prepared to lift your jaw off the ground. Jump to 41" in. Incidentally, the musicologist who was on the litigation that followed this theft was also one who checked my stuff out a few times.

Being fair to Horner, he was under an immense time pressure with this score, being drafted in late to re-do the film after another composer's score (Yared) was rejected. Still there is no excuse for this imv and I wonder if they decided to just hang the consequences.


----------



## Fabulin

MacLeod said:


> *In the last 20 years, he has scored only three feature films for other directors.


2000 _The Patriot_ - Roland Emmerich
2001 _Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone_ - Chris Columbus
2002 _Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets_ - Chris Columbus
2004 _Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban_ - Alfonso Cuarón
2005 _Memoirs of a Geisha_ - Rob Marschall
2013 _The Book Thief_ - Brian Percival
2015 _Star Wars: The Force Awakens_ - J.J. Abrams
2017 _Star Wars: The Last Jedi _- Rian Johnson
2018 _Solo: A Star Wars Story_ - Ron Howard
2019 _Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker_ - J.J. Abrams

vs.

2002 Star Wars: Attack of the Clones - Lucas
2005 Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith - Lucas

2001 A.I Artificial Intelligence - Spielberg
2002 Minority Report - Spielberg
2002 Catch Me If You Can - Spielberg
2004 The Terminal - Spielberg
2005 War of the Worlds - Spielberg
2005 Munich - Spielberg
2008 Indiana Jones and KOTCS - Spielberg / Lucas
2011 The Adventures of Tintin - Spielberg
2011 War Horse - Spielberg
2012 Lincoln - Spielberg
2016 The BFG - Spielberg
2017 The Post - Spielberg

Over the last 20 years, 41,6% of Williams-scored films, 10 in total, were for directors other than his old collaborators. 6 of those fall into the category of sequels to his famous scores.

I think Spielberg provided enough diversity of subjects that Williams was constantly busy writing something different...


----------



## Guest

Fabulin said:


> 2000 _The Patriot_ - Roland Emmerich
> 2001 _Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone_ - Chris Columbus
> 2002 _Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets_ - Chris Columbus
> 2004 _Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban_ - Alfonso Cuarón
> 2005 _Memoirs of a Geisha_ - Rob Marschall
> 2013 _The Book Thief_ - Brian Percival
> 2015 _Star Wars: The Force Awakens_ - J.J. Abrams
> 2017 _Star Wars: The Last Jedi _- Rian Johnson
> 2018 _Solo: A Star Wars Story_ - Ron Howard
> 2019 _Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker_ - J.J. Abrams
> 
> vs.
> 
> 2002 Star Wars: Attack of the Clones - Lucas
> 2005 Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith - Lucas
> 
> 2001 A.I Artificial Intelligence - Spielberg
> 2002 Minority Report - Spielberg
> 2002 Catch Me If You Can - Spielberg
> 2004 The Terminal - Spielberg
> 2005 War of the Worlds - Spielberg
> 2005 Munich - Spielberg
> 2008 Indiana Jones and KOTCS - Spielberg / Lucas
> 2011 The Adventures of Tintin - Spielberg
> 2011 War Horse - Spielberg
> 2012 Lincoln - Spielberg
> 2016 The BFG - Spielberg
> 2017 The Post - Spielberg
> 
> Over the last 20 years, 41,6% of Williams-scored films, 10 in total, were for directors other than his old collaborators.


You're right. My bad. However, take out the franchise movies and that leaves three films unconnected with Star Wars or Potter for which, I presume, he wrote wholly new material.


----------



## Fabulin

MacLeod said:


> You're right. My bad. However, take out the franchise movies and that leaves three films unconnected with Star Wars or Potter for which, I presume, he wrote wholly new material.


But you should count the first Potter, as it was a new project.

The thing about franchise films is that Williams enjoys expanding on his past work. There is no direct comparison other than for example saying that instead of _Götterdämmerung _Wagner should have written an opera about a Jules Verne novel, because "enough of those mythical, Germanic operas".


----------



## Guest

Fabulin said:


> But you should count the first Potter, as it was a new project.
> 
> The thing about franchise films is that Williams enjoys expanding on his past work. There is no direct comparison other than for example saying that instead of _Götterdämmerung _Wagner should have written an opera about a Jules Verne novel, because "enough of those mythical, Germanic operas".


Yep. I should. Now, what about the rest of my response to your post about what I am alleged to have posted?


----------



## Fabulin

MacLeod said:


> Yep. I should. Now, what about the rest of my response to your post about what I am alleged to have posted?





MacLeod said:


> I _did _refer to the fact that Williams of late has confined himself to working (mostly) with Spielberg and Lucas*, and that before that, he was, notably, working with Irwin Allen. All three of these director/producers worked in the mainstream, often on blockbusters. This makes it difficult to judge how successful he was 'cinematically' speaking, because *he didn't face the challenge of working for an unknown or 'art house' director on a low budget or non-mainstream movie.*


You mean the first 20 years of his career, when he climbed up and up in the size of projects he worked on, gaining trust at each stage, until he was entrusted with All-Star disaster films in he early 1970s?

Anyway, it is not very relevant to me to speculate what _could _have been, about music that we did _not _get.

The addition to the canon is about what we _did _get.


----------



## Guest

Fabulin said:


> You mean the first 20 years of his career, when he climbed up and up in the size of projects he worked on, gaining trust at each stage, until he was entrusted with All-Star disaster films in he early 1970s?
> 
> Anyway, it is not very relevant to me to speculate what _could _have been, about music that we did _not _get.
> 
> The addition to the canon is about what we _did _get.


So, I acknowledge my errors. You prefer not to respond to my request that you consider a response to my refuting the assertions you made in your post #686



> "I'm saying this, because this is not the first time you imply that (most?) people like Williams' music only/mostly because it was tagged to images of spaceships and lazers, and, more crucially, that they would stop liking it if the pictorial memories of the film were erased."


To which I said,



> "I don't recall saying either of these things now or before. Please quote me."


So, please quote me.


----------



## Fabulin

MacLeod said:


> So, I acknowledge my errors. You prefer not to respond to my request that you consider a response to my refuting the assertions you made in your post #686
> 
> To which I said,
> 
> So, please quote me.


Post #692 is a good example in itself.


----------



## Guest

Fabulin said:


> Post #692 is a good example in itself.


Which bit? Please quote what I said and show how it supports your assertions.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I think Williams' compositions stand up well.


----------



## mbhaub

This new recording is terrific and will put to rest any question of Williams' credibility. He's the real deal.


----------



## pianozach

"At the Movies"?

They're "films", thank you.


----------



## Guest

pianozach said:


> "At the Movies"?
> 
> They're "films", thank you.


What's the objection to 'movie'? It's a fairly old term, and whilst it may be informal for 'moving picture', there's no obvious reason why 'film' should be regarded as any more correct...is there?


----------



## pianozach

MacLeod said:


> What's the objection to 'movie'? It's a fairly old term, and whilst it may be informal for 'moving picture', there's no obvious reason why 'film' should be regarded as any more correct...is there?


I'd like to think that the difference is that a movie is more concerned with plot and easy answers. A film attempts to convey or explore something larger than itself. A movie is about giving the audience exactly what they want. A film forces the audience to grow in some way, to leave the theater slightly better humans than when they came in.

They explain it rather well here: https://stephenfollows.com/film-vs-movie/


----------



## Guest

pianozach said:


> I'd like to think that the difference is that a movie is more concerned with plot and easy answers. A film attempts to convey or explore something larger than itself. A movie is about giving the audience exactly what they want. A film forces the audience to grow in some way, to leave the theater slightly better humans than when they came in.
> 
> They explain it rather well here: https://stephenfollows.com/film-vs-movie/


I liked the cartoon - it sums up nicely something of the snobbery surrounding the use of the words. Of course, since the two are used interchangeably, I assume many writers (the not so fastidious perhaps) will use them so for variety. On my blog, I try to avoid using 'movie' because my audience favours 'film', but I have to give in sometimes.


----------



## Ethereality

The reason they call it film is because it's something production envisions into a physical product of a cellulose acetate or polyester base, now a silicon hard drive. It has nothing to do with its quality, but a technical term of inception and development. A movie is something projected to an audience, the film is the product itself. So "At the movies" is correct. Anyway, I don't understand the particular appeal of that linked album, but Williams has a unique way of presenting leitmotif, ie. the track of that album _Adventures on Earth_ shows a unique product of environment for the late 20th c, that is somewhat however disconnected from a Classical ideal; I wouldn't call it a deceit in any way, per the thread topic. The music mostly brings to my mind the word "loveliness," in contrast to "depth" ie. intrinsic world-building.


----------



## mbhaub

Charlatan or The Real Deal, he's certainly arrived:









Can you imagine what Karajan, Furtwangler or Walter would make of this? Most orchestras have given in to playing Pops for various reasons: it brings in money and makes you seem less stuffy. But Vienna? That bastion of traditionalism. Hurrah! I've downloaded it and it's a fun, great sounding recording. You can quibble about some of the selections, but these must be some of the composer's favorites. Now they need vol. 2 with themes from Superman, Dracula...

You can hear samples here: https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/8785412--john-williams-in-vienna


----------



## JAS

^^^ mine has been on pre-order for months, and now they seem to have moved the release to October.


----------



## Fabulin

JAS said:


> ^^^ mine has been on pre-order for months, and now they seem to have moved the release to October.


I received mine (pre-ordered from a German distributor jpc Schallplatten) yesterday. Many others in Europe are reporting similar deliveries. Overseas it seems delayed.

The variety of this release is great: one can choose from:
CD
CD + Blu-ray
Japanese MQA
Dolby Atmos
Vinyl
Golden Vinyl
downloads

and I don't think that's all...


----------



## Ethereality

I guess we're due for this, a point I made last year. When I solidified the case for why Debussy is actually the 4th highest ranked composer in the mainstream and the professional communities for about the past 30-40 years now, data here, this also pulls along Williams into about 29th place overall. That's great considering this is in agreement from both the largest Classical community as well as the professional greats today (174 of the biggest names in Classical)--they're both in agreement over the quality of these composers. Not from any strict analytical perspective IME from me reading the breathtaking article, such as "these aren't Classical composers, they don't belong because they don't compose in the strict contrapuntal or developmental style of Beethoven and Bach," but rather, from an actual open-mindedness towards all types of quality in Classical, judging which composers simply sound the best or contributed the most overall. So according to all ranks of various people from the mainstream to the professionals, the result heavily includes Williams. Here is the final outcome of the two greatest polls ever done on ranking composers (representing a balance between professional and mainstream):

1. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Mozart
4. Debussy
5. Stravinsky
6. Mahler
7. Ravel
8. Shostakovich
9. Chopin
10. Wagner
11. Brahms
12. Sibelius
13. Bartók
14. Tchaikovsky
15. Schubert
16. Prokofiev
17. Gershwin
18. Haydn
19. Ligeti
20. Glass
21. Vaughan Williams
22. Reich
23. Messiaen
24. Rachmaninoff
25. R. Strauss
26. Britten
27. Schoenberg
28. Ives
29. John Williams
30. Verdi
31. Schumann
32. Satie
33. Elgar
34. Monteverdi
35. Dvořák
36. Liszt
37. Saariaho
38. Saint-Saëns 
39. Holst
40. Mendelssohn
41. Vivaldi
42. Grieg
43. Copland
44. Bernstein
45. Janáček
46. Rimsky-Korsakov
47. Mussorgsky
48. Handel
49. Pärt
50. Berlioz

Notes on the above list: John Williams ranks 50th in that BBC survey, the same as Rachmaninoff, but they had to trim it to 50. The magazine article is rich with details and personal statements from all 174 composers who contributed. The above list is a mathematically combined effort of both lists from the largest mainstream community and the professionals, where both placements are multiplied not added for the best possible convergence between their opinions. This doesn't change the result really at all, it appears, but addition implies that the results represent more of one side or the other. Instead it appears that both addition or multiplication give identical results, so it doesn't matter.


----------



## Guest

Ethereality said:


> Here is the final outcome of the two greatest polls ever done on ranking composers:
> 
> 1. Bach
> 2. Beethoven
> 3. Mozart
> 4. Debussy
> 5. Stravinsky
> 6. Mahler
> 7. Ravel
> 8. Shostakovich
> 9. Chopin
> 10. Wagner
> 11. Brahms
> 12. Sibelius
> 13. Bartók
> 14. Tchaikovsky
> 15. Schubert
> 16. Prokofiev
> 17. Gershwin
> 18. Haydn
> 19. Ligeti
> 20. Glass
> 21. Vaughan Williams
> 22. Reich
> 23. Messiaen
> 24. Rachmaninoff
> 25. R.Strauss
> 26. Britten
> 27. Schoenberg
> 28. Ives
> 29. John Williams
> 30. Verdi
> 31. Schumann
> 32. Satie
> 33. Elgar
> 34. Monteverdi
> 35. Dvorak
> 36. Liszt
> 37. Saariaho
> 38. Saint-Saens
> 39. Holst
> 40. Mendelssohn
> 41. Vivaldi
> 42. Grieg
> 43. Copland
> 44. Bernstein
> 45. Janáček
> 46. Rimsky-Korsakov
> 47. Mussorgsky
> 48. Handel
> 49. Pärt
> 50. Berlioz
> 
> Note that John Williams ranks 50th in that BBC survey, the same as Rachmaninoff, but they had to trim it to 50. The magazine article is rich with details as well as personal statements from all 174 composers who contributed. The above list is a combined effort of the largest mainstream Classical community, and the professionals, where both placements are multiplied, not added, for the best possible convergence between their opinions. If they were added, the results would weigh more towards one side or the other, but the Top 10 would be about the same.


I'm confused. Debussy appeared in 5th and 6th places in the two polls you refer to, so how does he get to 4th in your list above. Similarly, John Williams appears 24th in one poll but not the other at all. How does that make him 29th above?


----------



## Ethereality

This is not a trick whatsoever. You can do the math. What it means is there are some composers not in agreement between both communities, which brings them much lower in convergence and thereby raises those in agreement higher. As a quick experiment, Debussy for example, look at both lists and try to find who else belongs in 4th place. Debussy wins the placement hands down for both. I hope this explains it clearly!

Also, I should add, I have no personal investment in either of these lists, nor chose them arbitrarily. They happen to be the 2 most monumental lists on Classical composers compiled from each community, of all time, and people are free to disagree with them.


----------



## Guest

Ethereality said:


> *This is not a trick whatsoever*. You should do the math. What it means is there are some composers not in agreement between both communities, which brings them much lower in convergence and thereby raises those in agreement higher. As a quick experiment, Debussy for example, look at both lists and try to find who else belongs in 4th place. Debussy wins the placement hands down for both. I hope this explains it clearly!


Well that's a relief!

So can you explain why multiplying their positions in the two polls is a valid way of trying to resolve the divergence in agreement? Surely they should just remain as separate lists, the collated opinions of two disparate groups of people asked different questions?


----------



## Ethereality

See my edit above if you can. Multiplication and addition both give identical results, so this part doesn't matter. The reason to combine them into one list is (a) they are the two greatest surveys done, and (b) to show a balanced perspective on the greatest composers for people who want to know where agreement exists across the board. I also documented both lists separately, so to your point: feel free to go with either or neither. It's all up to you.

If your point is that they were asked slightly different questions, my answer is, they're the two greatest surveys done on composers. Therefore you can't improve on them! unless you can provide us another survey as monumental. So this list is what we have for data, while we're open to other suggestions and possibilities.


----------



## Guest

Ethereality said:


> See my edit above if you can. Multiplication and addition both give identical results, so this part doesn't matter. The reason to combine them into one list is (a) they are the two greatest surveys done, and (b) to show a balanced perspective on the greatest composers for people who want to know where agreement exists across the board. I also documented both lists separately, so to your point: feel free to go with either or neither. It's all up to you.


OK. That deals with the maths bit. But it doesn't deal with my objection that they were asked different questions. Ask me who my _favourite _composer is, I might say, "Sibelius". Ask me who I believe is the _greatest _composer, I'd definitely give a different answer.

But I think we've been here before on this one, so perhaps it's best not to pursue it again.


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> OK. That deals with the maths bit. But it doesn't deal with my objection that they were asked different questions. Ask me who my _favourite _composer is, I might say, "Sibelius". Ask me who I believe is the _greatest _composer, I'd definitely give a different answer.
> 
> But I think we've been here before on this one, so perhaps it's best not to pursue it again.


Are the greatest composers not your favorites? Or was this already discussed and it made sense?


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> Are the greatest composers not your favorites? Or was this already discussed and it made sense?


[edited for clarity]No, the greatest composers are not my favourites necessarily - though it depends which list of greatest you're looking at :lol:.

The business of 'favourite/greatest' already had a thread all to itself a while back.

Greatest - Best - Most Important - Favorite?

The difference between these two words makes sense to me, but not, inexplicably, to others, so I guess we're lumbered with the ambiguity...or the ongoing corruption of the English language.


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> No. I dont know...why? wouldn't it make sense?


----------



## millionrainbows

BabyGiraffe said:


> J.W. lifted a short motive. It's not uncommon practice (especially in older music), plus his most of his music is derivative. He is a very skilled composer, but a well known plagiarist (in film music directors usually say: "compose something that sounds like "x" theme"). If he had any original ideas (even his non-film music is based on "borrowed" ideas - mainly Shostakovich from what I've heard), he would have probably been recognised by the critics.
> Still, it's pretty hard to come with any original melody - http://www.musipedia.org/melody_search.html - try this melody search engine, - but he was not really trying to do anything original. It is interesting that sometimes he improved upon the source material (by adding "better" - more catchy/tuneful - melody - see for example Howard Hanson's second symphony and the score of E.T.)


Yeah, but none of his music uses microtones.

God, I can't believe this thread has gone on for fifty pages!


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> [edited for clarity]No, the greatest composers are not my favourites necessarily - though it depends which list of greatest you're looking at :lol:.
> 
> The business of 'favourite/greatest' already had a thread all to itself a while back.
> 
> Greatest - Best - Most Important - Favorite?
> 
> The difference between these two words makes sense to me, but not, inexplicably, to others, so I guess we're lumbered with the ambiguity...or the ongoing corruption of the English language.


Interesting. Which of your favorites isn't a great composer?


----------



## Fabulin

millionrainbows said:


> God, I can't believe this thread has gone on for fifty pages!


That's 1 page per 4 hours of music this man has composed. Not much, I'd say.


----------



## millionrainbows

Fabulin said:


> That's 1 page per 4 hours of music this man has composed. Not much, I'd say.


You mean 4 hours of Star Wars rehashes is worth more than 1 page of adulation?

Williams does "Simple Gifts" to get on the Copland path to classical cred, and Schindler's list to get Perlman in on it...


----------



## Fabulin

> "The new Deutsche Grammophon recording registered the highest ever chart entry for a John Williams album in Germany and the *highest chart entry for a Vienna Philharmonic album in recent years*, as it went straight to No.7 in the Album Chart a week after its release [14.08.2020]. The recording's tally of achievements also includes:
> No.1 in the US Classical Chart;
> No.1 in the UK Classical Chart;
> a double No.1 in Australia's Classical, and Crossover Album Charts;
> No.1 in Austria's DVD Chart and
> No.6 in the Album Pop Charts;
> No.13 in Switzerland's Pop Charts; and
> No.1 in the iTunes Classical Charts in 15 countries (on release date).
> Its success in Europe and Australia has been mirrored in Japan, where it hit
> No.1 in the Soundscan Classical Album Chart,
> occupied the top 5 positions in the Amazon classical chart, and
> reached No.6 in the Album Pop Chart - helping John Williams to overtake Paul McCartney as the oldest living artist to enter the nation's Top 10".


source: universal-music.de, 27.08.2020


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> Interesting. Which of your favorites isn't a great composer?


