Williams (or anyone else) will never outdo E.T. [Archive]

jubal

02-24-2002, 01:31 AM

I have said enough already http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif I was on my way out when I first replied.

Here is why Schindler\'s List.

When I was taking a string writing class, I had to choose four songs and write string parts to harmonize with the melody. One of the songs I chose was a Jewish folk song called \'The Miller\'s Tears\' about the expulsion of Jews from their villages. The first part goes

Could I but number, The years that slumber
Since I have been a miller here
The wheels keep turning slow
The years, they quickly go
And now I\'m old and grey, I fear
The fear

Well, the melody is quite simple, but there is a rhythm in the melody that continues to invoke the words \'the wheels keep turning slow, the years, they quickly go\' in all of the verses. It makes this folk song quite \'haunting\'.

I found the same with Schindler\'s List. It took me a while to see the movie, it was one of those that I had to prepare myself to see. I had the score before I even saw it. The emotion in the score, as has been said before, was enough to bring tears to my eyes. The personal involvement and passion that Spielberg put into the film is rivaled by Williams\' score. Together they really stand apart in the movie making enterprise. The solo violin part, played beautifully by Itzhak Perlman, is as much a character in the film as Oskar Schindler.

Anyway...sorry for the rambling, but it\'s impossible in this case to seperate story from score...and in this case, it shouldn\'t be any other way.

Jamieh

02-24-2002, 02:28 AM

I gotta side with Simon on this one. E.T. is just amazing. You want to talk about tearing up? Listen to the last 5 minutes of the soundtrack. Every time I get to the \"I\'ll be right here!\" part I practically start to bawl.

Ok, that is an exaggeration, but it is powerful stuff. Overall I think I enjoy Empire and Raiders more because I\'m an action movie fan, but for pure emotional content, E.T. is about as good as it gets.

Funny, I just happened to be listening to it this evening as well!

[This message has been edited by Jamieh (edited 02-24-2002).]

Thomas_J

02-24-2002, 06:03 AM

My favorite Williams score is probably Empire of the Sun and Harry Potter. A.I is starting to grow on me as well. Seriously, Harry Potter (although maybe a little repetitive on the theme in the movie) is an incredible achievement and shows signs of even more(!) maturity in Williams\' compositions. Pretty darn amazing, that\'s what it is. E.T is also incredible, and so is the Indy series, Far & Away, Jaws 2, Star Wars, Jurassic Park 2 (That action music blows me away, easily my favorite action music writing ever, although The Mummy Returns has some incredible action music by Silvestri.)

As for schindler\'s list I don\'t think the orchestration was that original and interesting as in, say Harry Potter. Still an enjoyable score nevertheless. The emotional musical contents of Empire of the Sun has a much more profound impact on me.

I love fantasy movies. I dislike most sci-fi movies for some reason I cannot explain. A.I is an exception. Star Wars/Star Trek/Babylon 5 and all that stuff just annoys me. The music is usually good though, which is a plus when trying to sit through the movie http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif

Williams is incredible, but Simon, he\'s got loads of experience and a great education. The man knows what music is about, inside out. He knows all the theory that is necessary to break rules on a conscious level, and he knows what sounds good and what does not, to a much larger degree than us mere mortals. A lot of the time he is practically playing with musical theory. It is a delight.

Thomas

PeterRoos

02-24-2002, 12:25 PM

Interesting site!

Read also this:
http://jwfan.net/starwars/episode2/ (\"http://jwfan.net/starwars/episode2/\")

on the recording of the score for the new Star Wars film, 125 (!) minutes of music.

There\'s also an observer\'s report from the sessions, maybe you\'ve already read it elsewhere.

Peter

Jamieh

02-24-2002, 03:18 PM

Geez, ANOTHER E.T. CD? I already have the original (only 8 tracks) and the expanded one. This is starting to become like Star Wars, where I have at least 4 different versions of the sound track!

Thomas, Harry Potter is a good soundtrack, but it is way too derivitave from Hook for me to call it one of Williams\' best. I did think Hook was a great score though. I pretty much consider his \'76-82 period to be his best, with Superman, Star Wars, Raider, ET, Jaws, & Close Encounters. All of those scores are great, and yet they all have a very distinct sound, which is pretty remarkable.

Christopher Drake

02-24-2002, 06:02 PM

E.T.?...Schindlerr\'s List?.....Pfah! I submit to you three words.....LOST IN SPACE!!! but seriously...if any one wants to check out some cool vintage old school \"Johnny\" Williams scores, check out his work on those old Irwin Allen TV shows and movies ... very fun. Ditto with alot of Goldsmith\'s TV work.

Kenn159

02-24-2002, 08:17 PM

Here\'s a opinion from a different perspective .
I don\'t have the background and experiance in orchestration that many of you do.
Im just a guitar,bass,drummer and songwriter.
But form my perspective the movie soundtracks that come to mind that have moved me the most are The Wizard of Oz and West Side Story.
And no Im not living in a time warp , I like aot of newer music, but when it comes to movie soundtracks , I can\'t think of any recently that have blown me away.
Here are my musucal influency so you know were Im coming from as far as musical taste.
The Beatles
Seal
The Greys
Vertical Horizon
Steve Via
What ever what ever

Kenn159

02-24-2002, 08:30 PM

Oh yeah just one movie soundtrack to mention.
The Sound of Music.
Just wondering what you all think of those scores?

P.S.
I\'ll make sure I listen to the score a little more carefully next time I watch E.T and Shindlers List.

Haydn

02-24-2002, 11:53 PM

I haven\'t purchased the E.T. CD as of yet. It is going to be re-released in an expanded edition on March 19th. It will be digitally remastered and will include 3 extra titles not found on the original. Check out the details on this site: http://jwfan.net/et20/ (\"http://jwfan.net/et20/\")

SyQuEsT

02-25-2002, 12:02 AM

I heard that Schindler\'s List\'s theme is not from Williams ...

dwdonehoo

02-25-2002, 12:51 AM

RE: Williams (or anyone else) will never outdo E.T.

For what its worth, I am not particularly in love with Williams. (Oops! Did I say that out loud?) If I were to make a list of faves it would something like B. Poledouris, H. Zimmer, D. Elfman, J. Horner, J.N.Howard, B. Brown, J. Goldsmith, A. Silverestri, J.Williams, in pretty much that order. Heck, there are people on this board I like better than Williams. Nobody beats a theme to death like Williams, and his style is so distinct that emulation should be avoided. The guy is a great composer, no doubt (hey, no flames!), just not my favorite. If I were to point to something I greatly admired in movie composition it would be something like Zimmer’s main theme in Crimson Tide. A great theme using counterpoint in a near flawless way, and few composers can pull this off or even try. No knock on Williams: just a matter of taste.

-----
Doyle W. Donehoo
Radar Music
http://www.sierra-trails.com/radarmusic.html (\"http://www.sierra-trails.com/radarmusic.html\")

Simon Ravn

02-25-2002, 02:32 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SyQuEsT:
I heard that Schindler\'s List\'s theme is not from Williams ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you heard wrong then http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif

Bruce A. Richardson

02-25-2002, 09:54 AM

You guys crack me up.

Have you ever heard of Berg, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Ravel...Mozart?

You talk about film music as if it\'s actually breaking barriers, when in fact, it\'s more like the teeny-pop of orchestral literature.

Want to broaden your horizons? Try Hindemeth, Brahms, Dvorak, Rimsky-Korsakov. How about Holst, Vaughn-Williams? If you want a theme milked to the point of tears, how about Elgar? Tchaikovsky? Beethoven?

God, I can think of dozens of more notable examples of great composers that never get mentioned here...how about Verdi? Barber? Copland? Franck? Persichetti, Gabrieli (there\'s some brass writing for you), Strauss, Rossini? Bizet? Shostakovich?

Studying film composers for inspiration in orchestration is like studying Twinkies to become a pastry chef. Film music is 100% derivative and functional. It is completely programmatic. Is it nice music? Of course it is. But if you want to study; study the composers who invented the wheel.