We (that is, you and me) weren't talking about 'great', but 'greatest'. Only a handful of composers are considered 'greatest' - most round here seem willing to accept that there are only three, and of those three, only Beethoven is one of my favourites.

The list of 'Great' composers, on the other hand, runs to...50? 100? 200?...and reflects both a greater diversity across periods and personal preferences. I think Sibelius and Satie are 'great' composers, but I wouldn't put them forward as 'greatest'.

If I was feeling inclined to admit film scores as qualifying works, I'd include John Williams, and he'd be higher up my list than some of the more traditionally recognised composers in whose work I have no interest...Purcell, or Handel, for example.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> We weren't talking about 'great', but 'greatest'. Only a handful of composers are considered 'greatest' - most round here seem willing to accept that there are only three, and of those three, only Beethoven is one of my favourites.
> 
> The list of 'Great' composers, on the other hand, runs to...50? 100? 200?...and reflects both a greater diversity across periods and personal preferences. I think Sibelius and Satie are 'great' composers, but I wouldn't put them forward as 'greatest'.
> 
> If I was feeling inclined to admit film scores as qualifying works, I'd include John Williams, and he'd be higher up my list than some of the more traditionally recognised composers in whose work I have no interest...Purcell, or Handel, for example.


We are discussing whether John Williams is a charlatan or a worthy addition. As he sets out to compose film music he obviously isn't a charlatan as a charlatan is someone who makes out he is something he is not. Interesting that Williams would be higher up my list certainly then Satie who I don't rate at all. Purcell and Handel are two of my favourites so it is amazing how personal preference comes into our rating of 'greatness'.


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> We (that is, you and me) weren't talking about 'great', but 'greatest'. Only a handful of composers are considered 'greatest' - most round here seem willing to accept that there are only three, and of those three, only Beethoven is one of my favourites.
> 
> The list of 'Great' composers, on the other hand, runs to...50? 100? 200?...and reflects both a greater diversity across periods and personal preferences. I think Sibelius and Satie are 'great' composers, but I wouldn't put them forward as 'greatest'.
> 
> If I was feeling inclined to admit film scores as qualifying works, I'd include John Williams, and he'd be higher up my list than some of the more traditionally recognised composers in whose work I have no interest...Purcell, or Handel, for example.


This is your brain on CM. So, Sibelius and Satie are your favorites, along with Beethoven.


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> *This is your brain on CM*. So, Sibelius and Satie are your favorites, along with Beethoven.


Well, it certainly isn't anyone else's.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I didn't really devote much time to his music, except on occasion of listening to his film scores during movies. But I recently pushed myself to listen to his concert work and some films more actively. I think he is not worthy of being added to the canon. His approach to developing music is pretty much always the same. He works on different germs of music like the Jaws theme, Memoirs of a Geisha, Potter, ET, but as soon as he establishes a theme which is probably the most original part, he goes on auto (ok an exaggeration) and the stuff that comes is rather formulaic and is not really worth sitting down and devoting full attention to, which is probably why I never did till more recently to get a handle on his work. He kind of settles on a certain way of orchestration too with the themes (at least in Memoirs of a Geisha, he was forced to change it up). He is definitely very skilled, and each film score on its own is great in Cinema history, but not so much as a collective whole.

In his concert work, it's a lot more expansive, with more intricate solo parts, and less repetitive than in his films, but it's like he only knows how to start some themes and develop to a point, and then he has to introduce other stuff to divert your attention. I feel he doesn't seem to know how to heighten the material's development and draw the material to a meaningful conclusion like the true great composers. In other words, listening to his concert music from 2:00 in, is not really much different than from 2:00 from the end. Like his cello concerto, I didn't know it was the end until the final chord, which he had to repeat after a break, crescendo, then ta-da!






I was listening to a few different scores from Goldsmith, and he varies the form more from film to film. Compare The Omen, to Total Recall, and to Chinatown. He still has a spot where he's more comfortable, but he moves away more in general than JW does I believe.


----------



## Jacck

Phil loves classical said:


> I was listening to a few different scores from Goldsmith, and he varies the form more from film to film. Compare The Omen, to Total Recall, and to Chinatown. He still has a spot where he's more comfortable, but he moves away more in general than JW does I believe.


there are like 6 scores from Williams I think are excellent (SW, E.T., Jaws, A.I., Schindlers List, Indiana Jones) and then there are some which are mixed bag, like having a strong centrel theme and a lot of filler inbetween (Saving Private Ryan, Close Encounters of the Third Kind etc). Goldsmith composed a lot more scores that I care about - Total Recall, Mummy, Freud, Planet of the Apes, Congo, First Knight, Omen, Medicine Man, China Town, Basic Instinct, Lillies of the Field, Mulan, Papillon, Rambo, Sand Pebbles, Star Trek, The 13th Warrior, The Agony and The Ecstasy, Wind and the Lion and many more, especially westerns from the 60s). So in my eyes, Williams is overrated and Goldsmith is underrated (even by Hollywood and their Oscars)


----------



## JAS

Phil loves classical said:


> I didn't really devote much time to his music, except on occasion of listening to his film scores during movies. But I recently pushed myself to listen to his concert work and some films more actively. I think he is not worthy of being added to the canon. His approach to developing music is pretty much always the same. He works on different germs of music like the Jaws theme, Memoirs of a Geisha, Potter, ET, but as soon as he establishes a theme which is probably the most original part, he goes on auto (ok an exaggeration) and the stuff that comes is rather formulaic and is not really worth sitting down and devoting full attention to, which is probably why I never did till more recently to get a handle on his work. He kind of settles on a certain way of orchestration too with the themes (at least in Memoirs of a Geisha, he was forced to change it up). He is definitely very skilled, and each film score on its own is great in Cinema history, but not so much as a collective whole.


The question is if Williams belongs in the canon. I take this to mean if at least some of his music is worthy of being played in concerts and on radio along with established classical works. The negative response seems to set the bar as being whether he would be admitted to the very top ranks, which is not fair. The canon includes lots of works by lots of composers that are not the pinnacle of classical music. And in a concert form, playing a full score to a film is probably unreasonable. I think much of the music Williams has composed, adapted into the form of a selection or suite of selections, would be perfectly suitable for a concert (given the combination of other works). Williams does have the added advantage of a broad appeal beyond the traditional followers of the concert hall, which classical music desperately needs to survive.



Phil loves classical said:


> I was listening to a few different scores from Goldsmith, and he varies the form more from film to film. Compare The Omen, to Total Recall, and to Chinatown. He still has a spot where he's more comfortable, but he moves away more in general than JW does I believe.


I do not think that it is unfair to suggest that Goldsmith was typically more experimental than Williams. (There has certainly been what is sometimes called a Williams sound, formed over the years in part due to public response. Goldsmith also has certain tendencies, such as his use of percussion, and he has had several "periods" over the years, such as his synth period.) But, I don't think that experimentation is a requirement for being "in the canon."


----------



## millionrainbows

So has it come to this? A picture of Yo Yo Ma playing John Williams' "Cello Concerto?"


----------



## Phil loves classical

JAS said:


> The question is if Williams belongs in the canon. I take this to mean if at least some of his music is worthy of being played in concerts and on radio along with established classical works. The negative response seems to set the bar as being whether he would be admitted to the very top ranks, which is not fair. The canon includes lots of works by lots of composers that are not the pinnacle of classical music. And in a concert form, playing a full score to a film is probably unreasonable. I think much of the music Williams has composed, adapted into the form of a selection or suite of selections, would be perfectly suitable for a concert (given the combination of other works). Williams does have the added advantage of a broad appeal beyond the traditional followers of the concert hall, which classical music desperately needs to survive.
> 
> I do not think that it is unfair to suggest that Goldsmith was typically more experimental than Williams. (There has certainly been what is sometimes called a Williams sound, formed over the years in part due to public response. Goldsmith also has certain tendencies, such as his use of percussion, and he has had several "periods" over the years, such as his synth period.) But, I don't think that experimentation is a requirement for being "in the canon."


I don't think John Williams is able to develop his music, film or concert, anywhere close to the level of Martinu, Suk, Janacek, Arnold, Holst or Tubin, who are generally considered as minor composers (whom I still consider great). And even if he could, I don't feel his voice is individual enough. The idioms he works with are derived from others, far back in time, including concert work.


----------



## Luchesi

JAS said:


> The question is if Williams belongs in the canon. I take this to mean if at least some of his music is worthy of being played in concerts and on radio along with established classical works. The negative response seems to set the bar as being whether he would be admitted to the very top ranks, which is not fair. The canon includes lots of works by lots of composers that are not the pinnacle of classical music. And in a concert form, playing a full score to a film is probably unreasonable. I think much of the music Williams has composed, adapted into the form of a selection or suite of selections, would be perfectly suitable for a concert (given the combination of other works). Williams does have the added advantage of a broad appeal beyond the traditional followers of the concert hall, which classical music desperately needs to survive.
> 
> I do not think that it is unfair to suggest that Goldsmith was typically more experimental than Williams. (There has certainly been what is sometimes called a Williams sound, formed over the years in part due to public response. Goldsmith also has certain tendencies, such as his use of percussion, and he has had several "periods" over the years, such as his synth period.) But, I don't think that experimentation is a requirement for being "in the canon."


The canon is the list of works considered to be permanently established as being of the highest quality. Is this our characterization of the output of Williams? Is this what HE thinks of his works compared to the greats?


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> Well, it certainly isn't anyone else's.


That was part of a public service announcement here in the States. It was a target for much derision for about a decade here.


----------



## Luchesi

duplicate post, can't delete


----------



## JAS

Luchesi said:


> The canon is the list of works considered to be permanently established as being of the highest quality. Is this our characterization of the output of Williams? Is this what HE thinks of his works compared to the greats?


The canon is constantly changing. I think of it in terms of worthy for repeated inclusion in concerts, and I think it certainly works for that. I have heard Strauss waltzes and relatively minor overtures included, and I don't see Williams as being below that level. Your mileage may vary, as it is a matter of opinion. I have certainly heard works at concerts that I considered far less worthy.


----------



## Luchesi

JAS said:


> The canon is constantly changing. I think of it in terms of worthy for repeated inclusion in concerts, and I think it certainly works for that. I have heard Strauss waltzes and relatively minor overtures included, and I don't see Williams as being below that level. Your mileage may vary, as it is a matter of opinion. I have certainly heard works at concerts that I considered far less worthy.


So the canon changes because more accessible pieces are needed to fill the seats. I guess that's logical.


----------



## pianozach

JAS said:


> The question is if Williams belongs in the canon. I take this to mean *if at least some of his music is worthy of being played * in concerts and *on radio* along with established classical works. The negative response seems to set the bar as being whether he would be admitted to the very top ranks, which is not fair. The canon includes lots of works by lots of composers that are not the pinnacle of classical music. And in a concert form, playing a full score to a film is probably unreasonable. I think much of the music Williams has composed, adapted into the form of a selection or suite of selections, would be perfectly suitable for a concert (given the combination of other works). Williams does have the added advantage of a broad appeal beyond the traditional followers of the concert hall, which classical music desperately needs to survive.
> 
> I do not think that it is unfair to suggest that Goldsmith was typically more experimental than Williams. (There has certainly been what is sometimes called a Williams sound, formed over the years in part due to public response. Goldsmith also has certain tendencies, such as his use of percussion, and he has had several "periods" over the years, such as his synth period.) But, I don't think that experimentation is a requirement for being "in the canon."


I'm fortunate enough to live in an area where I can pick up an FM Classical Station (KUSC).

Williams would most certainly fit in with their playlists. Rarely do they play entire lengthy works during prime time. They do, just not regularly. You are far more likely to hear an aria from an opera, or a movement from a sonata or symphony or concerto. Or an Overture.

https://www.kusc.org/radio/playlists/

I just took a quick look at today's playlists. In the past two hours they DID play Schumann's 3rd Symphony, a 35 minute listen.

This morning, between 7 and noon, they managed to squeeze in 28 pieces. The longest works were Mozart's Violin Concerto #1 (23 minutes) and Saint-Saens' Cello Concerto #1 (21 minutes).

So far today (since midnight - that's 14 hours), they've sandwiched in only one piece from film, and it is, indeed, *John Williams*: The 4 minute _*E.T.: Flying Theme*_.

To the best of my recollection there's usually a bit more film music in their playlists than that.


----------



## Luchesi

pianozach said:


> I'm fortunate enough to live in an area where I can pick up an FM Classical Station (KUSC).
> 
> Williams would most certainly fit in with their playlists. Rarely do they play entire lengthy works during prime time. They do, just not regularly. You are far more likely to hear an aria from an opera, or a movement from a sonata or symphony or concerto. Or an Overture.
> 
> https://www.kusc.org/radio/playlists/
> 
> I just took a quick look at today's playlists. In the past two hours they DID play Schumann's 3rd Symphony, a 35 minute listen.
> 
> This morning, between 7 and noon, they managed to squeeze in 28 pieces. The longest works were Mozart's Violin Concerto #1 (23 minutes) and Saint-Saens' Cello Concerto #1 (21 minutes).
> 
> So far today (since midnight - that's 14 hours), they've sandwiched in only one piece from film, and it is, indeed, *John Williams*: The 4 minute _*E.T.: Flying Theme*_.
> 
> To the best of my recollection there's usually a bit more film music in their playlists than that.


Heh heh, what good is movie music without the movie? If the movie is a stinker, then what? It's all good.


----------



## Fabulin

Luchesi said:


> The canon is the list of works considered to be permanently established as being of the highest quality. Is this our characterization of the output of Williams? Is this what HE thinks of his works compared to the greats?


An interviewer recently tried to get Williams to disclose his view on who were the composers better than himself in his signature Schindler's List anecdote.

Williams replied that Spielberg probably had Brahms in mind, and he himself was interested what Mozart would have done in his place. This aligns with his general reluctance to call anyone better than himself. He often makes statements that avoid conflict, such as, to paraphrase:
"I don't want to compare my piece to Berlioz's"
"I didn't aim to replace Dvorak".

But the only composers he directly elevates above himself in speech are Beethoven, Haydn, Mozart, Brahms, and (I only have one instance of this) J.S. Bach.

a comparison to Beethoven is half-jokingly "sacrilegious"
a comparison to Mozart "makes him blush"

and so on.

Williams has never given such clues about other composers he tends to mention, however, such as Shostakovich, Prokofiev, R. Strauss, Schumann, Mahler, Bruckner, Schubert, Stravinsky, Wagner, or Herrmann. He speaks about them like about older colleagues (which they are to him). JW knows his works have already given him a seat in their company no matter what he says till the end of his life.

As for the genre of specialization, I have a memory of several second-hand stories which suggest that he _does _view himself as outright the best composer in film music history. While he often mentions how much he [personally] owes to Franz Waxman, Henry Mancini, or Bernard Herrmann, it comes out like thanking them for helping him [to get where he has gotten] when he was young, and being good examples, not a memory of superior artists. In fact, he was quite critical of Herrman's music in the interviews back in the 1970s, and never really considered Goldsmith a competitor. He rarely mentions Goldsmith at all, in fact. Williams always respected Morricone, but within their mutual respect there has always been a cold ice cube of Williams knowing that Morricone was feeding his own ego through bragging and condescending towards others, and Williams subtly made it clear that Morricone's relational pride was just his opinion, which was... not shared.


----------



## hammeredklavier

"Canon" is a vague term. Is Boccherini part of the canon?
In my view, a "music composer" has to satisfy these 3 requirements in order to genuinely considered be part of "classical music":

1. must make relation with his close/direct predecessors in western music
2. must make relation with his distant predecessors in western music
3. must not have philosophies like "noise is also music", "who cares if you listen"

Take Beethoven, for example, he paid homage to Haydn (a close predecessor of his), and also paid homage to Palestrina (a distant predecessor of his). 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 his previous works, the 9th symphony scherzo and the serioso quartet first movement - he wasn't really "trolling" his audience.

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."

I'm not saying contemporary stuff like avant-garde music is "bad art" per se, - I just wonder how much of it philosophically adheres to "classical music". It feels more like a genre on its own. I guess a composer can still make interesting effects even if he adheres to the philosophy "noise is music" - as long as a piece of music has its audience, it has its worth. (And as I pointed out in other threads, certain types of contemporary music may have practical application as soundtrack for horror films). But again, in order for something to be considered "classical music", there has to definitive proof that it is. 
I feel guys like J. Williams or Y. Kuramoto are closer in philosophy to "classical music". 
Being "innovative" or "experimental" is not something a composer must have, to be considered classical (ex. J. Strauss II, as JAS pointed out)


----------



## hammeredklavier

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


----------



## Fabulin

hammeredklavier said:


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


_"Wagner would have his own studio in Burbank, and a water tank with a big "W" on it"_---John Williams


----------



## JAS

Fabulin said:


> _"Wagner would have his own studio in Burbank, and a water tank with a big "W" on it"_---John Williams


I am not sure that Wagner could resist promoting his full last name, but the point is still well taken.


----------



## Enthusiast

JAS said:


> I have heard Strauss waltzes and relatively minor overtures included, and I don't see Williams as being below that level.


Really? I am no big fan of the waltzing Strausses pieces but do recognise them as are immaculate examples of their genre. I don't think Williams has it in him to produce anything so fine.


----------



## Fabulin

Enthusiast said:


> Really? I am no big fan of the waltzing Strausses pieces but do recognise them as are immaculate examples of their genre. I don't think Williams has it in him to produce anything so fine.


Is this a parody?


----------



## tdc

Fabulin said:


> Williams has never given such clues about other composers he tends to mention, however, such as *Shostakovich, Prokofiev, R. Strauss, Schumann, Mahler, Bruckner, Schubert, Stravinsky, Wagner, *or Herrmann. He speaks about them like about older colleagues (which they are to him). JW knows his works have already given him a seat in their company no matter what he says till the end of his life.


I don't think Williams is in the company of those other composers though (with the exception perhaps of Hermann, though in my view Hermann's Symphony is of higher quality than any of the classical works I've heard by Williams.)

I think the composers in bold are famous as classical composers, while Williams is famous for being a film score composer. It is debatable whether he has composed anything outside of film music that is widely recognizable, successful, and that will be remembered by future generations. The composers in bold have already achieved that.

To put another way, the works that Williams are so well known for, are derivative and not original in the same way that the works that those classical composers are famous for. There is a difference between a film score composer and a regular composer. Williams is widely successful as the former, not as the latter.


----------



## Gordontrek

tdc said:


> I think the composers in bold are famous as classical composers, while Williams is famous for being a film score composer. It is debatable whether he has composed anything outside of film music that is widely recognizable, successful, and that will be remembered by future generations. The composers in bold have already achieved that.
> 
> To put another way, the works that Williams are so well known for, are derivative and not original in the same way that the works that those classical composers are famous for. There is a difference between a film score composer and a regular composer. Williams is widely successful as the former, not as the latter.