I don\'t mean any disrespect to any film composer, dead or alive. I would bet that any one of them you asked would agree with every word I have said.

02-25-2002, 10:04 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bruce A. Richardson:
You guys crack me up.

Have you ever heard of Berg, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Ravel...Mozart?

You talk about film music as if it\'s actually breaking barriers, when in fact, it\'s more like the teeny-pop of orchestral literature.

Want to broaden your horizons? Try Hindemeth, Brahms, Dvorak, Rimsky-Korsakov. How about Holst, Vaughn-Williams? If you want a theme milked to the point of tears, how about Elgar? Tchaikovsky? Beethoven?

God, I can think of dozens of more notable examples of great composers that never get mentioned here...how about Verdi? Barber? Copland? Franck? Persichetti, Gabrieli (there\'s some brass writing for you), Strauss, Rossini? Bizet? Shostakovich?

Studying film composers for inspiration in orchestration is like studying Twinkies to become a pastry chef. Film music is 100% derivative and functional. It is completely programmatic. Is it nice music? Of course it is. But if you want to study; study the composers who invented the wheel.

I don\'t mean any disrespect to any film composer, dead or alive. I would bet that any one of them you asked would agree with every word I have said.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen! (You missed Bach and Britten). Want some orchestration to make your eyes water; Britten\'s the guy.

And there are literally hundreds of other wonderful composers who were eclipsed by the names you mentioned but still produced stunning music.

(Better not let these guys choose the music that gets placed in deep space probes -Extra Terrestrials might get the wrong idea; hee, hee).

Bruce A. Richardson

02-25-2002, 10:23 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Z6:

(Better not let these guys choose the music that gets placed in deep space probes -Extra Terrestrials might get the wrong idea; hee, hee).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes...they would nickname our planet Diatonia Blastifus

Lance_M

02-25-2002, 10:54 AM

I partly agree, Bruce. However... it\'s somewhat of a \"he who did it first is best\" mentality.

That\'s almost like saying that The I Love Lucy Show will never be topped because it was the first to use pretaped, edited footage from multiple film cameras for their television show as opposed to broadcasting live. Forget any modern director\'s camera work... ol\' Lucy was the first to extensively examine it.

I know that\'s not exactly what you mean, but there\'s a fine line. And just as you said, no disrespect intended. http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif

PatS

02-25-2002, 10:57 AM

Bruce and Z6:

A thousand blessings on you and your kin! Your list looks very similar to my CD collection. I\'m sure it\'s just the tip of the iceberg for you, as it is for me (e.g., no mention of some brilliant living composers in the \"classical\" tradition--I almost said \"serious\" but . . . crap, I just said it). And folks wonder why I name the PCs around here Josquin, Gesualdo, Bartok, Prokofiev, and Webern (correction: \"prokofiev\" is gone--too long of a hostname for some of these engineers).

Well, I\'m off to St. Marks for some killer antiphonal brass. Waiter, where\'s my canzona? http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/wink.gif (On second thought, I\'ll stick around work and listen to my Solti recording of Stravinky\'s Symphony in Three Movements.)

Pat

[This message has been edited by PatS (edited 02-25-2002).]

Thomas_J

02-25-2002, 12:00 PM

If I want to listen to pure musical bliss, I listen to Mahler or John Williams. http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif

Thomas

PatS

02-25-2002, 12:27 PM

Let me just add that my response to Bruce and Z6 was one of sheer delight at seeing the names of composers whose music I adore, not to the \"Tweekies\" comment, which I found quite amusing (it\'s not worth a fight, though). What I took from Bruce\'s prodding was that you film guys could find new sources of inspiration in music of the past. Although I hear a lot of competent, innovative, imaginative, and deeply moving writing in film music, I also hear a lot of \"inbreeding,\" for good or ill. Of course, this is all so thoroughly subjective, so I\'ll stop while I\'m behind.

Pat (a Classical music \"snob\" who enjoys the works of Thomas Newman, Rachel Portman, Carter Burwell, Elliot Goldenthal, Robert Krall, etc., but still finds solace in Stravinsky\'s Symphony of Psalms--right now, the second movement--what a great opening fugue subject!)

[This message has been edited by PatS (edited 02-26-2002).]

02-25-2002, 12:35 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by dwdonehoo:
Using classical music for film music most often does not work because it is too intrusive. . . . but they had no grasp of the sonic depth that music would become. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ever watched \"Amadeus\"? The brilliant writing and direction allowed audiences to almost \'see\' into the mind of a guy who might be the greatest genius who ever lived. They used Mozart\'s own music (and unfortunatley used poor Salieri as something of a foil to get the point across).

On the second point: Nobody ever wrote deeper music than Bach or Mozart or . . (almost endless list). Music itself has not become \'deeper\' since Palestrina nor Australian aborginal music. Musical \'depth\' requires an audience with which to communicate and infer that depth.

Remember; the first poster here said he \'listened\' to Williams; not he watched the movie and was impressed by the techniques particular to writing for film. Bruce obviously found it difficult to read a statement that said a piece by Williams is the best and would never be bettered.

Absolutely, everyone has a right to enjoy whatever they want, but I don\'t think Bruce was \'putting down\' Williams at all; he is a fine composer (and rich, so what does he care?), but while music does not move forward as a body of knowledge in the same way as science, there really are \'monster\' composers who do tower above everything else. Although this does not make anyone else\'s work less valuable.

Bruce wasn\'t being insulting at all with the \'twinkie\' remark, I think he was just adding context.

A lot of people here seem to have ambitions to write for film and you could do a lot worse than Bruce\'s list (and Pat\'s) to get to the core of an awful lot of \'original\' film music.

Interestingly, Williams seems like an introduction to great music rather than great music itself: \"Hey, if you liked that then you\'ll love this . . .\"

I think Bruce\'s comments were important on a forum that sometimes reads like a shrine to Williams.

Jamieh

02-25-2002, 01:02 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Want to broaden your horizons? Try Hindemeth, Brahms, Dvorak, Rimsky-Korsakov. How about Holst, Vaughn-Williams?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both Hindemeth and Vaughn-Williams are favorites of mine, right along with Aaron Copland. However, I don\'t think their greatness diminishes any greatness that film composers of today may possess. Remember that composers who wrote for opera, operetta, and musicals in the past were just the film scorers of their day. They were just writing for a different medium. At the time it was considered \"popular\" music, and people probably sat around talking about how they didn\'t do it like X and Y did it in the \"old\" days.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If I were to make a list of faves it would something like B. Poledouris, H. Zimmer, D. Elfman, J. Horner, J.N.Howard, B. Brown, J. Goldsmith, A. Silverestri, J.Williams, in pretty much that order. Heck, there are people on this board I like better than Williams. Nobody beats a theme to death like Williams<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to make this a flame at all, but to list Zimmer, Elfman and Horner in your top 4 and then claim the reason you don\'t like Williams is because he is redundant is pretty silly. I won\'t go into the details because this doens\'t need to get all dragged out, but those 3 guys are practically masters of redundancy.

dwdonehoo

02-25-2002, 03:25 PM

Z6 sez: “Ever watched \"Amadeus\"? The brilliant writing and direction allowed audiences to almost \'see\' into the mind of a guy who might be the greatest genius who ever lived.”
True, but please note I said, “Using classical music for film music most often does not work…” Not “always”. Also, it may not be fair to use as an example a movie about a composer. J I guess I would include “Dearly Beloved” to that group.
“On the second point:… Musical \'depth\' requires an audience with which to communicate and infer that depth.”
Well said.
“I think Bruce\'s comments were important on a forum that sometimes reads like a shrine to Williams.”

I value any and all input from Bruce. His statement, “Studying film composers for inspiration in orchestration is like studying Twinkies to become a pastry chef. Film music is 100% derivative and functional.” I completely disagree with it, but I admire his courage to say what he thinks and his assumption something like this can be discussed in a thoughtful and rational way.

Jamieh sez:”Not to make this a flame at all, but to list Zimmer, Elfman and Horner in your top 4 and then claim the reason you don\'t like Williams is because he is redundant is pretty silly.”

No flames at all. Actually I did not claim I didn’t like Williams because he is redundant. I did mention he could really drive home a theme, so to speak, but that is not the reason he is lower down my list. Also, it is inaccurate to say I do not like Williams. I DO like him: he is just lower down in my list, that’s all. I said,” The guy is a great composer, no doubt (hey, no flames!), just not my favorite.” Again, it is a matter of taste and opinion for whatever it is worth.

If you want to evaluate music as a work of engineering, then your could build a great case for the “superiority” of classical music. Someone once said. “Art is long”. Music and art is more subjective and involves emotional impact as well as sheer construction. That emotional impact is the great equalizer here. When Simon Ravn wrote his comments for this discussion, it is obvious he had more than a technical connection to the music of ET. I am sure it moved him as well, and he has an emotional connection to this work. No comments of mine or others, no discussion of what is superior is going to diminish that experience for him, nor should it. That is art, and that is the equalizer of all music, and that is its value. No art is judged solely on it technical merits, which is the way it should be.

jubal

02-25-2002, 11:23 PM

Gee Bruce...I thought we were talking about film music http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif Good point though.

Probably goes a little bit too far to say that Shindler\'s List is derivitive twinkie music...at least Williams would probably disagree http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/wink.gif.

Haydn

02-25-2002, 11:27 PM

For you folks who like the film scores - check out this website: http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/ (\"http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/\")

They have limited editions available of many older film scores including some \'Johnny\' Williams scores. They only make 3,000 copies of these so they disappear quickly. I get a kick out of listening to some of the 60\'s era scores with the hip and groovy source music! How about arab go-go in Johnny Williams\' John Goldfarb, Please Come Home score from 1965.

Simon Ravn

02-25-2002, 11:37 PM

Bruce, true enough that no filmcomposer invented the wheel. But neither did any of the composers you mention http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif Music has evolved through centuries, if not milleniums, and nothing is ever truly original in that sense. However I think your post is a great offense to filmcomposers. I prefer filmmusic (not all filmmusic, but some) over most \'classical\' music. Most classical stuff doesnt affect me the way filmmusic can do. There are a few cases where I find classical as moving, dramatic and affecting - but those are very rare. To me, a lot of \'classical\' music is more suited for playing in the background of a cocktail party than sitting and really LISTEN to it. Yeah maybe I am offending \'Mozart-lovers\' now, but I think there\'s too much snobbery towards classical composers. Just because you\'re dead, doesnt mean your music is better.

dwdonehoo

02-25-2002, 11:44 PM

Bruce and others: Comparing classical composers and film composers (and music) just does not compute. They use the same instruments, but they are two different things. Using classical music for film music most often does not work because it is too intrusive. Film music is made to work with a greater whole while classical music is made to stand on its own. The great composers had a depth of understanding of their music because they were raised from childhood to be nothing but musicians/composers in their genre, but they had no grasp of the sonic depth that music would become. The only similarities to today is that most music is disposable art: used today, forgotten tomorrow. Only the really great stuff is remembered and lives on. Of the music that is remembered, the obscure stuff is obscure for a reason and is only of interest or value to academics or those with specific tastes. Not that obscurity diminishes quality for those that appreciate it.

I think it is wrong to pass judgment on something based on what it is not. Music, like all art and entertainment, should be judged on it merits in it context. There are some great film music composers, but I would be wrong to say some are equal to any classical composer outside the top 10, even on some level I might think that it is in some ways true. It really is not the same genre.

When I made my list of faves, for example, I was talking about film composers. If we were talking classical composers, I would list Wagner, Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Schubert (rising in my charts with a bullet), Weber, Rossini, Handel, Mahler, Mendelssohn, Liszt, Strauss, and so on, about in that order. I was raised on classical music. I listen to classical music (for inspiration) as often as any music. But I prefer to write in the film and game music genre.

Any discussion that one form of art is better than another is pointless. Things have no value in themselves: we humans give things value. Education may refine evaluation, but value is a personal choice. I play to people that value what I do. Your reasons may vary, but it is a personal choice.

-----
Doyle W. Donehoo
Radar Music
http://www.sierra-trails.com/radarmusic.html (\"http://www.sierra-trails.com/radarmusic.html\")

Marc Floessel

02-25-2002, 11:56 PM

Bruce,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Want to broaden your horizons? Try Hindemeth, Brahms, Dvorak, Rimsky-Korsakov. How about Holst, Vaughn-Williams? If you want a theme milked to the point of tears, how about Elgar? Tchaikovsky? Beethoven?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Broaden your horizons? Really, this is mainstream. http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif I think there are a lot of people here who HAVE listened to the classics already and STILL are very interested in buying and listening to new film scores.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Studying film composers for inspiration in orchestration is like studying Twinkies to become a pastry chef. Film music is 100% derivative and functional.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I also oppose this statement. Obviously film music is more than just orchestral music. As soon as you use more recent instruments (synths being the most prominent) you\'re on new ground and have lots of new options available. Besides I am sure Goldsmith and co. would be happy to learn how little you think of the art of cutting down orchestral music to its essence to fit the screen.

Jamieh

02-26-2002, 12:57 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Actually I did not claim I didn’t like Williams because he is redundant. I did mention he could really drive home a theme, so to speak<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry that I misunderstood you there. Yes, there are some soundtracks where Williams really uses a particular theme heavily. But I\'m not sure he does it any more than most other composers--I just think his themes tend to be more recognizable and so you notice it more. Williams is NOT (with some exceptions like Presumed Innocent) a \"backgroundy\" kind of composer--if you hire him you hire him because you expect his music to stand out in the film. That turns some people off, but I tend to really like it.

I loved early efforts by Zimmer and Elfman, but they both seemed to have trouble growing beyond their initial styles. I thought Zimmer\'s Lion King was fantastic, and I really liked Crimson Tide and even the Rock, (though that soundtrack could have been labelled Crimson Tide II. :> ) Elfman did a bang up job with the original Batman, and showed some range with Beetlejuice, but everything else he writes seems to sound like one of those two efforts. Horner is a master at capturing the perfect mood on the screen, I just wish he didn\'t plagerize himself so much. Actually I think Silversti is vastly underrated as a composer. He might be my 3rd favorite after Williams and Goldsmith. Randy Edelman is another good one to list.

[This message has been edited by Jamieh (edited 02-26-2002).]

PatS

02-26-2002, 12:00 PM

Attention Costco shoppers: John Williams and Yo Yo Ma will now sign their CDs in Aisle 7.

No joke! Except this happened on Saturday (and I doubt they were in Aisle 7). I don\'t know whether to laugh or cry (OK, I laughed). Williams\' face in the LA Times photo did hint at the possibility he was about to fire his agent--\"Someone get me the hell out of here!\"

To quote Williams on his first-time visit to Costco: \"This experience . . . is all new to me. I\'ve heard of this institution, but I\'ve never been anywhere near it. Amazing to see what\'s done here.\"

***

Attention Kmart shoppers: Thomas Newman is now in the Gardening section handing out red roses.

[This message has been edited by PatS (edited 02-26-2002).]

Thomas_J

02-26-2002, 12:40 PM

Hahah funny one PatS! http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif

Haydn: I keep hearing the same Horner stuff over and over again. I have about 20 horner scores, and believe you me, his old motifs and themes keep reappearing in his newer scores as well. I don\'t think there\'s anything wrong with this, afterall it could be much worse. He could be ripping off other composers. I don\'t know if he rips of himself on a conscious level or not, (I\'d very much like to know!) but it really doesn\'t matter much to me. I think he\'s a fabulous composer who has given me goosebumps a zillion times.
Mask Of Zorro springs to mind as a great example of Horner\'s skills as an orchestrator (yes I\'m aware that he does not do much orchestration work, but still he\'s the one with the new ideas.) and a composer with many inventive and creative uses of the orchestra.
In my opinion he is an incredible composer.