I think this is judging a fish by its ability to ride a bicycle. Composing music for film is an art unto itself, and is a quite different process from composing symphonic or operatic repertoire meant for concert performance. We do not judge Wagner's, Puccini's, Verdi's worth to art music by their ability to compose symphonies, or Chopin, Mahler or Brahms by their ability to write operas. There are of course composers who did it all, but I am not aware that they reduce the worth of the composers who didn't.

So I do not understand why John Williams should suddenly be held to those standards that we use for no one else. Simply put, he is not a symphonist or an operatic composer, and does not _need_ to be. His film music is definitely going to last through the generations; that is all that should matter.

What's more, I can point to composers who were "regular" composers by your standards who also wrote film music, but they didn't do it as well as Williams. Copland comes to mind. Prokofiev comes to mind. So do Shostakovich and Corigliano. Sure, you might argue that their scores are more substantial in an academic sense, but the ultimate goal of film music is to serve the screen and impact the audience, and as far as that job goes, there is no one who has matched John Williams. But the academics have no problem considering the _Lieutenant Kije_ suite a piece of classical music, yet the second you bring up _Star Wars_ suddenly there's all these issues.


----------



## Fabulin

tdc said:


> I don't think Williams is in the company of those other composers though (with the exception perhaps of Hermann, though in my view Hermann's Symphony is of higher quality than any of the classical works I've heard by Williams.)
> 
> I think the composers in bold are famous as classical composers, while Williams is famous for being a film score composer. It is debatable whether he has composed anything outside of film music that is widely recognizable, successful, and that will be remembered by future generations. The composers in bold have already achieved that.
> 
> To put another way, the works that Williams are so well known for, are derivative and not original in the same way that the works that those classical composers are famous for. There is a difference between a film score composer and a regular composer. Williams is widely successful as the former, not as the latter.


I certainly disagree with Herrmann's symphony being better than, say: Williams' bassoon concerto... or the tuba concerto, which has already become a regular in the repertoire for its instrument, second only to Vaughan Williams'.

Since most of your post rests on a counter-factual premise that Williams' scores are outside the classical tradition, it cannot be meaningfully interacted with.


----------



## Ethereality

I'd surely think a composer is derivative of their influences. That's pretty standard. Dvorak and Brahms are derivative of a lot of older music like Schubert and Beethoven, and their harmonies are often in a strict repetitive mode compared to expansive tonal contemporary. Mozart is derivative of Haydn. Williams is derivative of, well no one's done music _quite_ like him either: he takes some _forms_ of Dvorak like the compactly thematic 9th Symphony style, but uses the harmonies and timbres from many bands of later influences, to create a sense of musical majesty and imagination or something new [1] [2].

I hear Bach writing 4 minute pieces too, but often filled with the most repeating patterns, tick-tocky beats going through the same circles of fifths, staying in a pretty strict mode often, almost like one could finish the passage with a similar idea, and he'll end his minors on that major tonic repeatedly, not always an adventurous composer like the later vividly imaginative _ expressivists_. Williams writes 4 minute pieces, many are filled with beautifully memorable moments expressed with clever melodies, fanciful timbres [1] [2], and good harmony. Some of his music is better than other of his pieces, but it's all short film music.

I don't really see the Williams plagiary argument unless you bring in the "all early Classical music sounds alike with its repetitive base V7 and limited modes" argument, or Bach essentially plagiarizes all the Baroques, except much more expansively and elegantly, and Williams had to be pretty brief in his film cuts. Mozart took Haydn's overall style and made it exponentially more catchy and memorable to advance the human connection. They all steal in recognizing that the music sounds good and they want to be part of it. I'm glad Beethoven stole Ode to Joy from Mozart, because he made it sound better.

Going back to the Top 50 list posted on the last page, from the biggest lists in Classical, Bach is the #1 composer and Debussy is the #4 composer according to the greatest composers today and the mainstream Classical community. Can I really sense a difference in quality between Bach here, and Debussy here? Not really. But Debussy in particular is the rightful master of harmony and its use of expression [1] [2]. Bach is a bit more consistent in quality, which is why he's #1.


----------



## tdc

If you look at the music of Bach or Brahms they are going back to the past and borrowing while still sounding of their time and simultaneously advancing music forward. 

I'm not aware of any Williams film score that does that. Even in his classical pieces I hear a composer that doesn't have a strong individual voice or direction. Not all musicians have talents in the same areas and being a good film composer is nothing to scoff at, but it is more or less its own distinct art form, it can be closely related to classical music, but it is distinct. If Prokofiev or Copland only composed their film music they would not be so highly regarded today. I think Williams is a superb film composer and a mediocre classical composer. I'm not arguing that he is not a classical composer, but that he is not in the same tier as composers like Stravinsky and Wagner as Fabulin asserts. I am surprised I have to explain this. It is common knowledge. Stravinsky and Wagner had massive influences on the direction of classical music as a whole, Williams has not had comparable influence, or comparable originality. Stravinsky and Wagner are rated highly by virtually all classical music aficionados, while also being enjoyed by the general public. The same is not true for Williams.


----------



## Ethereality

It was just described by multiple people above that the quality of music gets less and less original as the years go on, as the best sounds become solidified, and it becomes more and more ideal and perfected as the bad parts from old ideas get sifted away, and the good parts remain. Quality music has nothing to do with originality. Williams tries to avoid that harsh and ugly V7 resolve repeated in Classical as well its hinky-dinky limited modes that make it sound like ritual dance music, expanding and improving the expressivity and imagination for a film setting, as other composers have done. Enough examples were posted to testify to Williams work in providing perfectly well-balanced short music for this purpose, although I see how length might lessen the quality of much of his work. But this is why I think the best film score I've ever heard, from Titanic, is said to be so plagiarized. Is the ideal to be the next Gubaidulina, or to perfect music? So many traditionalists say that music has already been perfected, but as a composer myself, I believe they have a very limited imagination. If certain prodigies had the time and resources, it is very possible to construct some of the greatest music of all time by taking from only the best of past ideas and truncating or throwing out these composers' other ideas.


----------



## tdc

Ethereality said:


> It was just described by multiple people above that the quality of music gets less and less original as the years go on, as the best sounds become solidified, and it becomes more and more ideal and perfected as the bad parts from old ideas get sifted away, and the good parts remain.


Well I'm glad the people in this thread have realized this and informed the rest of us. It is settled then, everything good has already been done. The problem is you can find people from centuries ago saying the same things. Good art builds on the past (it has to or would be incomprehensible) but it is always original, even if it is on the conservative side of the spectrum.

Even Williams does have some uniqueness, I'm not trying to say his music is completely redundant or worthless. I'm just pointing out he is no Stravinsky or Wagner, and it is debatable whether he is even an important figure in classical music at all. I think he is important in film music, but am highly skeptical that he has composed anything of major importance in classical music. There are many composers that were performed regularly in the concert halls a century ago that we do not remember today.


----------



## Ethereality

I'm just saying, by your model it seems a lot easier to be a great composer if I was born before great music came out. My chances would improve, from 0%, to some %. A composer nowadays has to work 50x as hard for he/she to even be possibly considered an original, great influence. In my model, it makes more sense that people spend their time being one-in-the-same mind as the greats, not some atonal nutcase writing music for an asylum, but utilizing the same faculties as the greats did, their _taste_. Improvements to the best music are easily imaginable for creative people. It doesn't mean someone like Williams has to now be creative in-of-itself, but to creatively use an exceptional _taste_, as I believe he does, to cleverly comprehend music as well as weed out the bad from the best from all of Baroque to Contemporary. Originality is no longer as required as it's so difficult to listen to or be considered of any quality nowadays, but craftsmanship and great taste is still in demand.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Ethereality said:


> But Debussy in particular is the rightful master of harmony and its use of expression [1] [2].


Are these pieces that best represent Debussy's music? - I think of the Arabesques, Reverie, Claire de lune to be in the same vein as the kind produced by Charles Mayer (1799~ 1862).


----------



## Ethereality

@hammeredklavier

I believe Debussy and Mayer's form and interpretation are lightyears apart, literally like they have very different pairs of ears despite using some similar harmonies.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I'm just saying stuff like these represent his music better:


----------



## Fabulin

Ethereality said:


> I'm just saying, by your model it seems a lot easier to be a great composer if I was born before great music came out. My chances would improve, from 0%, to some %. A composer nowadays has to work 10x as hard for he/she to even be possibly considered an original, great influence. In my model, it makes more sense that people to spend their time being one-in-the-same mind as the past greats, not some atonal nutcase writing music for an asylum, but utilizing the same faculties as the greats did, their _taste_. Improvements to the best music is easily imaginable for creative people. It doesn't mean someone like Williams has to now be creative in-of-itself, but to creatively use their great taste as the greats did, to now weed out the bad from the best from all of Baroque to Contemporary. Originality is no longer as required as it's so difficult to listen to or be considered of any quality nowadays.


I remember having once had an impression that Shostakovich had pissed on all the keys of my piano, because I could associate every combination with something in his music. It's like a game of combinational Jenga. Beethoven heard the birds in the park sing the motif he would build the 5th symphony upon, and Tchaikovsky, born 70 years later, was left with despairing that such a potent effect was already taken, without ever learning that Beethoven didn't exactly "create it", but _discovered _it, like Columbus did the West Indies.

Those who say that Mozart's music appears to be "discovered", not "created", are right. Combinations are mathematical, and have always been "discovered". Discovered by studious composers who applied search (possibility) models learned in one context to elementary and promising combinations in another.

Williams was the first big composer to take the advantage of the age of recordings and sheet music travelling by jet mail, to learn as studiously as the best before him (for ex. the Bachs, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Berlioz, Mendelssohn, Wagner, Brahms), only in more musically varied times. He achieved a breadth of displays of synthesis of musical styles (harmony and orchestration mostly, with melody and counterpoint style being largely his own) that has never been achieved (or possible) before his time within the ouvre of a single composer. It took him a longer time to create first masterpieces than it did some of his illustrious forerunners, just like the average age of Nobel Prize winners in hard sciences is going up and up. It's a given for our time.

There is a lot to be learned from Williams about broad imagination, musical problem-solving, and melodic logic. His music is a worthy addition to the canon because it does not make sacrifices of elan and vigour on the way towards harmonic and orchestrational quirks. In the age of an intimidating legacy and established competition breathing on one's backs, and music overencumbered by expectations to the point of turning into a slow grind, someone with a peerless ability not to leave any aspect of music behind, and still find Jenga blocks to pull out just like others did before, is king.

And since the combinations are excellent, they have found their place in listener demand. 
Like a Classic FM commenter recently said, Elgar would have given his socks for a Williams piece.


----------



## pjang23

Ethereality said:


> I guess we're due for this, a point I made last year. When I solidified the case for why Debussy is actually the 4th highest ranked composer in the mainstream and the professional communities for about the past 30-40 years now, data here, this also pulls along Williams into about 29th place overall. That's great considering this is in agreement from both the largest Classical community as well as the professional greats today (174 of the biggest names in Classical)--they're both in agreement over the quality of these composers. Not from any strict analytical perspective IME from me reading the breathtaking article, such as "these aren't Classical composers, they don't belong because they don't compose in the strict contrapuntal or developmental style of Beethoven and Bach," but rather, from an actual open-mindedness towards all types of quality in Classical, judging which composers simply sound the best or contributed the most overall. So according to all ranks of various people from the mainstream to the professionals, the result heavily includes Williams. Here is the final outcome of the two greatest polls ever done on ranking composers (representing a balance between professional and mainstream):
> 
> 1. Bach
> 2. Beethoven
> 3. Mozart
> 4. Debussy
> 5. Stravinsky
> 6. Mahler
> 7. Ravel
> 8. Shostakovich
> 9. Chopin
> 10. Wagner
> 11. Brahms
> 12. Sibelius
> 13. Bartók
> 14. Tchaikovsky
> 15. Schubert
> 16. Prokofiev
> 17. Gershwin
> 18. Haydn
> 19. Ligeti
> 20. Glass
> 21. Vaughan Williams
> 22. Reich
> 23. Messiaen
> 24. Rachmaninoff
> 25. R. Strauss
> 26. Britten
> 27. Schoenberg
> 28. Ives
> 29. John Williams
> 30. Verdi
> 31. Schumann
> 32. Satie
> 33. Elgar
> 34. Monteverdi
> 35. Dvořák
> 36. Liszt
> 37. Saariaho
> 38. Saint-Saëns
> 39. Holst
> 40. Mendelssohn
> 41. Vivaldi
> 42. Grieg
> 43. Copland
> 44. Bernstein
> 45. Janáček
> 46. Rimsky-Korsakov
> 47. Mussorgsky
> 48. Handel
> 49. Pärt
> 50. Berlioz
> 
> Notes on the above list: John Williams ranks 50th in that BBC survey, the same as Rachmaninoff, but they had to trim it to 50. The magazine article is rich with details and personal statements from all 174 composers who contributed. The above list is a mathematically combined effort of both lists from the largest mainstream community and the professionals, where both placements are multiplied not added for the best possible convergence between their opinions. This doesn't change the result really at all, it appears, but addition implies that the results represent more of one side or the other. Instead it appears that both addition or multiplication give identical results, so it doesn't matter.





Ethereality said:


> Try not to post misinformation if you can.
> 
> 
> 
> pjang23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first poll only allows each voter to vote for a single composer, so it is basically useless statistical noise beyond the first few ranks.
> 
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...

Yes. Sum up the total number of votes across composers and you get exactly 23967, which means 1 vote per participant.

Assuming a representative sample (another loaded assumption), polls of just the top composer will give you an informative estimate of the top 1 or 2 ranks (Bach and Beethoven being the top 2 is not surprising) but not much about any rankings after that, and if you redid the single composer poll with a new sample, the lower orderings will vary wildly with samples compared to sample polls of Top 10s, 25s or 50s. Hence your confidence in Williams's numerical ranking (or anyone below the top 1 or 2 ranks) from that poll is unwarranted.



Ethereality said:


> Even if the first part is true about 1 composer per voter, the second part here is unsubstantiated speculation. If 581 people voted for Debussy as their_ favorite_, that's perfectly decent data to look at. But it seems it's more the famous _Classical composers_ who prefer Debussy more than Brahms. (New composers, and old great composers.)
> 
> Anyway, this whole thing was supposed to be a thread joke. So I'll let you get back to the OP


Yes, Debussy and Stravinsky in the top 5 for contemporary composers is hardly surprising. The BBC poll once again only polled top 5 choices from the respondents, so there isn't much point in reading into numerical ranks far beyond the top 5 ranks when those results have high uncertainty due to methodological constraints and the resulting sensitivity to sampling error.

In statistical terms you are making inference on a 50-dimensional joint distribution from 1 or 5 dimensional marginal samples (which is not a valid inference -- review your multivariate stats and copulas), and the lower the dimension of the marginal, the greater the divergence from actual samples from the true distribution. Your confidence in your poll results is unfounded and little more than an exercise in confirmation bias.


----------



## Ethereality

pjang23 said:


> In statistical terms you are making inference on a 50-dimensional joint distribution from 1 or 5 dimensional marginal samples (which is not a valid inference -- review your multivariate stats and copulas), and the lower the dimension of the marginal, the greater the divergence from actual samples from the true distribution.


Again, you're making a vast series of assumptions based on no logic or empiricism.

Assumption 1: Users can vote for only 1 composer

Assumption 2: You have demonstrably backed someone in another thread who said "Brahms is a more favored composer than Debussy for most famous composers and avid listeners," and yet you have no basis to show for it. The largest communities disagree, the Reddit Classical community disagrees, the RateYourMusic community disagrees, YouTube user data disagrees, 174 famous composers from today and 30 of the greatest early Contemporary composers disagree, and so what your left with saying is, "There is some data--I haven't provided--to show Brahms is more favorable." That's fine. I believe this forum in particular prefers Brahms more.

Assumption 3: That a majority of people who know and vote for their favorite composer, would even have confident data to know how they'd rank other composers. What you'd like to personally see, is a less accurate list of popular names people rank to 20 that they tend to be unsure about. Most people can accurately choose one or two favorites, but to rank a big list of favorites with any confidence or accuracy, is quite uncommon, and when tackled usually ends up as a worse set of data to include. This is _precisely_ why famous composers were asked to choose just 5, and why the Reddit community and RateYourMusic community were asked to vote for as many composers as they felt confident about

Assumption 4: That a mass list of everyone's single favorite composer would not show a more accurate ordering of the most favored composers in that group. This is because you don't think 1 composer per person is the most certain method, but you have no evidence for claiming one way or another. In this case, we dont have that. We have major important groups telling us several of their top favorite composers, and it's good data (the first poll was repeated twice in the past), and Debussy is winning in all major lists

We should care more about who we personally like as composers, not these lists. However, anyone who reads your specific objections above won't take them seriously in any capacity. There's no need to take these famous composer lists and community lists seriously either, but just don't spread misinformation about them. People here already like Brahms fine enough. These major sites have provided extensive data, and only that. Now you can say 'I disregard that data' and nobody will mind nor care. But I responded to the above that I thought was incredibly silly.


----------



## Fabulin

The recommendation ranking currently shows the following result for Debussy:

Debussy himself - 8
Ravel - 7
Puccini - 1
Bartok - 3
Gershwin - 5
Britten - 8
Messiaen - 1
Rautavaara - 2

8 votes with a 4,375 average placement. This puts him on the 8th position in the ranking, behind Schubert, Haydn, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, Beethoven, J.S. Bach, and Mozart.

When looking at a nominee composer other than Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven [broadly agreed top 3], being placed at super-high spots (1-3) by his competent contemporaries and immediate successors, one needs to remember that such referees of skill tend to slightly overrate a composer who has just catapulted them towards their own style.

For this reason Tchaikovsky is, I believe, one spot too high, having for the first time overtaken Haydn.

Based on current data about his opinions, Debussy rated himself 8th:

My conjecture about composers ranking _themselves _is based on their opinions about others - whom they considered better than themselves, and whom did they praise, but _not _put above themselves. The storm eye spot between the two groups becomes their own placement.

And Debussy is currently ranked 8th, a spot ahead of Mendelssohn. Both composers wrote [more or less] top level music for their time, but not a huge amount thereof. Berlioz is currently 11th, and somewhat fits this type as well.

I think it's a fair spot.

Brahms has the same average placement as Berlioz (7.0), but one vote less, and is currently on the 12th spot. Brahms "put himself" on the 9th.


----------



## Ethereality

Thanks. You have to take all the voters who knew about Debussy only. By saying Haydn and Schubert are rated higher than Debussy, you are only saying that a lot of people rating them didn't know about Debussy. This holds zero weight, especially now we see later and later composers, 1940s, 1980s, 2018, praising Debussy much more than any of them. Additionally, cutting opinions off at Late Romantic demonstrates only a mainstream bias, not a critical survey of quality.

I have Debussy 5th place for Contemporary composers, 5th place for today's major composers, 6th in most major classical communities like Reddit, 5th on YouTube, AND when you average these, it does go to 4th place. This is because any composer in 4th from one list, is not even close to that on another. The Big 4 are consistently considered the best on all major lists. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, and Debussy. Debussy may be in 3rd place soon due to how fast he's been trending for the past 70 years. He was 4th/5th but its rapidly now catching up to Mozart.