As are perhaps a dozen other hollywood composers. JNH, Williams, Silvestri, Goldsmith, Elfman, Debney, Zimmer, David Newman, Thomas Newman, Marc Shaiman, John Powell & HGW, Jeremy Soule, Trevor Jones, Don Davis, Gavin Greenaway, Chris Beck, Marco Beltrami, Robert Kral, Joseph LoDuca etc.

These are all world class composers and I really think some of you would be pissing some of these incredible composers off with your statements regarding Classical vs. Film Music.

Composers like these all devote their entire life and career to the music for films. They write with the same heartfelt emotion that \"classical purists\" would. Their talents are consumed by the film industry, which so happens to be a great media for distribution of their music.
I think the fact that many of these composers write under a painstakingly short deadline with \"music-to-visuals\" limitations, makes the work that these people do even more admirable.

So people, please pay a little more respect to the composers of film music, for they may belong to a tasteless business industry, but they write music from their hearts nevertheless.

Thomas

[This message has been edited by Thomas_J (edited 02-26-2002).]

02-26-2002, 12:52 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by PatS:
dwdonehoo:

Thanks for your well-reasoned responses. I\'ve enjoyed reading them. . . Anyway, I think this is something that you and I may want to take off topic (JW and ET, if I recall correctly). My e-mail is pshove@ghs.com.

Pat

[This message has been edited by PatS (edited 02-26-2002).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey guys, by all means go off topic if you like, but personally, I\'d like to see your exchanges here. I\'m enjoying this topic. I know it kind of warped into something different from Simon\'s original declaration on his favorite music, but I\'m interested that people actually differentiate \'classical\' from other music.

I think this is sad and the \'classical world\' (or \'serious music\' world) is probably most to blame for this

I\'m a musical snob: I know that one piece of music can\'t have an absolute intrinsic value over another, but I can\'t figure why I don\'t feel that.

I\'d say to Simon though, man you really are missing a world of wonder if you relegate \'classical\' to \'background music\'. Those guys are not regarded as \'great\' because they\'re dead; really.

I mentioned Britten in fact, because when I first heard his music I found it depressing; the words \"music to slit your wrists by\" came to mind. But after playing his music and listening more and more, I started to glimpse where Britten was coming from (now, for some unknown reason, his music reminds me of Mozart - it sounds like the opposite of Mozart on the face of it, but somewhere both composers touch the same part of me (getting a bit dirty now).

I admit that I agreed with every word Bruce wrote (especially the \'twinkie\' statement - Bruce is a wonderful writer and he nailed it).

People get too involved with identifying their musical tastes with their own self-worth and then take offence. I like Britten, but I don\'t give a hoot if anyone else does.

We spend too much time (I believe) rattling on about \'art\' being subjective. I don\'t believe that\'s entirely true. I have no idea how to explain this and I cannot justify it (nor could I be arsed to try to). But we\'ve all \'heard\' it: maybe in an improvisation. maybe in a composition. The Spanish even have a word for it (duende, I think; Spanish members can correct me).

Much as I hate the idea of a musical hierarchy with the \'greats\' at the top (i.e. Bach, Mozart, Ellington, Bob Marley, The Beatles, Ella Fitzgerald, Paco de Lucia, Britten - and many others. .) it does exist(and I mean in a concrete way - outside of opinion, crazy as that has to be). And if you want to learn to compose like Williams then using his teachers seems rational.

dwdonehoo

02-26-2002, 01:07 PM

Thanks PatS; a good response. I will make a few comments and bail, unless someone wants to start a new thread, to be fair to Simon.

I did say, \"Using classical music for film music most often does not work because it is too intrusive. Film music is made to work with a greater whole while classical music is made to stand on its own.” First, note is said “most often”, not always. I think it is funny people picked up on that as a knock, which was not my intention. I stand by this because while some film music does stand on its own, usually it is made to work with what is on the screen and the action on the screen dictates the flow of the music. There is a lot of movie music out there I call background slock, but there are, in my opinion, many moments of brilliance and moving art. And yes, again, there is also movie music made to stand on its own (credits, opening titles) which are very good. Opera is similar to film music in that the orchestra supports the action and singers, and if you just have the orchestra, well… But mostly classical music was “most often” commissioned as entertainment to stand on it own merits. Which in most cases makes it unsuitable for movie music: it is too intrusive (powerful?) and non-supportive for film. It may be great music, but often not a great fit. This all speaks to things in general: there are always exceptions.

I said: \"Only the really great stuff is remembered and lives on. Of the music that is remembered, the obscure stuff is obscure for a reason and is only of interest or value to academics or those with specific tastes.\"

PatS sez: \"First off, hooey! …Hooey on so many levels, that I don\'t know where to begin.\"

OK! I get your what you mean! http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/wink.gif Yes, my comments may have been a reaction to what was said. Let me also tack on “Not that obscurity diminishes quality for those that appreciate it.” Mainly this is aimed at what makes great art, not just what is technically brilliant, which a lot of obscure things are. Great art USUALLY is technically brilliant and always emotionally moving. There are always exceptions: some great art is “just” emotionally moving, which negates, in my opinion, any argument that just because something may have little or no technical merit, it is not great art. Which is why Soooome people cannot dismiss film music as, say, a twinkie, just because it may not measure up technically, in their opinion. Regardless of how much I may value their opinion otherwise. The great masters, especially Mozart, were great, in my opinion, because they appealed to everyone, and not just the musically educated. Their great art appealed to the soul as well as the brain. See what I mean? Art is long.

PatS sez: “None of this is to say that one venue … or one type of composer is better than the other. But it does lend support to the idea that if you want to improve your orchestration chops, study the music of \"concert\" composers.” And “So why not study the orchestral music of those who are really, really good at orchestration (cf. Bruce\'s list for starters)? Why limit yourself to film scores?”

Absolutely correct! I would say this is a necessity.

Pat, you can find my web site and email if you wish to continue this offline. Sorry to all for the verbosity.

www.sierra-trails.com (\"http://www.sierra-trails.com\")

[This message has been edited by dwdonehoo (edited 02-26-2002).]

PatS

02-26-2002, 01:52 PM

OK, I\'ll stick around.

I agree with you, Z6, that we all have an intuition that some works are greater than others (that much always came up in the discussions to which I alluded). However, many have tried to articulate in precise technical terms why this is so and have failed miserably.

When I studied music perception and cognition, I came across a great quote regarding perception in general; to paraphrase: \"Perception is both subjective and objective, and yet it is neither.\" I believe the same is true of \"greatness.\" Mind you, I don\'t dismiss the notion of greatness; I just don\'t think we are capable of describing or explaining it objectively. Greatness is a fluid, ephemeral concept, and yet it seems quite stable and palpable to us. We apprehend it both subjectively and objectively, and in neither manner. (I still don\'t know what that means, but it sounds fashionable to these post-modernist ears.)

Thomas_J:

A part of me cares that I might offend those people you listed, and another part could care less. They\'re big kids and have heard much more offensive comments about their line of work, for which, BTW, I have the highest regard. They are remarkable musicians, making wonderful music under the stress of insanely short deadlines. I know I couldn\'t cut it. But that doesn\'t deny me the right to urge others here to consider studying non-film music. Maybe I\'m just dense, but I don\'t see how doing that (or stating my preference for Ravel, Respighi and Stravinsky over John Williams) is disrespectful of film composers.

Pat

[This message has been edited by PatS (edited 03-02-2002).]

PatS

02-26-2002, 02:38 PM

It just occurred to me that, in some cases, the longevity of \"great\" art is fortuitous: e.g., Mendelssohn\'s discovery of J.S. Bach\'s \"St. Matthew\'s Passion\" in a fish-monger\'s store. Remember, J.S. was an old-fogey in his day and largely unrecognized for many years after his death. Not much universal approbation going on back then.

Times change, music changes, taste changes (oh, so profound, Pat--take the day off, ya big doofus). I think it\'s a myth that great art transcends time. Great art goes along for the ride until someone tells it to get out. I\'m certain audiences 500 years from now will not recognize the name of John Williams, just as many of you have never heard of Dufay, who was quite awesome in his day, according to most accounts.

BTW, have any of you heard this one? \"The masses are asses.\" It\'s a little something one of my former colleages, an ethnomusicologist, shared with us during a forum on \"great music.\" It was a viewpoint held by many classical Indian musicians. So you see, elitism, to which the concept of greatness is often tied, is ubiquitous. But so is the misquided idea that what is widely popular among audiences for many years must be great. It\'s not a popularity contest. (If it is, no one has yet offered a convincing argument in its favor.)

Pat

Thomas_J

02-26-2002, 02:49 PM

Hey PatS that post had nothing to do with your post! I think your posts are great and interesting to read! (mainly because we share the same interest but sometimes a different taste in music) which makes for interesting discussions.

The post was mainly directed towards people who seperate between \"serious music\" and film music. I really think such people should pay more attention to what is actually going on in some scores by the great masters. Sure they have borrowed orchestration tricks almost exclusively from great composers of the past, but they have also invented many new and interesting techniques that you really didn\'t hear in the post-film music days.

Inevitable as it is, Film Music appeals to a great deal of the new generation of \"to-become\" musicians. I do not think this is because film music is better (or worse) (god forgive me for using such words about music) than classical music, but because they, unlike us, are growing up in a shallow world where the only bit of orchestral music they\'ll ever hear is the stuff in movies and tv-commercials. Chances are they aren\'t even hearing a real orchestra, coz with our 100% convincing samples, there won\'t be a need for them.

Anyway this has been discussed already. It\'s still a scary thought. Hopefully there\'ll always be a majority of musicians insisting that the orchestras are funded properly to survive the heavy stampede of the electronic age (and I mean that quite literally http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif ).

Thomas

[This message has been edited by Thomas_J (edited 02-26-2002).]

PatS

02-26-2002, 03:30 PM

Thomas_J:

OK, I misread you. I used the word \"serious\" in one of my posts, but it was a lame attempt at trying to break down that unfortunate stereotype. \"Veni, Creator Spiritus\" is serious music; the \"Maple Leaf Rag\" is serious music; Newman\'s score to \"American Beauty\" is serious music; \"Elmo\'s World\" is serious music (to my boys--OK, I like singing it, too); Britney Spear\'s \"Oops! ...I did it again\" is . . . CRAP!!! Had you going, didn\'t I?

Pat

Jamieh

02-26-2002, 03:43 PM

Composers have ALWAYS written music for mediums that made them money. In the past, this was done by writing stuff for royalty as the court composer, or by writing operas or musicals.

Today\'s composer is not doing anything differently than the composer of yesterday. He/she is writing for the medium that gets them paid, which is Film/TV. It just happens that in the medium of yesterday (opera/musical) the music is more prominently featured than movie/tv music is.

It is always a danger (in everything) to glorify the past and mock the present. This is done universally--in sports (\"No one will ever be as good as player X\"), in society (\"Kids these days are terrible compared to when I was growing up\"), in popular culture (\"They just don\'t make \'em like they used to\"), in EVERYTHING. It is human nature to romanticize the past and criticize the preset. Why do you think it is that so many of the so-called \"great\" composers weren\'t fully recognized until long after they were dead?

The Film Music of today is not intended to replace the classical music of old. It is compositional art, available at a level never seen before in human history. Never before has so much music been written and immediately available for people to listen to. The sheer quantity of it guarantees that while some of it will be good, there will be a lot of average and below average efforts as well. But to dismiss it as not being able to hold a candle to classical works of old is IMO a serious mistake. We should instead be grateful that such a medium is available for so much original material to be created and heard by people. Without film music, new orchestral compositions would be very very scarce.

I wish I could live to be 200, so I could be a part of the discussion in 2200 where everyone is arguing that the \"music of the day\" just can\'t compare with some of the great composers of the late 20th century. http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Jamieh (edited 02-26-2002).]

Haydn

02-26-2002, 03:51 PM

Thomas_J,

Actually the story of James Horner above could happen with most of the great composers. It\'s amazing how many times Bach stole from Bach, Beethoven from Beethoven, Mozart from Mozart, etc. I\'m about 90% accurate guessing who the composer is for pieces I haven\'t heard before. Each has their distinctive style which includes their melodies, chords, counterpoint, orchestration, etc. This holds true of both classical and film music composers. Many of the great classical composers did their work for hire (food, drink, a place to stay) - usually for some king or other persons of royalty. Maybe this is where the word royalty came from for payment of artistic works. I don\'t see much difference in current film music composers - it\'s now companies paying for their works.

I was scanning over the Complete Works list at the John Williams Central site - http://jwfan.net/completeworks/ (\"http://jwfan.net/completeworks/\") - and noticed how many concert works he has written. Obviously he doesn\'t want to be just remembered as a film composer.

02-26-2002, 04:43 PM

Hi Jamieh.

\"But to dismiss it as not being able to hold a candle to classical works of old is IMO a serious mistake. \"

I don\'t think anybody has dismissed anything. It\'s not a matter of classical verus film. There are no sides.

\"We should instead be grateful that such a medium is available for so much original material to be created and heard by people. Without film music, new orchestral compositions would be very very scarce.\"

Yes. But surely we can be grateful without that being the only thing we are. I think even with film, new orchestral compostions are scarce.

I\'m not entirely sure I agree with Thomas about \'funding\' orchestras; I think that public funding (charitable funding is fine if people want to do that) is partly what has gotten the \'classical music world\' into the mess it\'s in now (in the UK, often a worthy committee decides who gets the cash, so the world ends up with a lot of truly crappy music) and I do believe that film is a wonderful outlet for composers, and it probably is where many of our most gifted composers will at least take aim.

I don\'t even think of \'classical\' music as something of the past. I haven\'t listend to all of Bach or Mozart, so therefore if I buy something new, it\'s like it was just written (at least to me).

Basically, it\'s not fair to Williams to compare him with the best that humanity has managed to achieve, but that doesn\'t mean people can\'t \'point out\' that there is a lot of stuff out there that is completely brand new to most of us, regardless of the time in which it was written.

I don\'t think most film composers will be remembered much in 200 years outside of the films in which their music resides (which is absolutely fine - I only want to be watching a movie when I listen to Williams; that is his art; that is where he excels). But to produce his art, he \'derives\' the raw material very often from elsewhere. I certainly do not think he plagiarizes, I think he is a master of pastiche. He paints beautiful pastiches of other works onto films. I don\'t know if he always does this, but I have ears (and a CD collection).

It\'s almost as if you\'re saying that time itself will somehow embue today\'s film music with some magic that will elevate it to where you now think \'classical\' music (whatever that is) is elevated.

The late twentieth century produced fantastic music - incredibly original work; but from where I sit, it was all in Pop, blues, jazz, rock etc. I simply don\'t see the originality, or techniques people keep citing.

That isn\'t to say I don\'t absolutely love some film music, but I can\'t get into \'cues\' in the same way that a fledgeling film composer might. And while I think some film music is sublime, most of it is like listening to a composer\'s notebook; beautiful half-finished melodies, fanfares cut short etc.

I\'m not exactly sure what it is that people think they\'re \'defending\' here when it comes to music. It\'s as if somehow Bruce came along and spoiled the party. I\'m surpised that more poeple didn\'t chime in with \"Silvestri? Williams?\" Why are we talking about these guys as if they produced something that exists outside of the film for which it was written. It does of, course, but it is at least hobbled in the same way that a character in a movie when transferred elsewhere often doesn\'t quite work (outside of a \'trekkie-level fan base).

And let\'s not forget the often extremely powerful psychological boost the music can get from the film. We\'re always talking about how film is improved with music, but isn\'t the music often \'improved\' by the film?