----------



## Fabulin

Ethereality said:


> Thanks. You have to take all the voters who knew about Debussy only. By saying Haydn and Schubert are rated higher than Debussy, you are only saying that most people rating them didn't know about Debussy. This holds zero weight, especially now we see later and later composers, 1940s, 1980s, 2018, praising Debussy much more than any of them.
> 
> I have Debussy 5th place for Contemporary composers, 5th place for today's major composers, 6th in classical communities like Reddit, 5th on YouTube, AND when you average these, it does go to 4th place. This is because any composer in 4th from one list, is not even close to that on another. The Big 4 are consistently considered the best on all major lists. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, and Debussy. Debussy may be in 3rd place soon due to how fast he's been trending for the past 70 years. He was 4th/5th but its rapidly now catching up to Mozart.





> Additionally, cutting opinions off at Late Romantic demonstrates only a mainstream bias, not a critical survey of quality.


I don't care what people not proven to be capable of writing great classical music themselves think about the ability of classical composers. A good number of 20th century composers is included, roughly equal to that of the 19th century ones.

So... I did an "aware of Debussy edition" version of the ranking (30 out of 68 composers voting, the eldest being Gabriel Faure), and the results are as follows:

Note: nominees with only one vote are excluded, because the ranking works exponentially worse with each one vote less.


----------



## Ethereality

Wait did you collect just the quotes after Debussy wrote all his works, and the years after? I suppose if you're including composers only you like for their opinions. I referenced any/all professional successful composers so that we could define a solid line.

In any case, if you mix your version with the main Classical communities' favorites it seems Debussy comes out 5th still  and Williams is a bit higher.

I can't make any definite value judgement on either, though I think Debussy is more creative and interesting than Brahms.


----------



## Luchesi

Fabulin said:


> The recommendation ranking currently shows the following result for Debussy:
> 
> Debussy himself - 8
> Ravel - 7
> Puccini - 1
> Bartok - 3
> Gershwin - 5
> Britten - 8
> Messiaen - 1
> Rautavaara - 2
> 
> 8 votes with a 4,375 average placement. This puts him on the 8th position in the ranking, behind Schubert, Haydn, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, Beethoven, J.S. Bach, and Mozart.
> 
> When looking at a nominee composer other than Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven [broadly agreed top 3], being placed at super-high spots (1-3) by his competent contemporaries and immediate successors, one needs to remember that such referees of skill tend to slightly overrate a composer who has just catapulted them towards their own style.
> 
> For this reason Tchaikovsky is, I believe, one spot too high, having for the first time overtaken Haydn.
> 
> Based on current data about his opinions, Debussy rated himself 8th:
> 
> My conjecture about composers ranking _themselves _is based on their opinions about others - whom they considered better than themselves, and whom did they praise, but _not _put above themselves. The storm eye spot between the two groups becomes their own placement.
> 
> And Debussy is currently ranked 8th, a spot ahead of Mendelssohn. Both composers wrote [more or less] top level music for their time, but not a huge amount thereof. Berlioz is currently 11th, and somewhat fits this type as well.
> 
> I think it's a fair spot.
> 
> Brahms has the same average placement as Berlioz (7.0), but one vote less, and is currently on the 12th spot. Brahms "put himself" on the 9th.


I think lists of favorites should be made by two separate groups.

1st group - has studied the nuts and bolts of music for many decades.
2nd group - the music lovers who only listen.

Is the 1st group big enough to sway the results? I don't know. Maybe it was 80 years ago.. maybe not today.


----------



## Fabulin

Ethereality said:


> Wait did you collect just the quotes after Debussy wrote all his works, and the years after? I suppose if you're including composers only you like for their opinions. I referenced any/all professional successful composers so that we could define a solid line.
> 
> In any case, if you mix your version with the main Classical communities' favorites it seems Debussy comes out 5th still  and Williams is a bit higher.
> 
> I can't make any definite value judgement on either, though I think Debussy is more creative and interesting than Brahms.


I select composers based on some minimal reasonable quality of their music, not their opinions. I could take numerous minor Russian figures to pump Tchaikovsky's standing, for example, but I do not, because they were not that good.

If I limited quotes to only those after the publishing of the last of Debussy's compositions, his position would actually fall, because that would take out some of his very competent contemporaries, who highly praised his music.


----------



## Ethereality

Luchesi said:


> I think lists of favorites should be made by two separate groups.
> 
> 1st group - has studied the nuts and bolts of music for many decades.
> 2nd group - the music lovers who only listen.


What's even better is the inverse superimposition of these two lists onto each other. Basically the idea is group 2 has some bias from some members also belonging in group 1 in their knowledge, while group 1 has some bias in that many professionals carry over their old mainstream tastes from their younger years. A reverse superimposition would give a more accurate reading of both categories, ie. Using just those 2 lists I linked, the representative composers for mainstream listeners would actually be:
Beethoven
Tchaikovsky
Rachmaninoff
Bach
Chopin
John Williams
Dvorak
Holst

While the most representative of modern composers' favorites are:
Bach
Stravinsky 
Ligeti
Mozart
Wagner
Monteverdi
Britten
Messaien

And then the middle category is where many members of this forum fall under in their own order. I already gave that list. Its remainders are:
Mozart
Debussy
Mahler 
Bach
Ravel
Shostakovich 
Brahms
Beethoven

Although every individual won't be able to fit into one list, the first two lists in particular are more contrasting and interesting.


----------



## Fabulin

Someone must have heard SanAntone speaking about awards making a great composer in the John Cage thread...

John Williams has just been awarded the Gold Medal of the Royal Philharmonic Society...

https://www.classicfm.com/composers/williams/john-awarded-gold-medal-royal-philharmonic-society/









_"Aged 88 and still at work, he is an international treasure, writing score after score of sophistication and impact, many transcendent of films for which they were written. Orchestras worldwide rely upon and cherish his music as a means of captivating and drawing audiences to everything else that they do, notably the LSO, with whom he has enjoyed a longstanding and happy association"._
​---John Gilhooly, OBE, Chairman of the Royal Philharmonic Society​
The composers who have received this award since 1975 are:


Olivier MessiaenSir Michael TippettWitold LutosławskiElliot CarterGyörgy LigetiHenri DutilleuxGyörgy KurtágSir Peter Maxwell DaviesSofia GubaidulinaJohn Williams


----------



## SanAntone

Fabulin said:


> Someone must have heard SanAntone speaking about awards making a great composer in the John Cage thread...


Except I didn't say that. I posted the introductory paragraph of the John Cage article from the Grove Encyclopedia. I don't know who talked about awards, but it wasn't me.


----------



## GrosseFugue

I don't knock the guy for borrowing (stealing) from others. But to be among the greats I think you need to do something more with a theme or phrase or whatever. Like if he could take the "Star Wars" theme and really develop and expand it; push, pull and tear it apart then build it back into something even more glorious, then that would be something. Like how Beethoven could take the simplest motif and just construct this overwhelming edifice. So it's not necessarily that his "tunes" are simplistic or whatever, it's just that he does not do much with them. Of course, he's constrained by requirements of film which only ask for basic catchy little riffs. No development, not too much complexity, etc. Then again, he's also composed for the concert hall and seems to not be much different there.

I still respect the guy and thought he was tops when I was a kid. But having gotten more into Classical Music it's hard to hear him as anything but a "film guy." Though in his respective field he is probably like a Beethoven, particularly compared to many of today's film scorers. Movie soundtracks sound so much alike now. A standard superhero theme, a standard pulsating action theme, etc. If anything, movies today are over-scored, the soundtrack slathered on like chocolate frosting (perhaps to make for lack of story). Every other movie is about a Superhero or Star Wars or James Bond (or a James Bond type) and all interchangeable, so no surprise the music is same ole' same ole.'

I would actually like to see more of a division between movies and music. Like movies without any soundtrack at all, where the natural sounds of rain or cars or breathing can carry the emotion. The movie, Network is proof you don't need a bar of music when the script and acting and directing are good enough. It's not opera. And it's not the era of silent films which always needed at least a pianist. If I want to hear great music then I want to listen to that. If I want to see a great movie then I want to watch that. But I don't want some banal soundtrack wed to a movie that doesn't benefit from it. Sorry, I went a bit off topic.


----------



## ArtMusic

John Williams will be remembered as one of the greatest modern composers. Period.


----------



## consuono

GrosseFugue said:


> I don't knock the guy for borrowing (stealing) from others. But to be among the greats I think you need to do something more with a theme or phrase or whatever. Like if he could take the "Star Wars" theme and really develop and expand it; push, pull and tear it apart then build it back into something even more glorious, then that would be something. Like how Beethoven could take the simplest motif and just construct this overwhelming edifice. So it's not necessarily that his "tunes" are simplistic or whatever, it's just that he does not do much with them.


On the other hand there are more shall we say "academically respected" composers who don't do "tunes" at all. Are we going to apply that Beethoven Standard across the board?



> I would actually like to see more of a division between movies and music. Like movies without any soundtrack at all, where the natural sounds of rain or cars or breathing can carry the emotion. The movie, Network is proof you don't need a bar of music when the script and acting and directing are good enough. It's not opera....


No but it's (usually) not pantomime either. There are film scores that become an integral part of the movie itself (Psycho, Jaws, Raise the Red Lantern, those Sergio Leone westerns and many others). The use of music in conjunction with dramatic presentations is as old as ancient Greece.


----------



## Handelian

consuono said:


> On the other hand there are more shall we say "academically respected" composers who don't do "tunes" at all. Are we going to apply that Beethoven Standard across the board?
> 
> No but it's (usually) not pantomime either. There are film scores that become an integral part of the movie itself (Psycho, Jaws, Raise the Red Lantern, those Sergio Leone westerns and many others). The use of music in conjunction with dramatic presentations is as old as ancient Greece.


Academic respect? Music is for people to enjoy not for academics to mull over. You are mixing up music with mathematics.


----------



## SanAntone

Handelian said:


> Academic respect? Music is for people to enjoy not for academics to mull over. You are mixing up music with mathematics.


Music offers different things to different people.

I listen to Boulez more than John Williams because I enjoy his music more. For me, John Williams' music is boring, stuff I've heard before, does not excite my mind or imagination - for me it is trite and superficial. Boulez at least excites my imagination and is interesting on a number of levels, even if emotionally it does not move me in the same way the Duruflé _Requiem_ does. I don't always wish to hear "moving" music. Even though I thought Williams' main theme in the movie Shindler's List was moving, I don't seek it out outside of watching the movie. This is true for most movie music. The only movie music I have listened to outside of watching the movie is the score to _Cinema Paradiso_ by Morricone, whose music, overall, interests me more than Williams's.

Stravinsky's piquant witty music is very enjoyable to me, and always interesting, no matter how many times I've heard the _Historie du soldat_ suite, it brings a smile to my lips. I don't seek out Williams's music since it does the opposite. Williams is not the only one, but his music is the topic of this thread.

The opinion of academics is irrelevant to me, as are reviews and critical opinion. I enjoy Boulez and John Cage, to name two composers, because their music is enjoyable to me on a variety of levels, most of which I can't put into words. But the music of John Williams is not interesting enough to even talk about when I talk about music.

For me it is all subjective. And on that basis, John Williams is boring, and the other composer's I've mentioned in this post are not.

I also don't care if he is "included in the canon" or not, since there are many composers in the canon who also bore me. I don't care about "the canon." Someone posted earlier to get rid of the canon, which is an opinion I support.


----------



## Handelian

SanAntone said:


> Music offers different things to different people.
> 
> I listen to Boulez more than John Williams because I enjoy his music more. For me, John Williams' music is boring, stuff I've heard before, does not excite my mind or imagination - for me it is trite and superficial. Boulez at least excites my imagination and is interesting on a number of levels, even if emotionally it does not move me in the same way the Duruflé _Requiem_ does. I don't always wish to hear "moving" music. Even though I thought Williams' main theme in the movie Shindler's List was moving, I don't seek it out outside of watching the movie. This is true for most movie music. The only movie music I have listened to outside of watching the movie is the score to _Cinema Paradiso_ by Morricone, whose music, overall, interests me more than Williams's.
> 
> Stravinsky's piquant witty music is very enjoyable to me, and always interesting, no matter how many times I've heard the _Historie du soldat_ suite, it brings a smile to my lips. I don't seek out Williams's music since it does the opposite. Williams is not the only one, but his music is the topic of this thread.
> 
> The opinion of academics is irrelevant to me, as are reviews and critical opinion. I enjoy Boulez and John Cage, to name two composers, because their music is enjoyable to me on a variety of levels, most of which I can't put into words. But the music of John Williams is not interesting enough to even talk about when I talk about music.
> 
> For me it is all subjective. And on that basis, John Williams is boring, and the other composer's I've mentioned in this post are not.
> 
> I also don't care if he is "included in the canon" or not, since there are many composers in the canon who also bore me. I don't care about "the canon." Someone posted earlier to get rid of the canon, which is an opinion I support.


You enjoy what you enjoy mate. I must confess I don't find Cage or Boulez boring as I don't generally listen to them long enough to do so. Why waste my listening time when there is good music to enjoy?


----------



## pianozach

GrosseFugue said:


> I don't knock the guy for borrowing (stealing) from others. But to be among the greats I think you need to do something more with a theme or phrase or whatever. Like if he could take the "Star Wars" theme and really develop and expand it; push, pull and tear it apart then build it back into something even more glorious, then that would be something. Like how Beethoven could take the simplest motif and just construct this overwhelming edifice. So it's not necessarily that his "tunes" are simplistic or whatever, it's just that he does not do much with them. Of course, he's constrained by requirements of film which only ask for basic catchy little riffs. No development, not too much complexity, etc. Then again, he's also composed for the concert hall and seems to not be much different there.
> 
> I still respect the guy and thought he was tops when I was a kid. But having gotten more into Classical Music it's hard to hear him as anything but a "film guy." Though in his respective field he is probably like a Beethoven, particularly compared to many of today's film scorers. Movie soundtracks sound so much alike now. A standard superhero theme, a standard pulsating action theme, etc. If anything, movies today are over-scored, the soundtrack slathered on like chocolate frosting (perhaps to make for lack of story). Every other movie is about a Superhero or Star Wars or James Bond (or a James Bond type) and all interchangeable, so no surprise the music is same ole' same ole.'
> 
> I would actually like to see more of a division between movies and music. Like movies without any soundtrack at all, where the natural sounds of rain or cars or breathing can carry the emotion. The movie, Network is proof you don't need a bar of music when the script and acting and directing are good enough. It's not opera. And it's not the era of silent films which always needed at least a pianist. If I want to hear great music then I want to listen to that. If I want to see a great movie then I want to watch that. But I don't want some banal soundtrack wed to a movie that doesn't benefit from it. Sorry, I went a bit off topic.


Williams should score a silent film.

THEN we'd hear what he can do. :lol:


----------



## Fabulin

GrosseFugue said:


> I would actually like to see more of a division between movies and music. Like movies without any soundtrack at all, where the natural sounds of rain or cars or breathing can carry the emotion.







Music by John Cage


----------



## consuono

Handelian said:


> Academic respect? Music is for people to enjoy not for academics to mull over. You are mixing up music with mathematics.


No offense, man, but you are really bad at finding the subtext.


----------



## pianozach

*The significance of john williams*

*THE SIGNIFICANCE OF JOHN WILLIAMS*

:tiphat:

So . . . how many threads on John Williams now? Three? Four?

No. Twelve.

Favorite John Williams film score 
Favorite John Williams film score

John Williams versus Mozart?
John Williams versus Mozart?

Avant guard by John Williams?
Avant guard by John Williams?

John Williams donates his scores 
My thoughts about John Williams.

My thoughts about John Williams. 
John Williams donates his scores

John Williams (the composer that is)
John Williams (the composer that is)

Do You Like This Overture By John Williams?
Do You Like This Overture By John Williams?

This Is Why John Williams Is Great
This Is Why John Williams Is Great

What's John Williams composing now?
What's John Williams composing now?

John Williams 
John Williams

John Williams
John Williams

_The previous two are different threads with the same name._

John Williams: worthy addition to the canon or charlatan?
John Williams: worthy addition to the canon or charlatan?


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> ...
> I also don't care if he is "included in the canon" or not, since there are many composers in the canon who also bore me. I don't care about "the canon." Someone posted earlier to get rid of the canon, which is an opinion I support.


"Get rid" of it how? By saying that everything is subjective and all music is of equal value, something that we know intuitively is not true...while at the same time deriding Williams for appealing to the great unwashed and elevating Boulez for composing for this teeny tiny in-the-know subset of a subset? You may think you're getting rid of the canon, but it will still be there.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> "Get rid" of it how? By saying that everything is subjective and all music is of equal value, something that we know intuitively is not true...while at the same time deriding Williams for appealing to the great unwashed and elevating Boulez for composing for this teeny tiny in-the-know subset of a subset? You may think you're getting rid of the canon, but it will still be there.


I suppose I mean get rid of the idea of a canon. All it does is elevate some works, causing them to be performed/recorded over and over, while ignoring many other very good works that are harder for someone to find.

I don't know how many people listen to John Williams, probably not as many who listen to Lana Del Rey - as if that were a measure of artistic worth. All I know is that I am more interested in the music Pierre Boulez wrote than I am in the music John Williams wrote.

Most of JW's music is written to support a movie, to accompany a scene, and mirror the action or desired emotive content the director wishes to enhance. I've read that he is especially good at this.

When I watch a movie, most of the time I find the music intrusive. I rarely seek out a film score for listening.

I have no idea how many other people feel as I do, nor do I care. It's every man for himself when it comes to appreciating art.


----------



## consuono

> I suppose I mean get rid of the idea of a canon.


It's still going to be there. The consensus you mention will see to it. "Get rid of the canon" really translates to "my guys/gals aren't in there, so it needs to go". I'm not a Tchaikovsky fan either, but I'm not going to say he's unworthy to be in the "canon". I realize I'm in the minority.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> It's still going to be there. The consensus you mention will see to it. "Get rid of the canon" really translates to "my guys/gals aren't in there, so it needs to go". I'm not a Tchaikovsky fan either, but I'm not going to say he's unworthy to be in the "canon". I realize I'm in the minority.


Yeah, I know it's still going to be there, but no, that is not why I oppose it. I am not interested in a canned list of "great" works, no matter whose music is on it. I find and create my own canon.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> Yeah, I know it's still going to be there, but no, that is not why I oppose it. I am not interested in a canned list of "great" works, no matter whose music is on it. I find and create my own canon.


No, a "canned list" is the one made up by consensus via uni faculty and music dictionaries that you fall back on.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> The opinion of academics is irrelevant to me, as are reviews and critical opinion.


So you're cherry-picking:



SanAntone said:


> John Cage's career has been documented in countless articles, and books, and needs no help from me.





SanAntone said:


> 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.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> So you're cherry-picking:


You took those statements out of context. When someone says that John Cage is not a classical composer, I pointed out that that is precisely what he has been considered throughout his career by a consensus of musicians, academics and professional critics. But that is not why I became interested in his music nor why I enjoy it. The two things are separate.

Bye.


----------



## pianozach

I've heard me some *John Cage*, and I've heard me some *John Williams*, and I find it boggling that a discussion of Cage in a John Williams thread has overtaken the dialogue.


----------



## SanAntone

pianozach said:


> I've heard me some *John Cage*, and I've heard me some *John Williams*, and I find it boggling that a discussion of Cage in a John Williams thread has overtaken the dialogue.