PatS

02-26-2002, 06:40 PM

Jamieh:

Your points are well-taken but perhaps moot. I don\'t think any of us are pitting old against new, film music against concert music, etc. Nor do I think we\'re complaining about composers, of any stripe, making money from their art (I can\'t find the antecedent to your first paragraph, so I might be misreading you). I am, however, perplexed that you keep referring to opera and musicals as the media of yesterday. These genres are still very much alive and well, as are the symphony, concerto, ballet, string quartet, woodwind quintet, piano trio, etc. In fact, a former colleague is finishing his opera, which should premiere in Russia this year. And one of the software engineers who used to work here flew out to New York City to attend a performance of Harbison\'s The Great Gatsby, which premiered at the Met just a little over two years ago.

Haydn:

I wouldn\'t compare the stylistic tendencies of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven with the \"self-quotation\" found in some of Horner\'s music. Nor would I call it stealing. Stylistically consistent, yes; stealing, no. However, if you want an example of blatant \"theft,\" check out Handel\'s Susanna; we\'re talking complete arias and recitatives lifted out of one oratorio and dropped into another. At least Handel didn\'t use entire passages of music from a Schumann symphony and then fail to acknowledge the source of those passages (and, anyway, time travel wasn\'t big in those days, right?). http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/wink.gif

Z6:

I\'m surprised you didn\'t take me to task for my \"myth\" comment. http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/wink.gif I fully agree with you regarding the \"contemporaneousness\" of older musical works (I\'m \"borrowing\" that awkward term from Kierkegaard; don\'t ask me to say it). When I listen to Copland\'s Music for the Theatre or Josquin\'s Ave Maria, I hear it \"now\" and as if it were recently composed, not as a museum piece. Granted, for some the Ave Maria will sound dated, as any work of the past might. But the music that I love and re-encounter is still very much a contemporary event for me whenever and wherever I hear it. In this sense, the music is timeless (as in \"not stuck in the past,\" instead of the more sentimental notion that \"it will live forever in the hearts and minds of listeners . . . past, present, and future\").

Pat

[This message has been edited by PatS (edited 02-26-2002).]

Jamieh

02-26-2002, 09:18 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>which is absolutely fine - I only want to be watching a movie when I listen to Williams; that is his art; that is where he excels<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I guess that is your loss then. Williams music (and many others for that matter) stands on its own just fine without the film. In fact, with some bad films, the music is actually more enjoyable WITHOUT the film (see Far & Away for an example). What about a recording for a musical? Would you not want to listen to that outside of the performance? Because the actors and the scenes are a part of the musical too.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Why are we talking about these guys as if they produced something that exists outside of the film for which it was written. It does of, course, but it is at least hobbled in the same way that a character in a movie when transferred elsewhere often doesn\'t quite work <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don\'t think I could possibly disagree more with your statement. The music is only \"hobbled\" if you choose to see it that way. I don\'t see good film music as being \"hobbled\" at all. Just because a film composer is writing music to a film created by someone else rather than writing to imaginary events in his mind (as many classical composers have stated they do) doesn\'t make the music any less valid or \"good\".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I am, however, perplexed that you keep referring to opera and musicals as the media of yesterday. These genres are still very much alive and well, as are the symphony, concerto, ballet, string quartet, woodwind quintet, piano trio, etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, you are right that these mediums still exist. However most, if not all, of them have been eclipsed in popularity by films. \"Back in the day\" they were the primary source of entertainment. Today, I don\'t think anyone can argue that movies are more popular than opera or orchestra concerts. I suppose in New York & London, musicals hang on to their popularity, but I don\'t think they are currently the primary means of public entertainment as they once were.

[This message has been edited by Jamieh (edited 02-26-2002).]

RobertKooijman

02-26-2002, 10:38 PM

\"I think that public funding (charitable funding is fine if people want to do that) is partly what has gotten the \'classical music world\' into the mess it\'s in now (in the UK, often a worthy committee decides who gets the cash, so the world ends up with a lot of truly crappy music)\"

Completely agree!

Funding basically means subsidising.
Subsidies almost universally kill initiative and creativity. This in turn leads to poor quality, irrespective of what art we\'re talking about. Just visit a Dutch galery with \'works\' from it\'s many subsidised \'artists\' and you\'ll see countless examples. It would be natieve to believe that this is any different in music.

Cheers, Robert

PatS

02-26-2002, 11:20 PM

dwdonehoo:

Thanks for your well-reasoned responses. I\'ve enjoyed reading them, even if I don\'t agree with you in toto. For example, you write:

\"Using classical music for film music most often does not work because it is too intrusive. Film music is made to work with a greater whole while classical music is made to stand on its own.\"

I suspect many of us could cite numerous examples of \"using classical music for film music,\" but I don\'t believe that\'s why Bruce was encouraging folks here to study non-film music. Many of the compositional techniques of the Western classical tradition (not just the Classical period) rear their glorious heads throughout film music: phrase structure, small forms, counterpoint, harmony, orchestration, and so on (to say nothing of the influences of non-Western musical traditions). In other words, film composers employ a variety of \"classical\" techniques that they absorbed as music students (Elfman and a few others notwithstanding) and/or from countless listenings. In effect, they are writing \"classical music for film music.\" I think this, in part, is what Bruce means when he says film music is derivative. I\'m not sure it\'s 100% derivative (certainly not from the classical tradition), because I haven\'t listened to 100% of the film-music literature. But based on what I\'ve heard thus far, I can trace the majority of techniques employed by film composers to those used by concert composers, including the use of electronic instruments (e.g., Messaien and the Ondes Martenot, Babbitt and his army of computers). I hear a lot of \"new\" sounds in film music, but not a lot of new techniques.

***

Everyone:

None of this is to say that one venue (theater vs. the concert/recital hall) or one type of composer is better than the other. But it does lend support to the idea that if you want to improve your orchestration chops, study the music of \"concert\" composers. I still find a Ravel, Respighi or Stravinsky score, among many others, much more interesting and helpful than a John Williams film score. That\'s my preference; I\'m not saying that it\'s the \"ideal\" preference. Of course, if you find something appealing in John Williams music, by all means study his music (listen and look, not just listen). But do yourself a huge favor: Look and listen beyond film music, and stop relegating \"classical music\" to the background of a cocktail party (I\'m talking to Simon now). Above all, be curious!

***

Now to dwdonehoo\'s most problematic statement: \"Only the really great stuff is remembered and lives on. Of the music that is remembered, the obscure stuff is obscure for a reason and is only of interest or value to academics or those with specific tastes.\"

First off, hooey! (Gee, well said, Pat, ya bozo.) Hooey on so many levels, that I don\'t know where to begin. My goodness, as an undergraduate and graduate student, I must have endured several dozen discussions about \"greatness\" and \"canons\" (not the contrapuntal technique), a few of which (pre-)echoed your bold statement (perhaps meant as a backhand volley to Bruce\'s \"Twinkies\" comment). Although the debate is far from over, I have, for the moment, embraced the notion that \"greatness\" and \"obscurity\" have more to do with business-driven politics, power and money (three sides of the same weird-a** coin) than with the compositional merits of the works themselves (as if music can stand independently of an audience and culture). Talk about an intellectual Pandora\'s box! Anyway, I think this is something that you and I may want to take off topic (JW and ET, if I recall correctly). My e-mail is pshove@ghs.com.

Pat

[This message has been edited by PatS (edited 02-26-2002).]

PatS

02-26-2002, 11:33 PM

Jamieh writes: \"Today, I don\'t think anyone can argue that movies are more popular than opera or orchestra concerts. I suppose in New York & London, musicals hang on to their popularity, but I don\'t think they are currently the primary means of public entertainment as they once were.\"

Another interesting point, Jamie, and now I think I see where you\'re heading. (BTW, if I\'m following you correctly, I think you meant to say \"less\" instead of \"more\" in the first sentence that I quote.)