I do too. I never asked for it, and apologize for the distraction caused by a couple of obsessive posters who constantly come at me in various threads, no matter the subject, with attacks on Cage.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> I do too. I never asked for it, and apologize for the distraction caused by a couple of obsessive posters who constantly come at me in various threads, no matter the subject, with attacks on Cage.


It doesn't really have to do with Cage exclusively -- about whom, by the way, I care exactly zero -- but with your inconsistency. You're as obsessive with this subjectivity-all-hail-the-avant-garde stuff.


----------



## pianozach

John Williams studied composition privately with the Italian composer Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco while attending UCLA.


----------



## Fabulin

An excellent 2-hour discussion of John Williams and Jerry Goldsmith by a stellar cast which included:

the conductors David Newman and Leonard Slatkin, 
sound engineer and producer Bruce Botnick, 
record producer Mike Matessino, 
studio pianist/keyboardist Mike Lang, 
composer Leanna Primiani, 
writer Jeff Bond,
and journalists Maurizio Caschetto and Yavar Moradi 





Highly recommended!


----------



## Fabulin

The following comments about JW might help illustrate the dissonance between the echo chamber that we have here and what is being said outside more and more often with each passing year:


> "I think it is probably fair to say that he is the last of the greats... and I don't think that's an insult to any of our contemporary "great" composers... but in terms of classical, golden masters... he absolutely is a treasure, and every composer looks up to him. He is the master, an extraordinary lifetime of writing and an extraordinary catalogue of music that has affected generation after generation".


---David Arnold, a British composer, in an interview on the occasion of writing music for the anniversary of the Royal Albert Hall, June 2021
//And by "contemporary great"s Arnold meant for example Harrison Birtwistle, whose work he discussed just a moment earlier.//



> The Norwegian classical composer Marcus Paus argues that Williams' "very satisfying way of embodying dissonance and avant-garde techniques within a larger tonal framework" makes him "one of the great composers of any century". Paus further argues that Williams "might also have come the closest of any composer to realizing the old Schoenbergian utopia that children of the future would be whistling 12-tone rows".


from Wikipedia

The latter comment might be in particular about the famous _Hedwig's Theme_. Anne-Sophie Mutter also called it "12-tone music".


----------



## Enthusiast

^ You like his music. Fine, enjoy it. There is no need to feel self-doubt of your view.

BTW I can't say I have heard any music by the two composers you quote. Are they good?


----------



## EdwardBast

Depends on what canon you're talking about. He's already in the light-classical/pops/summer-in-the-parks canon and he'll be there as long as the films he's scored have a large base of interest among the general public. As for the classical canon, it doesn't seem to be happening, does it? Nor does it seem likely. He's certainly not a charlatan, which implies disingenuousness and deception. It's a silly dichotomy in the thread title.


----------



## Luchesi

EdwardBast said:


> Depends on what canon you're talking about. He's already in the light-classical/pops/summer-in-the-parks canon and he'll be there as long as the films he's scored have a large base of interest among the general public. As for the classical canon, it doesn't seem to be happening, does it? Nor does it seem likely. He's certainly not a charlatan, which implies disingenuousness and deception. It's a silly dichotomy in the thread title.


If JW was posting in this thread, which opinion would he side with? Somewhere in the middle? Of course I don't know him personally, but the impression I get is that he didn't intend to be part of the canon, with its long developmental history (which every serious student continues to study). 
Mahler and Schoenberg and even Shostakovich were always mindful of the way Western music was developing, or is it just the impression I get from the info written about them?


----------



## Fabulin

Luchesi said:


> If JW was posting in this thread, which opinion would he side with? Somewhere in the middle? Of course I don't know him personally, but the impression I get is that he didn't intend to be part of the canon, with its long developmental history (which every serious student continues to study).
> Mahler and Schoenberg and even Shostakovich were always mindful of the way Western music was developing, or is it just the impression I get from the info written about them?


Do you mean thematic development, or stylistic evolutions?


----------



## Luchesi

Fabulin said:


> Do you mean thematic development, or stylistic evolutions?


Not themes or styles. Increasing dissonance and artistically constrained ambiguity down through the centuries.


----------



## Fabulin

Luchesi said:


> Not themes or styles. Increasing dissonance and artistically constrained ambiguity down through the centuries.


Why do you expect artists to be conformists?


----------



## Luchesi

Fabulin said:


> Why do you expect artists to be conformists?


It might just be my perspective or what I want to see in the history, but I don't know of a great composer who wasn't intentionally leaping ahead a half a generation in ambiguity beyond what he grew up with. Brahms? I don't think so.


----------



## pianozach

EdwardBast said:


> Depends on what canon you're talking about. He's already in the light-classical/pops/summer-in-the-parks canon and he'll be there as long as the films he's scored have a large base of interest among the general public. As for the classical canon, it doesn't seem to be happening, does it? Nor does it seem likely. He's certainly not a charlatan, which implies disingenuousness and deception. It's a silly dichotomy in the thread title.


The dichotomy is not in the thread title. It's in the scheduling of John Williams Nights by legitimate symphony orchestras. In the past (pre-COVID) you could look up the schedule of any reputable American Symphony Orchestra, and you'd likely find one to three nights devoted to Williams.

To prove to m'self I've not gone troppo, I randomly Googled up the 2018-2019 season for the Minneapolis Orchestra.

Yep. Two performances of Jurassic Park in concert.
Five performances of Star Wars: A New Hope

Just to make sure that this wasn't some sort of anomaly, I did the same with the Los Angeles Philharmonic's 2018-2019 season. Their teaser press release for the season mentioned that Highlights would include " a celebration of scores by John Williams". "Gustavo Dudamel and the LA Phil will salute Williams with an evening-long program of some of his best-loved compositions."

The Boston Symphony actually did NOT have ANY John Williams scheduled, although they did have a healthy helping of *Vaughan Williams*


----------



## progmatist

When asked to write his now iconic movie scores, John himself said "there must be better composers." The producer replied "Yes, but they're all dead."


----------



## Fabulin

pianozach said:


> The Boston Symphony actually did NOT have ANY John Williams scheduled, although they did have a healthy helping of *Vaughan Williams*


The Boston Symphony Orchestra will open its 2021/2022 season with a Williams-selected programme of his new Violin Concerto No. 2, Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, and Beethoven's Consecration of a House.

They are something of an exception because they also perform as the Boston Pops, and Williams might be the most often featured composer there.


----------



## Fabulin

Luchesi said:


> It might just be my perspective or what I want to see in the history, but I don't know of a great composer who wasn't intentionally leaping ahead a half a generation in ambiguity beyond what he grew up with. Brahms? I don't think so.


I would say it's a "Texas Sharpshooter" fallacy. Let's apply the same to female clothes. At some point women were not allowed to show their ankles. Then the clothing rules relaxed more and more. Do they walk around completely naked today? No, they don't. Few trends last forever.


----------



## mikeh375

Fabulin said:


> The Boston Symphony Orchestra will open its 2021/2022 season with a Williams-selected programme of his new Violin Concerto No. 2, Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, and Beethoven's Consecration of a House.
> 
> They are something of an exception because they also perform as the Boston Pops, and Williams might be the most often featured composer there.


oh boy, a new concerto...yaay


----------



## Fabulin

mikeh375 said:


> oh boy, a new concerto...yaay


The premiere is this Saturday at the Tanglewood Festival. It will be briefly available for streaming at the Deutsche Grammophon premium, although I think I will wait for a proper recording release.

Here are Williams' own words about it:


> Composing program notes has always been challenging for me. These descriptions always seem to try to answer the question "what is this music about?" And while music has many purposes and functions, I've always believed that in the end, the music ought to be free to be interpreted through the prism of every listener's own personal history, prior exposures and cultural background. One man's sunken cathedral might be another woman's mist at the dawning. The meaning must therefore reside, if you'll forgive me, in the "ear of the beholder." I can only think of this piece as being about Anne-Sophie Mutter, and the violin itself-an instrument that is the unsurpassed product of the luthier's art. With so much great music already written for the instrument, much of it recently for Anne-Sophie herself, I wondered what further contribution I could possibly make. But I took my inspiration and energy directly from this great artist herself.
> 
> We'd recently collaborated on an album of film music for which she recorded the theme from the film Cinderella Liberty, demonstrating a surprising and remarkablefeeling for jazz. So, after a short introduction, I opened the _Prologue _of this concerto with a quasi-improvisation, suggesting her very evident affinity for this idiom. There is also much faster music in this movement, which while writing, I recalled her flair for an infectious rhythmic swagger that is particularly her own.
> 
> In the beginning of the next section or movement, a quiet murmur is created by a gentle motion that I think of as being circular, hence the subtitle _Rounds_. At one point you will hear harmonies reminiscent of Debussy, but I ask you to reflect on another Claude… in this case Thornhill, a very early hero of mine who, it can be justly said, was the musical godfather of the Gil Evans/Miles Davis collaboration. It is also in this movement that a leitmotif or theme appears, later restated in the Epilogue.
> 
> _Dactyls_, a borrowed word from the Greeks, which we use to describe a three-syllable effect in poetry, as well as the digit with its three bones, may serve to describe the next movement. It is our third movement, in a three meter, and features a short cadenza for violin, harp, and timpani… yet another triad. The violin provides an aggressive virtuosity that produces a rough, waltz-like energy that is both bawdy and impertinent. The final movement is approached "attacca" by the violin and harp, where the two instruments reverse their relative balances in a kind of "sound dissolve." In this way, they transport us to the _Epilogue_. It is in this final movement that the motif introduced in _Rounds _returns in the form of a duet for violin and harp, closing the piece with a gentle resolution in A major that might suggest both healing and renewal.
> 
> JOHN WILLIAMS, June 28, 2021


----------



## fbjim

Sounds like a fun event!


I'll be honest and say I don't really understand the point of the John Williams debates except as some kind of ongoing proxy war or something.


----------



## EdwardBast

Fabulin said:


> The premiere is this Saturday at the Tanglewood Festival. It will be briefly available for streaming at the Deutsche Grammophon premium, although I think I will wait for a proper recording release.
> 
> Here are Williams' own words about it:


Tanglewood is essentially part of the summer in the parks circuit for the BSO, which tends to confirm what I posted above.


----------



## Fabulin

EdwardBast said:


> Tanglewood is essentially part of the summer in the parks circuit for the BSO, which tends to confirm what I posted above.


Well, it's no Bayreuth to be sure :lol:


----------



## Luchesi

Fabulin said:


> I would say it's a "Texas Sharpshooter" fallacy. Let's apply the same to female clothes. At some point women were not allowed to show their ankles. Then the clothing rules relaxed more and more. Do they walk around completely naked today? No, they don't. Few trends last forever.


I'm always second guessing myself. That might be a good analogy, but I don't understand it.


----------



## Neo Romanza

I wouldn’t call John Williams a charlatan, but he is a composer who I only associate with film music as this is the medium in which I think he excels. I’ve heard one or two of his more ‘serious’ works and wasn’t impressed. He should stick to what he’s good at: writing music for films.


----------



## pianozach

Fabulin said:


> The Boston Symphony Orchestra will open its 2021/2022 season with a Williams-selected programme of his new Violin Concerto No. 2, Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, and Beethoven's Consecration of a House.
> 
> They are something of an exception because they also perform as the *Boston Pops*, and Williams might be the most often featured composer there.


*John Williams* served as music director and laureate conductor of "one of the country's treasured musical institutions," the *Boston Pops Orchestra*.

In January 1980, Mr. Williams was named nineteenth conductor of the Boston Pops Orchestra, succeeding the legendary Arthur Fiedler. He currently holds the title of Laureate Conductor, which he assumed following his retirement in December 1993, after fourteen highly successful seasons.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

The Berliner Philharmoniker manager said in an interview that John Williams became the oldest debutante conductor in the history of the institution, so apparently he now holds this record for both them and the Wiener Philharmoniker.


----------



## JTS

Neo Romanza said:


> I wouldn't call John Williams a charlatan, but he is a composer who I only associate with film music as this is the medium in which I think he excels. I've heard one or two of his more 'serious' works and wasn't impressed. He should stick to what he's good at: writing music for films.


Mind you, Williams' 'serious' music is certainly no worse and in many cases certainly a lot better than most of the stuff composed today


----------



## mikeh375

I think JW's Cello Concerto is excellent.


----------



## Xisten267

In my opinion Williams is a genius and I would usually rather want to hear his music than that of most other soundtrack or "serious" contemporary classical music composers.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DavidA said:


> Wagner took his Tristan chord from Liszt.


very well-said by Wooddy:


Woodduck said:


> The innovation in the _Tristan_ chord was not in the notes themselves but in the unprepared use of the chord at the beginning of the piece, the way it relates to its surroundings and to the tonality of the piece.


----------



## Luchesi

Xisten267 said:


> In my opinion Williams is a genius and I would usually rather want to hear his music than that of most other soundtrack or "serious" contemporary classical music composers.


"A genius is most like himself. "

Thelonious Monk

I don't know what that means specifically. It could mean many things.


----------



## vtpoet

mbhaub said:


> He's written several concertos, but it seems that the only one that gets a regular outing is the bassoon/orchestra work...


He's a completely different composer when writing for the concert hall. All of his melodic gifts (think Star Wars) go out the window and he tries to write the same "serious" 20th/21st century music that slim to few like , but even then it's a weird sort of hybrid: angular, atonally derivative melodies mixed with equally derivative luscious, tonal, orchestral accompaniments. It's like he's a 19th century composer trying to fit in with the 20th century's bad boys. It's neither here nor there. He's a born film composer-a genius in that regard.


----------



## JTS

vtpoet said:


> He's a completely different composer when writing for the concert hall. All of his melodic gifts (think Star Wars) go out the window and he tries to write the same "serious" 20th/21st century music that slim to few like , but even then it's a weird sort of hybrid: angular, atonally derivative melodies mixed with equally derivative luscious, tonal, orchestral accompaniments. It's like he's a 19th century composer trying to fit in with the 20th century's bad boys. It's neither here nor there. He's a born film composer-a genius in that regard.


Yes Bernstein was much the same. Great in the theatre. Not so sure in the 'serious' stuff


----------



## progmatist

For whomever is interested: tonight on PBS, John Williams conducts his music at Tanglewood. Including a new violin concerto with Ann-Sophie Mutter as soloist. As they say, check your local listings for air time.


----------



## mbhaub

progmatist said:


> For whomever is interested: tonight on PBS, John Williams conducts his music at Tanglewood. Including a new violin concerto with Ann-Sophie Mutter as soloist. As they say, check your local listings for air time.


Thanks for the heads up. I've already set the DVR.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Neither. But found his latest violin concerto quite evocative. Easily the best thing he written to me.


----------



## arpeggio

progmatist said:


> For whomever is interested: tonight on PBS, John Williams conducts his music at Tanglewood. Including a new violin concerto with Ann-Sophie Mutter as soloist. As they say, check your local listings for air time.


Saw it last night. The _Concerto_ blew me away.

I loved the cadenza between the violin and the tympanist.

It was close to being a concerto for violin and harp.

For the next few weeks one can go the Great Performances Web Page and hear the concert.


----------



## mbhaub

The real test of William's greatness and staying power will be upon in the next couple of decades. After he dies (let's be honest, he's no spring chicken) is there anyone who will take up the mantle and continue doing his music? Who will be his advocate? We've already seen what can happen. Lorin Maazel conducted his own music, that bizarre symphony and the opera "1984". Will anyone else ever do them? Andre Previn's enormous library is also in danger of vanishing. Leonard Bernstein lucked out: there are many works that have become standard repertoire and many conductors who keep the fire burning. There is no question that Williams' more popular movie scores will have a long life at pops concerts. It's the serious, concert music that will need support.


----------



## pianozach

mbhaub said:


> The real test of William's greatness and staying power will be upon in the next couple of decades. After he dies (let's be honest, he's no spring chicken) is there anyone who will take up the mantle and continue doing his music? Who will be his advocate? We've already seen what can happen. Lorin Maazel conducted his own music, that bizarre symphony and the opera "1984". Will anyone else ever do them? Andre Previn's enormous library is also in danger of vanishing. Leonard Bernstein lucked out: there are many works that have become standard repertoire and many conductors who keep the fire burning. There is no question that Williams' more popular movie scores will have a long life at pops concerts. It's the serious, concert music that will need support.


I'd bet that Williams' film scores will continue beyond his mortal coil. They are beloved, recognizable, and have become embedded in our culture. Plus, because many of them have been associated with wildly popular films, that gives them an extra boost into immortality.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

It might sound like a cliche, but Williams being dead will make him much more of a classic. The "bygone-ness" factor.

The real problems for the entrance of his works into a routine performance canon (I'm echoing the Berliner Phil Sarah Willis on this one) are:
1. Much of it is unpublished or even if it can be leased, requires special agreements with some corporate rights holder
2. it requires a world level orchestra (she mentioned that some pieces have been written for basically 4 horn principals from different orchestras, and the passages are not easy even for a top level low horn).
3. What do you program AFTER that? (The reply from Andris Nelsons would be, quote "nothing comes after John Williams").

A witticism would be that after John Williams comes the applause.


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ I suspect there will be news, tributes for a little while after he's gone. But I suspect him being a living legend is what is generating the hype. Watch the original composer of the classic ET, Star Wars conduct his own music! I think he will become like a Max Steiner, Miklos Rozsa in decades after his death. Nothing more than one of the leading film composers of his generation, who wrote some concert works on the side.


----------



## Fabulin

Phil loves classical said:


> ^ I suspect there will be news, tributes for a little while after he's gone. But I suspect him being a living legend is what is generating the hype. Watch the original composer of the classic ET, Star Wars conduct his own music! I think he will become like a Max Steiner, Miklos Rozsa in decades after his death. Nothing more than one of the leading film composers of his generation, who wrote some concert works on the side.


I find it baffling that you compare Williams to Steiner or Rózsa. His fame (vide: RPS Gold Medal) and worldwide performances (most performed living composer, overtaking Pärt in 2020) have long since left other film composers in the dust, even ones as great as Morricone, Goldsmith (both same generation), and Herrmann.

If the VC No. 2 is to you the best thing he has written, then... I am not sure if the trajectory of his postmortem reputation with the general society is within your grasp....


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I watched the PBS special tonight. The new concerto is high quality, certainly worthy of inclusion in the "canon," whatever that is.


----------



## pianozach

MatthewWeflen said:


> I watched the PBS special tonight. The new concerto is high quality, certainly worthy of inclusion in the "canon," whatever that is.


My guess is that Williams was perfectly capable of producing mainstream classical works, but found joy and success in composing music for film instead.

But he's been dropping (writing) non-film music for quite a while now, hasn't he?


----------



## MarkW

I stopped following this thread at about page 6. How did we get to page 57?


----------



## Bulldog

MarkW said:


> I stopped following this thread at about page 6. How did we get to page 57?


As with all threads that go on too long, repetition is involved.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

MarkW said:


> I stopped following this thread at about page 6. How did we get to page 57?


It seems to have become an umbrella thread for everything concerning John Williams. This, plus some juicy debates earlier.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Bulldog said:


> As with all threads that go on too long, repetition is involved.


John Williams definitely counts as classical music.


----------



## Bulldog

MatthewWeflen said:


> John Williams definitely counts as classical music.


It's true if you believe it to be true.