I\'m not convinced that the popularity of movies is due in significant part to film music (I don\'t think you\'re implying this); nor am I convinced that attending movies supplants or fulfills the desire to listen to traditional expressions of music (you seem to be implying this). I\'m certain movie attendance is much higher than concert attendance. But I\'ll wager that narrative, actor appeal, or --not the music--is among the main reasons for the bigger draw. Looking at the flip side, I would submit that more people attend operas, musicals, chamber music recitals, and the like than concerts of film music (I know, that\'s not what you\'re talking about). I could probably make a strong case that the sale of classical music CDs is much higher than those of film-score soundtracks, though I could be wrong since I don\'t have those numbers. Again, it\'s just a guess. Still, my overall sense is that more people *intentionally* listen to classical music than film music, despite the popularity of movies. (Please don\'t read the previous statement as a value judgement.)

BTW, as I was showing my 20-something assistant the photo of Yo Yo Ma and John Williams signing CDs at Costco, he asked me who John Williams was (he heard of Yo Yo Ma). That\'s odd! After all, he\'s watched Star Wars (several times), E.T., Indiana Jones, and many other flicks featuring Williams\' delightful music. I\'m not sure if his response is typical; my sense is that John Williams is practically a household name, at least in Western cultures. Likewise for Andrew Lloyd Weber. Both are probably among the richest composers alive. Not that popularity and wealth have much to do with \"lasting greatness\" (whatever that means).

***

Finally, and for everyone\'s amusement, the title of the LA Times\'s article is \"The Classics at Costco.\" Maybe that was a reference to Yo Yo Ma and to Williams\' Cello Concerto, but I found it quite funny in light of our present discussion.

Pat

P.S. Anyone up for a discussion of connoisseurship? Since this forum is about sample libraries, perhaps someone could recommend a more appropriate venue. (Yes, Simon, I do like the E.T. score, and I appreciate your willingness to share the joy it brings you.)

[This message has been edited by PatS (edited 02-28-2002).]

Haydn

02-26-2002, 11:33 PM

Was talking to one of my fellow co-workers a couple weeks ago regarding film scores. He\'s a non-musician but appreciates good music. He was complaining how a theme in a newer movie that is currently out (can\'t remember the name of the movie) was stolen from another movie. He was wondering how someone can use music like this note for note from another movie. We decided to do a search on the composers of these 2 films - it was the same composer, James Horner!!

Jamieh

02-27-2002, 12:43 AM

Oops, yes Pat, I meant to say \"Today, I don\'t think anyone can argue that movies AREN\'T more popular than opera or orchestra concerts.\"

My point about films vs operas or concerts is that the people going to see films today are the SAME people that went to see operas or orchestra concerts in the past. In the past, THEY were the mainstream entertainment and people went to see them because that was the big thing to do. Now I would say that the mainstream entertainment is film, and the people that attend opera or orchestra concerts are mostly big supporters of those genres. You are right that the music is not the big draw in a movie--however a film composer has his music heard by far more people than a composer in another medium, whether or not it is the primary point of the event.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
I could probably make a strong case that the sale of classical music CDs is much higher than those of film-score soundtracks, though I could be wrong since I don\'t have those numbers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The #1 selling orchestral recording of all time is the Star Wars soundtrack. Beyond that, I don\'t have any data.

[This message has been edited by Jamieh (edited 02-27-2002).]

Simon Ravn

02-27-2002, 03:13 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Z6:

I\'m not exactly sure what it is that people think they\'re \'defending\' here when it comes to music. It\'s as if somehow Bruce came along and spoiled the party. I\'m surpised that more poeple didn\'t chime in with \"Silvestri? Williams?\" Why are we talking about these guys as if they produced something that exists outside of the film for which it was written. It does of, course, but it is at least hobbled in the same way that a character in a movie when transferred elsewhere often doesn\'t quite work (outside of a \'trekkie-level fan base).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pretty bad comparison, comparing music to a character, I\'d say....

Why we are talking about Williams, Silvestri etc. OUTSIDE of the films (here) is EXACTLY because it works well for us without the film. Sometimes it enhances the music that you have seen the film - and that is good, because why else would you make music for films if it was not to contribute in any way to the emotional, intellectual or whatever impact - but certainly much filmmusic works on its own, and that is why I listen to it. If I didn\'t think it worked outside the movie, I would stick to the movie. There are certain cues on soundtrack albums I almost always skip, because they\'re too closely connected to the movie to be make a good listening experience I think though.

But Z6, maybe the music doesn\'t work for you - but it sure works for a lot of other people, so let us have the joy. I have never been as affected by any classical work as the best filmmusic works.

02-27-2002, 08:25 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jamieh:

The #1 selling orchestral recording of all time is the Star Wars soundtrack. Beyond that, I don\'t have any data.

[This message has been edited by Jamieh (edited 02-27-2002).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but there are hundreds of say, Beethoven\'s Fifth recordings; wouldn\'t you have to add them all up?

As to your query about musicals. You got me there. I cringe at musicals, I can\'t suspend disbelief when someone opens his gob and starts to sing in the middle of a conversation. But Rogers and Hart are among my favorite songwriters, I listen to their songs but have no idea which musicals they came from.

I was thinking Williams, Goldsmith etc., in this discussion: modern orchestral composers writing for film, if we expand that then we get to the American Graffiti soundtrack or Ry Cooder\'s Paris Texas or Southern Comfort. I wouldn\'t even consider those as \'film music\'. Apocalypse Now had a great soundtrack but I can\'t even remember whether it had a score or not.

Just keep musicals and massed pipe bands away from me!

02-27-2002, 08:39 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Simon Ravn:

But Z6, maybe the music doesn\'t work for you - but it sure works for a lot of other people, so let us have the joy. I have never been as affected by any classical work as the best filmmusic works.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had no idea that my posts could interfere with someone\'s joy. (And who are \'us\'?). Are you asking me to stop posting?

I don\'t remember saying that film music doesn\'t \'work\' for me. I think you\'re extracting what you want to read from my posts.

Here again. I can\'t for the life of me see why you would differentiate between what you perceive as \'classical\' and film music, and then write of \'classical\' as if it exists inside a little box.

One of my all time favorites is Morriconne\'s Cinema Paradiso. I love the tunes in that movie. I listen to \'bits\' of it a lot. It affects me. I\'m not a stone, I like good music. And when I listen to it; I\'m not thinking \"Hell, this is nice - but not as nice as Mozart.\" This isn\'t about putting film music down.

Simon Ravn

02-27-2002, 10:46 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Z6:
I had no idea that my posts could interfere with someone\'s joy. (And who are \'us\'?). Are you asking me to stop posting?

Here again. I can\'t for the life of me see why you would differentiate between what you perceive as \'classical\' and film music, and then write of \'classical\' as if it exists inside a little box.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can clearly differentiate the two because 99% of \'classical\' music I have heard, has been very different from the filmmusic I like, both in orchestration and composition.

Beckers

02-27-2002, 12:10 PM

So is the point that\'s being made that film music is not as important an art form as no-film classical music, and film composers do not deserve quite as much credit as the great classical composers?

Important artform? My favourite record of all time (Marvin Gaye\'s Troubleman, 1972) is film music. Anecdotal maybe. But how important was (is) Shaft.

Film composers write music with one hand tied behind their back. Apart from the main theme, the music is dictated by the required mood/atmosphere, suspence or the need to punctate movement. The composer therefore finds it harder to make use of primary inspiration. For them to write music that is listed as favourite by serious music listeners is a remarkable achievement.

I often watch movies on TV and am thorouhgly entertained, stroked, moved by the music alone. I was knocked flat by the opening theme of \"Heaven and Earth\" the other day.

Concert composers can freely indulge and pour out organic inspiration. The greatest work ever written is Bach\'s Mass in Bminor (don\'t shoot-I\'vegotawifeandthreekids). This was written, bit by bit, out of pure self indulgence, uncommisioned, not intended for performance.

My point? I admire the hell out of film composers. The best of them produce high art despite the restrictions imposed on them. They deserve status. We\'ll see whether Simon is still listening to ET in 30yrs time. I still listen to 30yr old John Barry scores.

(Jeez -I\'ve got 4 kids. How could I miscount)

[This message has been edited by Beckers (edited 02-27-2002).]

Simon Ravn

02-27-2002, 12:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Z6:
But I thought this thread started because you like Williams?