----------



## pianozach

Bulldog said:


> It's true if you believe it to be true.


We all have truths. Are mine the same as yours?


----------



## Forster

MatthewWeflen said:


> John Williams definitely counts as classical music.


If you'll allow a little pedantry, John Williams definitely counts as as John Williams. Whether his music counts as classical is moot.


----------



## fbjim

I don't really think the film score debate matters that much and I realize the irony as someone who's posted in the threads repeatedly.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bulldog said:


> It's true if you believe it to be true.


Whatabout a certain other famous John? Do you view him in the same way?


----------



## Bulldog

pianozach said:


> We all have truths. Are mine the same as yours?


No, we are millions of miles apart.


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> Whatabout a certain other famous John? Do you view him in the same way?


Two different guys - two different views.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Bulldog said:


> It's true if you believe it to be true.


I'm just yanking your chain by repeating a tired argument. :devil:


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Forster said:


> If you'll allow a little pedantry, John Williams definitely counts as as John Williams. Whether his music counts as classical is moot.


I'll always allow a little pedantry. I've got two little pedants at home, as well.


----------



## jojoju2000

mbhaub said:


> The real test of William's greatness and staying power will be upon in the next couple of decades. After he dies (let's be honest, he's no spring chicken) is there anyone who will take up the mantle and continue doing his music? Who will be his advocate? We've already seen what can happen. Lorin Maazel conducted his own music, that bizarre symphony and the opera "1984". Will anyone else ever do them? Andre Previn's enormous library is also in danger of vanishing. Leonard Bernstein lucked out: there are many works that have become standard repertoire and many conductors who keep the fire burning. There is no question that Williams' more popular movie scores will have a long life at pops concerts. It's the serious, concert music that will need support.







Perhaps Brett Mitchell ? He has conducted a bunch of John Williams's scores in Non Pops Concerts in addition to the concert works.


----------



## jojoju2000

Fabulin said:


> I find it baffling that you compare Williams to Steiner or Rózsa. His fame (vide: RPS Gold Medal) and worldwide performances (most performed living composer, overtaking Pärt in 2020) have long since left other film composers in the dust, even ones as great as Morricone, Goldsmith (both same generation), and Herrmann.
> 
> If the VC No. 2 is to you the best thing he has written, then... I am not sure if the trajectory of his postmortem reputation with the general society is within your grasp....


He was already awarded the Kennedy Center Honors in 2004, for his influence on American Culture and the performing arts in General.

Edit


----------



## jojoju2000

mbhaub said:


> The real test of William's greatness and staying power will be upon in the next couple of decades. After he dies (let's be honest, he's no spring chicken) is there anyone who will take up the mantle and continue doing his music? Who will be his advocate? We've already seen what can happen. Lorin Maazel conducted his own music, that bizarre symphony and the opera "1984". Will anyone else ever do them? Andre Previn's enormous library is also in danger of vanishing. Leonard Bernstein lucked out: there are many works that have become standard repertoire and many conductors who keep the fire burning. There is no question that Williams' more popular movie scores will have a long life at pops concerts. It's the serious, concert music that will need support.


Also you're technically not correct in saying that his movie scores will have a long life at pops concerts.

JW in addition to his tenure as director of the Boston Pops from 1980 to 1993, also guest conducted and performed with the Boston Symphony during the same time period.





 Here is John Williams performing his piano theme from Sabrina with Seji Ozawa conducting the Boston Symphony.


----------



## Kreisler jr

mbhaub said:


> We've already seen what can happen. Lorin Maazel conducted his own music, that bizarre symphony and the opera "1984". Will anyone else ever do them?


Probably not. But Maazel's compositions were never as famous as Williams film scores in the first place, in fact they were unknown. 



> There is no question that Williams' more popular movie scores will have a long life at pops concerts. It's the serious, concert music that will need support.


Korngold was a great composer before he became the greatest film composer of his age. But now he is mostly niche and the "serious" pieces are better known than the film scores, I think. I can hardly imagine this for Williams. Can we be so sure that in another 30-40 years people will still care about 1970s-80s movie scores?


----------



## jojoju2000

Kreisler jr said:


> Probably not. But Maazel's compositions were never as famous as Williams film scores in the first place, in fact they were unknown.
> 
> Korngold was a great composer before he became the greatest film composer of his age. But now he is mostly niche and the "serious" pieces are better known than the film scores, I think. I can hardly imagine this for Williams. Can we be so sure that in another 30-40 years people will still care about 1970s-80s movie scores?


The problem with the second argument is that John Williams's film scores have gone beyond the film score level and into the pop culture echelon. If you share the Star Wars Theme with a non movie goer, chances are they will instantly know it.

And just relegating his career to a bunch of 1970s 1980s film scores is bastardizing his career. He has done music for the Olympics, the NBC News broadcast.

Heck when Itzhak Perlman, the famed Classical Violinist goes around in his concerts, the only thing as he says people request is the Theme from Schindler's list. It is his own theme song now, no movie needed.


----------



## pianozach

hammeredklavier said:


> Whatabout a certain other famous John? Do you view him in the same way?


John Lennon?
John Philip Sousa?
John Mellencamp?
Elton John?


----------



## Forster

pianozach said:


> John Lennon?
> John Philip Sousa?
> John Mellencamp?
> Elton John?


Probably John Haydn.


----------



## Fabulin

I like the laconic title.


----------



## progmatist

Kreisler jr said:


> Korngold was a great composer before he became the greatest film composer of his age. But now he is mostly niche and the "serious" pieces are better known than the film scores, I think. I can hardly imagine this for Williams. Can we be so sure that in another 30-40 years people will still care about 1970s-80s movie scores?


Shostakovich was also known to compose a film score or two.


----------



## Kreisler jr

progmatist said:


> Shostakovich was also known to compose a film score or two.


But he is hardly mainly known as a composer of film scores. Almost nobody would think about/rate Shostakovich any differently if he had not composed film scores. Which makes the situation a bit different to Williams or Korngold.


----------



## Kreisler jr

jojoju2000 said:


> The problem with the second argument is that John Williams's film scores have gone beyond the film score level and into the pop culture echelon. If you share the Star Wars Theme with a non movie goer, chances are they will instantly know it.


But is this relevant for Williams' fate and future as a "classical" composer? I thought that this was the main question of the thread. I am not sure that being known in pop culture helps a lot.


----------



## jojoju2000

Kreisler jr said:


> But is this relevant for Williams' fate and future as a "classical" composer? I thought that this was the main question of the thread. I am not sure that being known in pop culture helps a lot.


The RPS Gold Medal does not count ? One of the highest awards in the Classical Music World ? Him along with Ennio Morricone were also awarded the Princess Asturias Award for the Arts in June of 2020 which is extremely prestigious.

He was already awarded the Kennedy Center Honors in 2004 for his " contributions to American Culture, and his impact on the performing arts ". The other composers awarded have been Aaron Copland, Leonard Bernstein, Phillip Glass, .... that's it really.

When we have people like Itzhak Perlman, Yo Yo Ma, Anne Sophie Mutter, all collaborating with him, working with him, praising his strong musicianship on all mediums from concertos to movie scores, respected Classical Musicians, Maybe they're right on something ? These are not C List rock and roll players, these are top of the line musicians. The VIENNA PHILHARMONIC ORCHESTRA for god's sake, unless they have sold their soul to the Devil.

Leonard Slatkin, Seiji Ozawa, the Late Andre Previn, have championed Williams's works from film scores to concertos for years.






Look at this. Seiji Ozawa, with the full Boston Symphony Orchestra, not just the Boston Pops.

Or are Film Scores not in the Classical Music genre ? In that case, then that is such a narrow minded view point, If people read the history of Film Music, you can see a connection.


----------



## Ethereality

jojoju2000 said:


>


*3:25*

But I saw that video _The Empire Was Right_. Not falling for this again. Tricky music!


----------



## Kreisler jr

jojoju2000 said:


> The RPS Gold Medal does not count ? One of the highest awards in the Classical Music World ? Him along with Ennio Morricone were also awarded the Princess Asturias Award for the Arts in June of 2020 which is extremely prestigious.


I don't know about these awards (never having heard of them before now). I only know that Morricone is also not considered a (major) classical composer by most people, so I cannot say how being equal to Morricone gives status to Williams.* They are both famous film composers but this was never in contention.
*


----------



## jojoju2000

Kreisler jr said:


> I don't know about these awards (never having heard of them before now). I only know that Morricone is also not considered a (major) classical composer by most people, so I cannot say how being equal to Morricone gives status to Williams.* They are both famous film composers but this was never in contention.
> *


Regarding the Royal Philharmonic Society Gold Medal, which is the other Award that John Williams received in 2020 :

" IN THIS SECTION
RPS Gold Medal
Gold Medal Recipients Since 1870
RPS Honorary Membership
RPS Leslie Boosey Award
RPS / ABO Salomon Prize
RPS Awards
RPS Young Classical Writers Prize

RPS GOLD MEDAL
The Royal Philharmonic Society Gold Medal is the Society's highest honour and is awarded for the most outstanding musicianship and is presented to the finest musicians of any nationality.

It was initiated in 1870, the Centenary of Beethoven's birth, to celebrate the close relationship between the Society and the composer. The medal bears the image of Beethoven depicted by Schaller in the iconic RPS bust, and has become one of the most privileged honours in the world of music.

Among the names on the list of honour are Johannes Brahms (1877), Fritz Kreisler (1904), Frederick Delius and Edward Elgar (1925), Richard Strauss (1936), John Barbirolli (1950), Kathleen Ferrier (1953), Igor Stravinsky (1954), Benjamin Britten (1964) Vladimir Horowitz (1974) Witold Lutoslawski (1986) and Leonard Bernstein (1987).

Recent Gold Medal recipients include Martha Argerich, Dame Janet Baker, Daniel Barenboim, Alfred Brendel, Placido Domingo, Sofia Gubaidulina, Bernard Haitink, Mariss Jansons, György Kurtág, Jessye Norman, Sir Antonio Pappano, Thomas Quasthoff, Sir Simon Rattle, András Schiff, Sir John Tomlinson, Dame Mitsuko Uchida and John Williams. The latest recipient, in August 2021, was Vladimir Jurowski."

https://royalphilharmonicsociety.org.uk/awards/gold-medal


----------



## pianozach

John Williams has been nominated for 52 Academy Awards, winning five; 
six Emmy Awards, winning three; 
25 Golden Globe Awards, winning four; 
71 Grammy Awards, winning 25; 
15 Sammy Film Music Awards,
and 
has received seven British Academy Film Awards.

Williams received an Honorary Doctorate of Music from Berklee College of Music, 
an Honorary Doctor of Music degree from Boston College, Harvard University, and University of Pennsylvania.

He's been inducted into the American Classical Music Hall of Fame and the Hollywood Bowl Hall of Fame.


----------



## Forster

pianozach said:


> John Williams has been nominated for 52 Academy Awards, winning five;
> six Emmy Awards, winning three;
> 25 Golden Globe Awards, winning four;
> 71 Grammy Awards, winning 25;
> 15 Sammy Film Music Awards,
> and
> has received seven British Academy Film Awards.
> 
> Williams received an Honorary Doctorate of Music from Berklee College of Music,
> an Honorary Doctor of Music degree from Boston College, Harvard University, and University of Pennsylvania.
> 
> He's been inducted into the American Classical Music Hall of Fame and the Hollywood Bowl Hall of Fame.


So, a lauded composer of film music, yes?


----------



## pianozach

Forster said:


> So, a lauded composer of film music, yes?


I'd say that his success in films is largely due to his Classical upbringing, and the application of Classical-type music to film.

His typical idiom is Classical-style orchestral music that harkens back mostly to late Romanticism and Early 20th Century. You can hear a great deal of influence from Tchaikovsky, Holst, and perhaps some Wagner and Korngold. Occasionally you can hear some Orff, Elgar, and Stravinsky.


----------



## progmatist

pianozach said:


> His typical idiom is Classical-style orchestral music that harkens back mostly to late Romanticism and Early 20th Century. You can hear a great deal of influence from Tchaikovsky, Holst, and perhaps some Wagner and Korngold. Occasionally you can hear some Orff, Elgar, and Stravinsky.


His new Violin Concerto deviates from that model. It's far more adventurous and interesting. You won't hear any overly tame tonality.


----------



## pianozach

progmatist said:


> His new Violin Concerto deviates from that model. It's far more adventurous and interesting. You won't hear any overly tame tonality.


Good.

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 15 characters.


----------



## jojoju2000

Forster said:


> So, a lauded composer of film music, yes?


And the Royal Philharmonic Society Gold Medal, which apparently is one of the highest honors, any Classical Musician could recieve in the World.

He was awarded the Medal in 2020.

They honored Pierre Boulez, Jessye Norman, Leonard Bernstein, Strauss, Brahms, Daniel Barenboim, a huge list of Classical Musicians, and Composers.


----------



## Forster

jojoju2000 said:


> And the Royal Philharmonic Society Gold Medal, which apparently is one of the highest honors, any Classical Musician could recieve in the World.
> 
> He was awarded the Medal in 2020.
> 
> They honored Pierre Boulez, Jessye Norman, Leonard Bernstein, Strauss, Brahms, Daniel Barenboim, a huge list of Classical Musicians, and Composers.


What was the medal for, specifically? His film music or his non-film music?


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Forster said:


> What was the medal for, specifically? His film music or his non-film music?


for his orchestral music, which covers both


----------



## Forster

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> for his orchestral music, which covers both


It's plain from the presentation that it was for his film scores "bringing orchestral music to the attention of those who might not otherwise know of it."


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Forster said:


> It's plain from the presentation that it was for his film scores "bringing orchestral music to the attention of those who might not otherwise know of it."


If you know the answer, why ask then?


----------



## Forster

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> If you know the answer, why ask then?


I didn't until I found the website and watched the presentation.


----------



## christomacin

Holst's biggest problem was that he was too all over the place, starting out as a late Romantic, becoming a English pastoralists, then a aficionado of Hindu-themed music, moving on to his Planets phase, then on to his Neo-Classical phase. I happen to like all the different phases of his career, but it takes perhaps too much time and effort on the part of listeners who just want to hear more music that sounds like The Planets. His ballet music from "The Perfect Fool" is really the only other piece of his that sounds like The Planets. If Holst had been a more commercial-minded composer and cashed in on The Planets he would be a whole lot more popular.


----------



## christomacin

A Rossini overture has very tight construction and is very concise. It is pure music. Which is why it has survived. Aside from his 3 or 4 full length operas which are still in the repertoire, his Stabat Mater and 6 String Symphonies have also endured. His "Sins of Old Age" works for piano are brilliant and fascinating precursors of the music Satie would right decades later. Rossini's place in the pantheon seems secure. Time will tell for Williams.


----------



## christomacin

I think the argument that film music isn't a branch of Classical music had bees defeated, but I still think the lower status of incidental music (compared to symphonies or concertos, say) will be carried over to most film music. I would rather see composers like Roussel, Enescu, Berwald, Martin, Martinu, Bax, Szymanowski, Suk, Roussel, and C.P.E. Bach finally get their due ahead of Williams or other exclusively film composers.


----------



## neofite

christomacin said:


> I think the argument that film music isn't a branch of Classical music had bees defeated, but I still think the lower status of incidental music (compared to symphonies or concertos, say) will be carried over to most film music.


Is it closer to being classical music than the so-called 'contemporary classical,' which my parents, who are both older and wiser than me (especially about music), consider to be popular music?


----------



## Ethereality

christomacin said:


> A Rossini overture has very tight construction and is very concise. It is pure music. Which is why it has survived. Aside from his 3 or 4 full length operas which are still in the repertoire, his Stabat Mater and 6 String Symphonies have also endured. His "Sins of Old Age" works for piano are brilliant and fascinating precursors of the music Satie would right decades later. Rossini's place in the pantheon seems secure. Time will tell for Williams.


Williams is an overrated melodist so people find it strange that others don't like his music, if they didn't grow up on it. Similarly Beethoven is an underrated melodist so people find it strange that others like him so much ie. picking it apart "What does he have going for himself?" Well, _rhythm_, which is the foundation of melody.

Edit: This is not an insult, Williams is a good melodist, I'm just saying fans also suffer a bit of movie nostalgia. Princess Leia's Theme for instance, absolutely beautiful especially orchestration. I don't regard too many composers so highly, especially because Williams doesn't sound like the repetitive cheese of Western music, he actually cares about harmony etc.

So catchiness is somewhat there for him, I would moreso call it great theme form, but where he finally excels off is harmony. His harmonies hit at the right spots, this style kind of reminds me of this video, Williams understands which beats to utilize each harmony on:






In other words, there's integrity there (sort of,) trial and error and research, not just writing lazy chords for effect. Like, man I actually like that movie Inception, I just watched it recently, but the score is awful.


----------



## Forster

christomacin said:


> I think the argument that film music isn't a branch of Classical music had bees defeated,


Where? By whom? It's just a point of view.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Forster said:


> Where? By whom? It's just a point of view.


christomacin's observation is an astute one. Such views are clearly in an extinction debt territory.


----------



## fbjim

well one problem is that there is a lot, lot more to film music than orchestral music. 

what people really mean is that all orchestral music is necessarily classical music, which is a defensible argument, but this isn't really limited to film music itself (and runs into problems when dealing with classical music that isn't orchestral)


----------



## SanAntone

Film scores are not Classical music. They are short patches written for specific scenes, some lasting a few seconds, others a minute or two, maybe longer. But if the music for a film were extracted from the film and played straight through it would be disjointed and without form.

Suites or concertante works made from the thematic material from a film score for concert performance and can be considered similar to Classical music.

*Nino Rota* wrote classical music unrelated to his film scores. I consider his music more akin to what a true Classical composer does than John Williams, who as far as I know only wrote concert pieces from adaptations of his film music.

But for me it doesn't matter how people think of John Williams. I try to think of him as little as possible. Which is why seeing this thread is so bothersome to me.

Over and out.


----------



## Art Rock

SanAntone said:


> ...John Williams, who as far as I know only wrote concert pieces from adaptations of his film music.


I have no particular interest in this discussion, but this is not true. He has composed dozens of classical music pieces (including 19 concertos and concertante works), mostly not based on film themes (Wiki).


----------



## SanAntone

Art Rock said:


> I have no particular interest in this discussion, but this is not true. He has composed dozens of classical music pieces (including 19 concertos and concertante works), mostly not based on film themes (Wiki).


Oh, okay - I did say, "as far as I know." The only concert work of his that I actually enjoy is based on a film score, his alto sax concerto _Escapades_.


----------



## pianozach

SanAntone said:


> Film scores are not Classical music. They are short patches written for specific scenes, some lasting a few seconds, others a minute or two, maybe longer. But if the music for a film were extracted from the film and played straight through it would be disjointed and without form.
> 
> Suites or concertante works made from the thematic material from a film score for concert performance and can be considered similar to Classical music.
> 
> *Nino Rota* wrote classical music unrelated to his film scores. I consider his music more akin to what a true Classical composer does than John Williams, who as far as I know only wrote concert pieces from adaptations of his film music.
> 
> But for me it doesn't matter how people think of John Williams. I try to think of him as little as possible. Which is why seeing this thread is so bothersome to me.
> 
> Over and out.


And here we are again.

By this definition *Classical Music* should then, in terms of equity, exclude Ballet Music, as it is _"short patches written for specific scenes, some lasting a few seconds, others a minute or two, maybe longer"_ as well.


----------



## SanAntone

pianozach said:


> And here we are again.
> 
> By this definition *Classical Music* should then, in terms of equity, exclude Ballet Music, as it is _"short patches written for specific scenes, some lasting a few seconds, others a minute or two, maybe longer"_ as well.


Ballets are identified by the composer, and ballets have always been treated as subset of Classical music. Not so with films. If it were easy to find the examples, I'd post music from a film without any editing, and also the music from a ballet. It would be obvious which one stands alone more easily.

But if you wish to think John Williams's unedited film scores are Classical music ... go ahead and think it.


----------



## EdwardBast

-----------------------


----------



## EdwardBast

pianozach said:


> And here we are again.
> 
> By this definition *Classical Music* should then, in terms of equity, exclude Ballet Music, as it is _"short patches written for specific scenes, some lasting a few seconds, others a minute or two, maybe longer"_ as well.


This is less true of ballet music than film music. Ballet scores usually consist primarily of complete numbers of substantial length, just as in the case of opera. In both cases complete, rounded musical forms are standard. Not so in film music.


----------



## Forster

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> christomacin's observation is an astute one. Such views are clearly in an extinction debt territory.


Hmm, thanks for making me reread what they had written. I read it to make sense ("been defeated"). I can't see where bees fit in to a discussion about John Williams.


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> Hmm, thanks for making me reread what they had written. I read it to make sense ("been defeated"). I can't see where bees fit in to a discussion about John Williams.


I'm not sure what that ecologic concept has to do (other than to insult people holding an opposing view) with whether John Williams is more correctly thought of _primarily _as a composer of Classical music or film scores.


----------



## jdec

SanAntone said:


> But for me it doesn't matter how people think of John Williams. I try to think of him as little as possible. Which is why seeing this thread is so bothersome to me.
> 
> Over and out.


Jeez (again). Just skip this thread, we don't care either if a John Williams' thread is so bothersome to you or not.


----------



## SanAntone

jdec said:


> Jeez (again). Just skip this thread, we don't care either if a John Williams' thread is so bothersome to you or not.


Why don't you post about the thread topic, which is not me.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Art Rock said:


> I have no particular interest in this discussion, but this is not true. He has composed dozens of classical music pieces (including 19 concertos and concertante works), mostly not based on film themes (Wiki).


Yes. I also wonder why "concert pieces adapted from film music" are resolutely excluded from consideration as "art music." There are plenty of adaptations and re-orchestrated incidental pieces that are part of the "canon."


----------



## jdec

SanAntone said:


> Why don't you post about the thread topic, which is not me.


If it's so bothersome to you, why do you ask? does it matter then?

"_But for me it doesn't matter how people think of John Williams._"


----------



## SanAntone

jdec said:


> If it's so bothersome to you, why do you ask? does it matter then?
> 
> "_But for me it doesn't matter how people think of John Williams._"


So what do _you_ think of John Williams?


----------



## Nawdry

MatthewWeflen said:


> I am listening to John Williams presently. I always enjoy his music, and it certainly enhances whatever movie I may be watching with his score. I am wondering what people here think of his ouvre.
> 
> Are his compositions as interesting or complex as some of the all time greats? Is he a lesser light, though still comparable to an overture composer like a Rossini or a popular musician like J. Strauss? Is he a hack/ ripoff artist?
> 
> For my part, I think he is probably closest to the second option, but is a great "gateway" musician to get people into classical.


In my judgement, Williams's music deserves to be included in the classical art music canon. In addition to his vast array of film scores, TV music, and Olympics compositions, he has produced an impressive list of concertos and various other symphonic works. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_John_Williams

Film and TV scores nowadays vary significantly in style and formality. Much of this seems to occupy a nebulous grey area on the fringe of classical; with rare exceptions little has successfully made a transition into coherent, self-sufficient concert-quality works. The reason for this is probably worth a whole 'nother discussion.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> But if you wish to think John Williams's unedited film scores are Classical music ... go ahead and think it.


This is no different from saying "If you think this 




is Classical music ... go ahead and think it."


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> This is no different from saying "If you think this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is Classical music ... go ahead and think it."


People are free to think whatever they wish; you, me, and the lamppost. Are you under the impression that you are scoring some kind of point?


----------



## Luchesi

jdec said:


> If it's so bothersome to you, why do you ask? does it matter then?
> 
> "_But for me it doesn't matter how people think of John Williams._"


What should matter is, what he thought of himself. 
Was he attempting to develop classical music?
Was he a classical composer?
If not, he was something else. And there are many categories.


----------



## Phredd

I'm always amused by how people dig themselves in on this particular topic. I like much of John Williams' music, and I don't care if he's part of the "canon" or not. I'll listen to his music when I'm feeling for it, and not when I don't, the same as all my music, regardless of the "canon" in which it happens to reside. I personally classify his film recordings as soundtrack, but I place collections of some of his overtures and other short works into my classical section. I'm happy with either and fundamentally don't understand the debate.

Can't one piece of music fit into more than one musical pigeonhole? Why shouldn't that also be true of composers?


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

This should basically be in the OP









Spielberg and Lucas expressed views over the years that what they asked Williams to write was classical music; a successor to operatic music. They both think he delivered.


----------



## FrankinUsa

I’m sorry but I don’t think I can read all 900+ comments to the OP. My feelings is that we all come back and make our opinions felt in another 50 years or so. By then we will know if Williams has become part of the “canon.”


----------



## Fabulin

FrankinUsa said:


> I'm sorry but I don't think I can read all 900+ comments to the OP. My feelings is that we all come back and make our opinions felt in another 50 years or so. By then we will know if Williams has become part of the "canon."


I'll be there. See you!


----------



## christomacin

Forster said:


> Where? By whom? It's just a point of view.


What I meant is the argument that film music just somehow was something other than part of the Classical musical tradition was always a bit dubious. It may not be IMPORTANT Classical music, but it must be thought of as such to an extent, considering the fact that there are some exceptions such as incidental music (not a huge number but they do exist) which have become part of the standard repertoire. William music has been recently played by the Berlin and Vienna Philharmonics, so clearly there has been a change in public (and music industry) perception of his music. Having said that, I am frankly not so convinced that he will be seen as a major composer in the long run. Incidental music is nevertheless considered an inferior genre to more abstract forms of musical expression. For example, incidental music to "The Tempest" by Sibelius will never be considered as important as his seven symphonies and violin concerto, no matter how well written it is. I suspect best case scenario he will be about as well regarded as Offenbach or Massenet for instance are now, which is to say mostly only fragments and snippets of his music will likely survive and he will probably NOT be considered one of the titans of Western music. At least Offenbach and Massenet have at least one or two complete music works to their name are still performed in their entirety.


----------



## christomacin

SanAntone said:


> Film scores are not Classical music. They are short patches written for specific scenes, some lasting a few seconds, others a minute or two, maybe longer. But if the music for a film were extracted from the film and played straight through it would be disjointed and without form.
> 
> Suites or concertante works made from the thematic material from a film score for concert performance and can be considered similar to Classical music.
> 
> *Nino Rota* wrote classical music unrelated to his film scores. I consider his music more akin to what a true Classical composer does than John Williams, who as far as I know only wrote concert pieces from adaptations of his film music.
> 
> But for me it doesn't matter how people think of John Williams. I try to think of him as little as possible. Which is why seeing this thread is so bothersome to me.
> 
> Over and out.


Fine, so long as you also say incidental music is not Classical music as well. To make my position clear, I don't consider incidental music on the same level as the concerto, the symphony, the sonata or the quartet, and, generally speaking, neither did most of the great composers who wrote incidental music like Sibelius, Faure, Mendelssohn or Nielsen. It's perfectly defensible to argue for the inferiority of incidental scoring for theater and the cinema as opposed to more abstract forms, but it's being deliberately obtuse to deny much orchestral film music is derived from the same tradition.


----------



## hammeredklavier

christomacin said:


> Incidental music is nevertheless *considered* an inferior genre to more abstract forms of musical expression. For example, incidental music to "The Tempest" by Sibelius will never be *considered* as important as his seven symphonies and violin concerto, no matter how well written it is.


By whom? Whatabout Stravinsky's Rite of spring and Firebird (compared to his symphonies)?


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

christomacin said:


> What I meant is the argument that film music just somehow was something other than part of the Classical musical tradition was always a bit dubious. It may not be IMPORTANT Classical music, but it must be thought of as such to an extent, considering the fact that there are some exceptions such as incidental music (not a huge number but they do exist) which have become part of the standard repertoire. William music has been recently played by the Berlin and Vienna Philharmonics, so clearly there has been a change in public (and music industry) perception of his music. Having said that, I am frankly not so convinced that he will be seen as a major composer in the long run. Incidental music is nevertheless considered an inferior genre to more abstract forms of musical expression. For example, incidental music to "The Tempest" by Sibelius will never be considered as important as his seven symphonies and violin concerto, no matter how well written it is. I suspect best case scenario he will be about as well regarded as Offenbach or Massenet for instance are now, which is to say mostly only fragments and snippets of his music will likely survive and he will probably NOT be considered one of the titans of Western music. At least Offenbach and Massenet have at least one or two complete music works to their name are still performed in their entirety.


To be frank, the disparity in skill between Williams and Massenet / Offenbach makes this comparison a bit strange. Verdi would perhaps be a better match.


----------



## Luchesi

If we asked John Williams if he was a classical composer, what would he say? In his case, I don't know what he would answer. Because in our time he might be of the opinion that he is what a CM composer is today.

I think of CM as the serious art of music. Therefore it has its historical importance and its historical path which continues to this day. Music needed for films is music needed for films, and it's part of cinema as art. Take away the film and you have film music without the film which needs it. heh heh


----------



## pianozach

Luchesi said:


> If we asked John Williams if he was a classical composer, what would he say? In his case, I don't know what he would answer. Because in our time he might be of the opinion that he is what a CM composer is today.
> 
> I think of CM as the serious art of music. Therefore it has its historical importance and its historical path which continues to this day. Music needed for films is music needed for films, and it's part of cinema as art. Take away the film and you have film music without the film which needs it. heh heh


Well, that makes as much sense as listening to ballet music without seeing the accompanying ballet.


----------



## Subutai

I prefer Jerry Goldsmith over Williams and Ennio Morricone over both of them.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

christomacin said:


> What I meant is the argument that film music just somehow was something other than part of the Classical musical tradition was always a bit dubious. It may not be IMPORTANT Classical music, but it must be thought of as such to an extent, considering the fact that there are some exceptions such as incidental music (not a huge number but they do exist) which have become part of the standard repertoire. William music has been recently played by the Berlin and Vienna Philharmonics, so clearly there has been a change in public (and music industry) perception of his music. Having said that, I am frankly not so convinced that he will be seen as a major composer in the long run. Incidental music is nevertheless considered an inferior genre to more abstract forms of musical expression. For example, incidental music to "The Tempest" by Sibelius will never be considered as important as his seven symphonies and violin concerto, no matter how well written it is.


Hm, "inferior" despite of "how well written it is", isn't that a bit of a contradiction?


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

His TLJ score isn't canon cause Ruin rianed Starkino (


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

SanAntone said:


> Ballets are identified by the composer, and ballets have always been treated as subset of Classical music. Not so with films. If it were easy to find the examples, I'd post music from a film without any editing, and also the music from a ballet. It would be obvious which one stands alone more easily.
> 
> But if you wish to think John Williams's unedited film scores are Classical music ... go ahead and think it.


A typical movie "end credits piece", whether by JW or not, works a lot better if "taken out of context" and played in a concert than probably any opera recitative / dialogue, or song/recitative mash-ups like Almamiva or Rigoletto's;

clearly those opera composers were facing the potential choice of "writing music that would also work outside of a theater/plot context" and writing plot/dialogue/thought driven stuff that would really only work in context, and often went with the latter.

And of course (pre-Monteverdi) opera evolved out of less complete forms of "incidental" theater music.

It's honestly very surreal to see anyone making points such as these; "classical music is abstract art that works outside of theater" like it takes 2 seconds of thought to realize how epically false that is and stop oneself from typing let alone posting such a statement lol


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Luchesi said:


> If we asked John Williams if he was a classical composer, what would he say? In his case, I don't know what he would answer. Because in our time he might be of the opinion that he is what a CM composer is today.
> 
> I think of CM as the serious art of music. Therefore it has its historical importance and its historical path which continues to this day. Music needed for films is music needed for films, and it's part of cinema as art. Take away the film and you have film music without the film which needs it. heh heh


Idk comic operas are neither serious nor, as I learned not too long ago, apparently always aimed at the upperclass;

I'm a bit confused on what was how in which era etc., some bits say the Opera Buffa was for the upperclass but the Singspiel was for commoners, but at other times apparently all the "comedic" stuff was for the common/lower classes.

So yeah I didn't wanna wax here about it, but form what I generally know, the category of "classical music" is neither particularly well defined nor makes all that much sense, if you start discussing it - everyone seems to have their own take.

Serious? No.
Complex? No, a lot of it is simple. And a lot of 20th century "complex" music isn't considered part of that category.
Anything that's "abstract" and "structured" as opposed to "incidental" or "improvisational"? Some seem to think so, believe it or not.
For/by upperclass? Apparently no.
Anything from before 20th century? Apparently neither.
Anything from before 20th century tied to big budgets or professional training? Eh, pretty close I guess, but that apparently no longer applies to 20th century categories...
Anything "in the style" of that last one? Opinions seem divided.

And here on this thread and page, people seem to be treating the "classical" category as interchangeable with quality awards such as "all time titans" or whatever "canon" is supposed to mean; isn't "canon" supposed to be a subset of the category, i.e. stuff considered best or most influential etc.?

So that seems like a pointless discussion/angle, at least to me; maybe just focus on the substance lol


----------



## arpeggio

These discussions reminds me of Sturgeon's Law.

Theodore Sturgeon was a classis science fiction writer and contemporary of Clark and Asimov.

He made a statement that 90% of all science fiction stories were cr*p.

This statement can be applied to all of the arts.

For every Beethoven there are dozens of mediocre composers who have been forgotten.

Of course, 90% of the film soundtracks are episodic and mediocre. 90% of the movies produced by Hollywood are garbage. I subscribe to several cable premium channels and many times I can not find a decent movie to watch.

In spite of the limitations there are some soundtracks which can stand alone as works of symphonic music.

Two good examples of this are Korngold's _Robin Hood_ and the _Sea Hawk_. Naxos released recordings of the complete soundtracks of both films and they sound like massive Strauss tone poems.

Tadlow music has released several recordings of complete soundtracks and some of them are very good.

There is one bad movie that has a great soundtrack: _Gonad the Barbarian. _by Basil Poledoris. (Apoligies to Gonad fans) Tadlow issued a recording of the complete soundtrack so I can listen to the music without have to deal with that dreadful film. Poledoris stated in an interview that the director wanted a symphonic score.


----------



## Forster

christomacin said:


> What I meant is the argument that film music just somehow was something other than part of the Classical musical tradition was always a bit dubious.


It's possible to argue either way, I think. A broad statement about "film music" being classical is in any case incorrect since not all film music is in the classical tradition.

It seems uncontroversial to claim that film music that draws on or explores classical traditions is a legitimate _branch _of "classical music". Given Williams is one of the foremost exponents of the craft, it's hardly surprising that some of it makes its way into the concert hall.


----------



## mikeh375

From the off, let me say I think JW is a fantastic composer and I am a big fan of his film work and serious concert music. I've mentioned before that I do have a reservation about his film cues being concert hall worthy (not so much his major themes though). My doubts stem from my own experiences working in film and media and understanding the different approaches that are necessary when writing to order or for self expression. Compromise is a real and necessary paradigm one has to have when composing music to order. Williams through his concert music has shown he has much more to offer in the way of depth, expression and technique. 

Film dictates everything for a cue, from the intended expression, timing, right down to scoring details and dynamics. These are big restrictions on freedom of expression and determine the outcome of the music to such an extent that I question how the result of the enforced yet necessary utility involved in creating a cue, can be considered as profound an utterance compared to work written without restrictions.

To a large extent, my reservation is borne out when one listens to how lines, motifs, harmony, scoring, general language and expression are quite different in JW's concert works as opposed to his cues. He's a different composer and it's the personal artistic depth he is capable of, resulting in music so different to a utility based composing paradigm, that I feel more correctly belongs in the concert hall. When he is free of restriction, his music is much more powerful imo.

I acknowledge that I am being somewhat purist about this and if anyone can blur the distinctions I tend to make regarding film cues being concert hall worthy it's JW. Also, pre-empting those who might retort with how opera and ballet ( e.g. Stravinsky!), fit in to my take on this, I would say that those two disciplines are not so tightly formulated, nor do they need to be acquiesced to so much. The composer has considerable reign over expression, timings, orchestration, language and so on. In other words, the compromises are not so limiting and the artists inner expression is not hindered to the extent it can be in film.

...just my £2's worth.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

mikeh375 said:


> Also, pre-empting those who might retort with how opera and ballet ( e.g. Stravinsky!), fit in to my take on this, I would say that those two disciplines are not so tightly formulated, nor do they need to be acquiesced to so much. The composer has considerable reign over expression, timings, orchestration, language and so on. In other words, the compromises are not so limiting and the artists inner expression is not hindered to the extent it can be in film.
> 
> ...just my £2's worth.


Even if the composer is also the director and editor, if he chooses to score the film in a particular way, it will "no longer work" out of context - i.e. concert or audio recordings etc.;

or, more precisely, it'll work if you're in the mindset of wanting to be reminded of the movie/scene, or trying to guess the context of the plot while listening to the music, but not "on its own".

I don't really see how this applies less to the recitative-ish parts of operas (or the transient cues in through-composed examples) than to the "cue-ey" parts of film scores, speaking in general terms - in both cases you've got music being used to great effect in combination with words/plot/performance/etc., and it ought to be primarily judged on those terms; 
if you take it out of context like a jellyfish out of water and then it "no longer makes sense", well, might as well remove half the orchestral parts and see how well that then still holds up lol

Autonomous work vs. working in collaboration (say with librettists) or under deadlines / employer imposed limits etc. is a separate issue from "self-sufficient / incidental music".

Then, how good or great JW or sb else is, is also a separate question;

and which category/genre he belongs to, is also a separate question.

Seeing way too much conflation of all these separate issues here, and just wanted to point this out lol

A sensible suggestion would be to move more general subjects such as the nature of film/incidental music or genre borders to the subforums dedicated to those subjects; debating about those different basics in the context of whether to accept this particular guy into the composer pantheon, seems a bit unproductive imo


----------



## Ethereality

Subutai said:


> I prefer Jerry Goldsmith over Williams and Ennio Morricone over both of them.


I saw someone praising Nino Rota over Williams, in another thread :lol: I had Goldsmith stuck in my head today.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Kreisler jr said:


> Probably not. But Maazel's compositions were never as famous as Williams film scores in the first place, in fact they were unknown.
> 
> Korngold was a great composer before he became the greatest film composer of his age. But now he is mostly niche and the "serious" pieces are better known than the film scores, I think. I can hardly imagine this for Williams. Can we be so sure that in another 30-40 years people will still care about 1970s-80s movie scores?


In 30-40 years the planet might be a virus infested fireball mind-controlled by grey cyber lizards; Bach took 2 subsequent "rediscoveries" to become a really famous composer (btw I'm a bit puzzled about the whole "he wasn't quite as known as a composer while alive", what's with all the hundreds of compositions that he delivered for services and concerts?).

The "test of time" and awards, 2 other subjects/angles that probably shouldn't really be playing a role in such debates.


----------



## christomacin

The Rite of Spring an The Firebird are ballets. That's an entirely different genre of music than incidental music, which is subservient to the stage drama, and usually only occurs in between acts, although some incidental scores are more elaborate than others. Furthermore, the music for a play is in fact is not necessary, as most productions of Peer Gynt, The Tempest, etc. do not include the background music. It's really only done on very special occasions. Ballets on the other hand are inherently musical in their presentation and cannot be separated from the music. Without the music you just have a bunch very skinny young men and women hopping around in tights for no apparent reason.


----------



## christomacin

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Hm, "inferior" despite of "how well written it is", isn't that a bit of a contradiction?


No, it isn't a contradiction. For example: Sibelius' music to The Tempest IS very well-written, but it is less satisfactory from a music point of view than his 7 symphonies, violin concerto, or even some of his more ambitious tone poems. They are a core part of the classical repertoire for a reason. They are also well-written but have something even beyond that which make them... well, abstract works of art for want of a better term. Aside from the overture to The Tempest, the rest of the score works best accompanied by the play. Sibelius himself would probably agree with this. If this is how the incidental music of Sibelius is treated why should a special exception be made for John Williams? What makes him so special?


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

christomacin said:


> Without the music you just have a bunch very skinny young men and women hopping around in tights for no apparent reason.


To be fair, that's my impression even with music.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

christomacin said:


> The Rite of Spring an The Firebird are ballets. That's an entirely different genre of music than incidental music, which is subservient to the stage drama, and usually only occurs in between acts, although some incidental scores are more elaborate than others. Furthermore, the music for a play is in fact is not necessary, as most productions of Peer Gynt, The Tempest, etc. do not include the background music. It's really only done on very special occasions. Ballets on the other hand are inherently musical in their presentation and cannot be separated from the music. Without the music you just have a bunch very skinny young men and women hopping around in tights for no apparent reason.


This seems like an attempt to go out of one's way to deny/ignore the existence of opera, especially the kind that isn't entirely made out of catchy songs that also work in concerto form.

Think of idk, Nabucco as a "concert piece", especially instrumentalized, without words - somewhere between Zacaria's first recitative and the Ismael+Fenena dialogue recitative followed by Abigaille's entry, it'd become clear that this music, arranged in this way, would make more sense with the/a plot - something you see on stage, or maybe manage to imagine in your head.

Rigoletto's been already mentioned, imagine his frantic schizo monologues as an "abstract concert piece" lol

I'll check out the Sibelius examples, however I wasn't specifically talking about theater music since I don't seem to have any concrete memory of ever hearing any tbh - checking out the Figaro plays was on top of my list, along with wherever Grieg's Mountain King is from;
I only mentioned that particular form in the context of people claiming "incidental wasn't classical" which is like whaaaaaaat lol

In terms of personal familiarity, I can only compare opera and film scores, so far.



> but it is less satisfactory from a music point of view


"From a music point of view" as in "ripped out of its context" (which it was specifically written in).

Does the shark remain an apex predator perfect killing machine honed by time and evolution if you take it out of the water (or remove its teeth), or does it become yaseless?
Does the human remain the most advanced calculator and tool user on the planet if you put him in the water, or does he just drown lol?

Imagine trying to transform the Rigoletto climax into a "concert piece" - it seems perfect as it is, but for a non-theatralic adaptation it would probably have to be tweaked at least somewhat to transcend the "music from the opera" effect;
and then in turn, it might no longer work as well if inserted back into its initial context - take away the frantic contrasts, the broken off melodies, or the suspenseful semi-recitative bits over the creepy high note (i.e. the d-f#-f#-d-f#-d over the a''), which make up a crucial part of that sequence's impact, but would sound "weird" out of context, and the opera would become less effective or at least change in a fundamental way.

So now we've got the situation that music which may suit best for a particular theatralic/cinematic effect, may not work out of context, and not any music which works in abstract form would be ideal for a particular dramatic context; 
comparing the two in terms of absolute superiority/inferiority no longer makes sense, under these circumstances.

And the idea of praising abstract music over music that's combined into a "Gesamtkunstwerk" with other visual art forms, is obviously not very Wagnerpilled - just how furerous would he become if he read this thread lol


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> To be fair, that's my impression even with music.


The two Sawn Lake productions I've seen recently (just the beginnings, more precisely) both had different choreography, with one only slightly more "connected" to the music than the other - from my not-even-dilettant perspective at least.

Like one seemed to completely ignore that juicy cadence in the A major waltz, and the other at least did *something* during it, but not something that I'd say enhanced the music somehow; so I suppose it's a question of execution and choreography choices, and maybe something that looks less arbitrary can be done. Can't tell atm though...


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

christomacin said:


> Sibelius himself would probably agree with this. If this is how the incidental music of Sibelius is treated why should a special exception be made for John Williams? What makes him so special?


I for one didn't say anything about JW being special among film composers incl. in that regard, I was talking about "non-autonomous film music" in general (responding to comments which had also taken the discussion from JW in particular to that more general discussion about incidental/abstract music).

Btw just hit me, if you want a direct comparison between opera/film, take the (already mentioned) bit from Nabucco where Ismael+Fenana start escaping but are confronted by Abigaille, and then the bit from from X-Men 2 where Mystique is looking at the computer and then it cuts to Lady Deathstrike approaching;

I'm quite convinced that that suspense crescendo on the H announcing the imminent arrival of the lady villain, is a direct influence, although who knows lol.
Does the movie example sound worse on the soundtrack album, than the opera example would on a CD (esp. if instrumentalized)? Seem to be about the same in that regard, imo.

(Might post links later.)


----------



## Luchesi

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Idk comic operas are neither serious nor, as I learned not too long ago, apparently always aimed at the upperclass;
> 
> I'm a bit confused on what was how in which era etc., some bits say the Opera Buffa was for the upperclass but the Singspiel was for commoners, but at other times apparently all the "comedic" stuff was for the common/lower classes.
> 
> So yeah I didn't wanna wax here about it, but form what I generally know, the category of "classical music" is neither particularly well defined nor makes all that much sense, if you start discussing it - everyone seems to have their own take.
> 
> Serious? No.
> Complex? No, a lot of it is simple. And a lot of 20th century "complex" music isn't considered part of that category.
> Anything that's "abstract" and "structured" as opposed to "incidental" or "improvisational"? Some seem to think so, believe it or not.
> For/by upperclass? Apparently no.
> Anything from before 20th century? Apparently neither.
> Anything from before 20th century tied to big budgets or professional training? Eh, pretty close I guess, but that apparently no longer applies to 20th century categories...
> Anything "in the style" of that last one? Opinions seem divided.
> 
> And here on this thread and page, people seem to be treating the "classical" category as interchangeable with quality awards such as "all time titans" or whatever "canon" is supposed to mean; isn't "canon" supposed to be a subset of the category, i.e. stuff considered best or most influential etc.?
> 
> So that seems like a pointless discussion/angle, at least to me; maybe just focus on the substance lol


Maybe people can't hear the differences between CM and film music. What should we say to them about it?

Is explaining music as difficult as explaining a scientific subject to a non-scientific person?


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Luchesi said:


> Maybe people can't hear the differences between CM and film music. What should we say to them about it?
> 
> Is explaining music as difficult as explaining a scientific subject to a non-scientific person?


Idk, if you just heard the theme from the New World Symphony's finale and the SW4 throne room scene one next to each other, could you guess which one's "CM" and which one's "film"?

Also my post that you quoted above, questioned the CM category itself, so there's that factor too I suppose; the notion that Abduction from Seraglio is "C" but a light 20th century swashbuckler movie about rescuing a princess is not, doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense to me; with my current level of knowledge anyway.

If one conceived of a rescue-princess-from-pirates film that would be seen as a continuation of the 19th/18th century "classical" comic theater / musical theater / opera buffa / singspiel tradition, what would it look like? What would make it different from an existing pirate movie? If anyone can answer such a question, it's not me.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Idk, if you just heard the theme from the New World Symphony's finale and the SW4 throne room scene one next to each other, could you guess which one's "CM" and which one's "film"?
> 
> Also my post that you quoted above, questioned the CM category itself, so there's that factor too I suppose; the notion that Abduction from Seraglio is "C" but a light 20th century swashbuckler movie about rescuing a princess is not, doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense to me; with my current level of knowledge anyway.
> 
> If one conceived of a rescue-princess-from-pirates film that would be seen as a continuation of the 19th/18th century "classical" comic theater / musical theater / opera buffa / singspiel tradition, what would it look like? What would make it different from an existing pirate movie? If anyone can answer such a question, it's not me.


Do you mean the Award Ceremony?






Indeed, I have a hard time distinguishing a short, complete composition like this from something in a Wagner opera or an overture. I think the desire to downgrade Williams as a composer comes from snobbery more than anything else.


----------



## Alfacharger

I wonder what everone thinks of Williams' little work for Cello, Harp and Orchestra called Highwwood's Ghost. Based on a coversation he had with Leonard Bernstein about Bernstein's encounter with a ghost at Highwood House in Tanglewood.


----------



## arpeggio

Some of Wiliam's concert works can be rather intense.

For example, his _Sinfonietta for Wind Ensemble (1968)_.


----------



## mikeh375

The last two posts by Alfacharger and the ever reliable arpeggio of JW's work merely confirm everything I said in my last post afaik (post 929). The Highwood's Ghost piece is for me, music untrammelled from overbearing extra-musical demands, irrespective of the pieces genesis and onomatopaeic intent. The time and emotional freedom taken to explore lines, ideas, language, instrumentation and so on, would absolutely not be afforded to him in film work and as a result, the music is more appropriately concert worthy imv, because it is a deeper, personal insight into the artist.
The same could be said for what I heard of the Sinfonietta, although I only heard the first 5 mins or so.

As always though, ymmv.


----------



## Luchesi

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Idk comic operas are neither serious nor, as I learned not too long ago, apparently always aimed at the upperclass;
> 
> I'm a bit confused on what was how in which era etc., some bits say the Opera Buffa was for the upperclass but the Singspiel was for commoners, but at other times apparently all the "comedic" stuff was for the common/lower classes.
> 
> So yeah I didn't wanna wax here about it, but form what I generally know, the category of "classical music" is neither particularly well defined nor makes all that much sense, if you start discussing it - everyone seems to have their own take.
> 
> Serious? No.
> Complex? No, a lot of it is simple. And a lot of 20th century "complex" music isn't considered part of that category.
> Anything that's "abstract" and "structured" as opposed to "incidental" or "improvisational"? Some seem to think so, believe it or not.
> For/by upperclass? Apparently no.
> Anything from before 20th century? Apparently neither.
> Anything from before 20th century tied to big budgets or professional training? Eh, pretty close I guess, but that apparently no longer applies to 20th century categories...
> Anything "in the style" of that last one? Opinions seem divided.
> 
> And here on this thread and page, people seem to be treating the "classical" category as interchangeable with quality awards such as "all time titans" or whatever "canon" is supposed to mean; isn't "canon" supposed to be a subset of the category, i.e. stuff considered best or most influential etc.?
> 
> So that seems like a pointless discussion/angle, at least to me; maybe just focus on the substance lol


I think of the Canon as comprised of good, helpful examples of the development from the music of pre-Bach to Mahler.


----------



## Luchesi

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Idk, if you just heard the theme from the New World Symphony's finale and the SW4 throne room scene one next to each other, could you guess which one's "CM" and which one's "film"?
> 
> Also my post that you quoted above, questioned the CM category itself, so there's that factor too I suppose; the notion that Abduction from Seraglio is "C" but a light 20th century swashbuckler movie about rescuing a princess is not, doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense to me; with my current level of knowledge anyway.
> 
> If one conceived of a rescue-princess-from-pirates film that would be seen as a continuation of the 19th/18th century "classical" comic theater / musical theater / opera buffa / singspiel tradition, what would it look like? What would make it different from an existing pirate movie? If anyone can answer such a question, it's not me.


"Idk, if you just heard the theme from the New World Symphony's finale and the SW4 throne room scene one next to each other, could you guess which one's "CM" and which one's "film"?"

What was Dvorak's intent? what was the film composer's intent?


----------



## mikeh375

Anyone comfortable with listening to post romantic, expanded tonality might get a lot out of this little gem by JW. This piece for violin solo and orchestra is rapt, haunting and very moving imv and worthy of its performance in the concert hall by the redoubtable Anne Sophie-Mutter...it's only 9 mins long, give it a go and hear what he's capable of away from media.


----------



## Dan Ante

John Williams eh...


----------



## Michael122

John Williams = Worthy Addition.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

The Guardian just published an interesting piece on John Williams at 90.

The main thesis seems to be that film music is underappreciated, and the things that cause snobs to deride Williams' music (his classical influences, his catchy melodies) are what make his music stand the test of time.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

The real takeaway from today is this:


> Williams said he tries not to fixate on age, even as hundreds of ensembles around the world - in Japan, Australia, Italy and elsewhere - host concerts to mark his birthday. And he said he does not fear death; he sees life as a dream, at the end of which we awaken.
> 
> Williams recalled a recent pilgrimage to St. Thomas Church in Leipzig, Germany, where Bach once worked as a cantor. He listened intently as a pastor described the efforts to protect the great composer's remains during World War II; he marveled at the dedication to preserving Bach's legacy.
> 
> On his way out of the church, he paused. An organist was filling the grand space with the hymn-like theme from "Jurassic Park."
> 
> Williams, beaming, turned to the pastor.
> 
> "Now," he said, "I can die."


----------



## NoCoPilot

Williams and Weber aren't "charlatans," they're masters of marketing.

Remember: "Good artists borrow. Great artists steal."


----------



## NoCoPilot

arpeggio said:


> Some of Wiliam's concert works can be rather intense. For example, his _Sinfonietta for Wind Ensemble (1968)_.


Williams is much better when he's kleptomaniacing.


----------



## SanAntone

I have changed my mind about John Williams. 

The number and breadth of his concert works, especially his group of concertos, appears to have reached critical mass for him to legitimately claim status as a Classical music composer.

His audience is large and his presence on concert stages can only benefit the wider Classical music institutions for which his work is performed, often with his leadership.


----------



## pianozach

pianozach said:


> And here we are again.
> 
> By this definition *Classical Music* should then, in terms of equity, exclude Ballet Music, as it is _"short patches written for specific scenes, some lasting a few seconds, others a minute or two, maybe longer"_ as well.





SanAntone said:


> Ballets are identified by the composer, and ballets have always been treated as subset of Classical music. Not so with films. If it were easy to find the examples, I'd post music from a film without any editing, and also the music from a ballet. It would be obvious which one stands alone more easily.
> 
> But if you wish to think John Williams's unedited film scores are Classical music ... go ahead and think it.





SanAntone said:


> I have changed my mind about John Williams.
> 
> The number and breadth of his concert works, especially his group of concertos, appears to have reached critical mass for him to legitimately claim status as a Classical music composer.
> 
> His audience is large and his presence on concert stages can only benefit the wider Classical music institutions for which his work is performed, often with his leadership.


You were pretty adamant only a year ago.

I'm impressed that you're willing to change your opinion, whether it's about Williams, or anything else.


----------



## SanAntone

pianozach said:


> You were pretty adamant only a year ago.
> 
> I'm impressed that you're willing to change your opinion, whether it's about Williams, or anything else.


I separate his film music from his concert works, which are very well-written in his own style. While some are based on his film music they are distinct compositions. My negative comments were related to film music in general, including Williams' film scores, being considered "Classical music". However, when they are re-arranged into suites or other long form works for concert performance, they can bridge the gap between the two genres.

Last year when I contributed to this thread I was entirely ignorant of Williams' concert composing. Now that I've become more familiar with that work, as well as noticed the number of compositions in a variety of forms, over a significant period of time - I can now acknowledge, quite easily, his work in the Classical realm.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

The ability to change one's mind is a rare gift that should be celebrated. Bravo.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> I separate his film music from his concert works, which are very well-written in his own style. While some are based on his film music they are distinct compositions. My negative comments were related to film music in general, including Williams' film scores, being considered "Classical music". However, when they are re-arranged into suites or other long form works for concert performance, they can bridge the gap between the two genres.
> 
> Last year when I contributed to this thread I was entirely ignorant of Williams' concert composing. Now that I've become more familiar with that work, as well as noticed the number of compositions in a variety of forms, over a significant period of time - I can now acknowledge, quite easily, his work in the Classical realm.


This is a curious conclusion. When we look at say Mozart or Beethoven we see where they came from and what they were leading to.


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> This is a curious conclusion. When we look at say Mozart or Beethoven we see where they came from and what they were leading to.


I don't understand the context your comment; it seems, to me, to be a non sequitur.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> I don't understand the context your comment; it seems, to me, to be a non sequitur.


or Brahms or Schoenberg. We appreciate what they came from. Is JW like that for you? I don't know enough about JW's concept of historical integrity from his concert works. 

It's just me. I try to approach every subject the same way (it might be a mistake).


----------



## pianozach

where they came from and what they were leading to
Mozart or Beethoven
or Brahms or Schoenberg
John Williams

Irrelevant comparison. We see this traditional Classical composers in context of the lineage or development of CM.

John Williams is still alive, still composing, and made his name in a 20th Century idiom, the film score, something that did not exist until the 1900s (late 1920s, at the earliest).

That straight line of Classical Music development can be traced from Handel to Bach to Mozart to Beethoven to Brahms pretty easily (even though it's a gross oversimplification). 

But all that really broke down in the 20th Century, with the rise of recording technology, performance technology, new instruments, and the way that Pop music rose up and became the darling of the masses.

That formerly defined path of Classical Music fragmented, becoming directionless (or multi-directioned) and John Williams represents merely one of those paths taken by Classical Music / Art Music / symphonic music.


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> or Brahms or Schoenberg. We appreciate what they came from. Is JW like that for you? I don't know enough about JW's concept of historical integrity from his concert works.
> 
> It's just me. I try to approach every subject the same way (it might be a mistake).


I don't think about what a composer was writing ("what he came from") before he turned his talents to writing Classical music. All I consider is the apparent intention behind the work, i.e. if it was written for film or a concert performance. 

I also don't make value judgments based on a composer's background or education, experience, training, etc. I listen to the music and it either impresses me as well-written using Classical techniques or not.


----------



## SanAntone

Foe example:, George Gershwin came from writing popular songs and Broadway shows before he wrote a series of Classical works: two operas, a concerto, and some orchestral works. His career was cut short with his death at 37 or 38, but he no doubt would have continued writing more Classical works.


----------



## jojoju2000

Took us.... 49 pages to get to a conclusion.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

jojoju2000 said:


> Took us.... 49 pages to get to a conclusion.


Wait - there was a conclusion?


----------



## NoCoPilot

Yeah. THE END


----------



## Andrew Kenneth

On june 3rd DG releases John Williams 2nd violin concerto =>


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Andrew Kenneth said:


> On june 3rd DG releases John Williams 2nd violin concerto =>
> 
> View attachment 168364


I believe you can still watch this on PBS. I did, and it's quite well done.


----------