Do you mean you\'ve never heard Brahms or Tchaikovsky? And if you have, you haven\'t heard the many wonderful pastiches that Williams has put together? (Don\'t ask me to list them because all of his music sounds like pastiche to me - that doesn\'t necessarily lessen the enjoyment, of course.)

If you haven\'t heard these guys, have a look at the list that Bruce kindly took the time to post here. It\'s hard to believe you wouldn\'t find things to enjoy. (and it\'s all brand new!) Or are you a wee bit scared of what you might find?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK I am out of this thread.... this is not worthy of an answer.

PatS

02-27-2002, 01:27 PM

Beckers writes: \"So is the point that\'s being made that film music is not as important an art form as no-film classical music, and film composers do not deserve quite as much credit as the great classical composers?\"

Pat screams: \"Aaaarrrggghhh!\" Please don\'t take this personally, Beckers, but, no, that isn\'t even close to the point.

Look, if some of you guys really don\'t believe you\'ll learn anything from or develop an affinity for concert or chamber music that has nothing to do with films, then I\'ll move on. I have listened to thousands of works spanning at least a thousand years, but I tell you, I want more. Film music, concert music, Aboriginal music . . . not most musicals, though (however, I really like \"West Side Story\" and am a sucker for such corny movie musicals as \"Singin\' in the Rain\"). I am having a difficult time believing some of you aren\'t as curious, if not more, about what\'s out there. Also, I just don\'t know what to say to someone as talented as Simon who nonetheless regards classical music as little more than cocktail-party Muzak and fails to hear or refuses to acknowledge the similarities between concert music and film music (the latter does make sense in light of the former, or vice versa). Maybe all I can say is \"Good luck!\" (Sorry, Simon! My admiration for you is sky high, but you lost me on that one.)

Incidentally, the composers at UCSB held a New Music Festival several years ago featuring the film and concert music of many remarkable film composers: David Raksin (please tell me you heard of Laura), Leonard Rosenman, Laurence Rosenthal, Elmer Bernstein, Cliff Eidelman, Stephen Endelman, and several others whose names elude me at the moment. All of these guys made very little distinction between their film music and concert pieces, other than the basic mechanics of writing for film and large-scale form.

BTW, we attended a performance of John Williams\' Flute Concerto (1969), which is an excellent example of absolutely wretched post-tonal writing. We all left the hall shaking our heads, and we\'re the ones who live and breath post-tonal music!

Pat

[This message has been edited by PatS (edited 03-05-2002).]

02-27-2002, 01:32 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Simon Ravn:
OK I am out of this thread.... this is not worthy of an answer.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry if I caused offence. I didn\'t mean to. And I\'m puzzled as to how that could be - unless you take offence by proxy. In my life, the friends I have often manage to have heated conversations about such ridiculous subjects as musical taste and personal preferences thereof without anyone taking offence on behalf of their respective heroes. It takes up too much parenthesis to keep blabbing on about how much I enjoy the music I\'m supposedly so down on.

I\'d better get out of here as well I suppose. This is obviously not the place to discuss musical tastes and exchange ideas (although I very much enjoyed Pat\'s posts - God, I wish I\'d had Pat and Bruce on the staff when I was studying music).

Beckers: No, I\'m not trying to prove any point at all. I just thought this was a discussion. Remember also that Bach was at least as prolific as any film guy. I doubt anyone who writes music gets a lot of time for indulgence; there are always deadlines looming somewhere in some form.

I\'m off to play some background music!

Hold on! Maybe I am trying to point something out after all? Get yer bloody ears around some music for goodness sake Simon!

And I QUOTE!
\"This just occured to me this evening when I listened to the E.T. score again. This can not be outdone I think. . . The E.T. score is so perfect. Track 1.. need I say more? Noone have ever composed anything as great as this since.\"

Can I have a toke of whatever it was you were smoking when you wrote that?

(And the thread was called \"Williams (or anyone else) will never outdo E.T\"))

Yes. That really is what you said. I\'m off to listen to the great Donnie Osmond singing \"Puppy Love\". No one will ever outdo that, not even Donnie himself.

\"Not worthy!\" \"Not worthy?\" And here was I thinking I was having a conversation when the whole time all I was doing was offending you.

I take everything back. You are quite correct. \'Classical\' music is no more than background music, and in film it is often intrusive. Please do not listen to anything on Bruce\'s list. Please keep \'differentiating\' and leave all that crappy \'classical\' music to the rest of us (See? I can say \'us\' as well!).

And your original question: \"I had to get it out and hope to find someone who agrees \".

Good luck with that.

KingIdiot

02-27-2002, 03:50 PM

I like candy http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif It tastes good http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif

------------------
Really...I am an Idiot

PatS

02-27-2002, 03:59 PM

Yeah, the King is back! And I like chocolate-covered raisins. Candy and fruit neatly wrapped in a tiny morsel. Great for movie watching! Less so at concerts. http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/wink.gif

Jamieh

02-27-2002, 04:07 PM

Simon Ravn

02-27-2002, 06:42 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by PatS:
Look, if some of you guys really don\'t believe you\'ll learn anything from or develop an affinity for concert or chamber music that has nothing to do with films, then I\'ll move on. I have listened to thousands of works spanning at least a thousand years, but I tell you, I want more. Film music, concert music, Aboriginal music . . . not musicals, though (Z6, I\'m convinced you are my long lost twin). I am having a difficult time believing some of you aren\'t as curious, if not more, about what\'s out there. Also, I just don\'t know what to say to someone as talented as Simon who nonetheless regards classical music as little more than cocktail-party Muzak and fails to hear or refuses to acknowledge the similarities between concert music and film music (the latter does make sense in light of the former, or vice versa). Maybe all I can say is \"Good luck!\" (Sorry, Simon! My admiration for you is sky high, but you lost me on that one.)

[This message has been edited by PatS (edited 02-27-2002).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, the \'cocktail\' note doesn\'t apply to all classical music of course. I was mainly thinking about what I\'d call \'easy listening\' classical - that is, to me - a lot of Mozart, Vivaldi, generally piano concertos that I\'ve heard and such. Some of my friends play A LOT of this \'easy listening\' classical stuff - and I just can\'t find anything interesting in it. It\'s not like I haven\'t heard quite a lot of classical music in my life, afterall I did went to a musically oriented school, sang in a boys choir for 5 years (Bach, Händel, Verdi, Dvorak, Mendelsohn springs to mind).
Then there\'s more modern stuff like Prokofiev, Tchaikovski, Stravinski etc which I find a lot more interesting. I am not saying that classical music can not be interesting. I am saying that I dont find it very interesting, emotionally. My mood or feelings are not affected by much of it - not even what is supposed to be fantastic operas (that I have never SEEN live I might add - lack of interest). That is why I mainly listen to filmmusic (when I listen to orchestral stuff - I do listen to other things as well ). Of course I can learn from listening to 19th/20th century \'classical\' composers, but I just feel that I immediately learn more about writing music for pictures by listening to filmmusic.

[This message has been edited by Simon Ravn (edited 02-27-2002).]

Simon Ravn

02-27-2002, 06:48 PM

.

[This message has been edited by Simon Ravn (edited 02-27-2002).]

PatS

02-27-2002, 07:00 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>This is not to say that operas such as The Magic Flute are not \"serious\" works, but in their day they were regarded as what we might call \"good clean fluff\" (well, not always \"clean\").

This is part of the point I was trying to make. We uphold stuff like The Magic Flute as great achievements in classical art, yet at the time they were created, people shrugged them off as \"fluff\", much like people shrug off movies and movie music today. My point was that given 100 years or so, some of the major orchestral scores for film may be held in a much higher regard than they are in the present.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, The Magic Flute was a bad example. Yes, it was regarded as fluff, but mainly by those aristocrats, royalty, and religious leaders who were more accustomed to hearing Mozart\'s more serious operas in the court theaters. The Magic Flute, performed just two months before Mozart\'s death in a commercial theater, was and continues to be widely popular. Back then, more so among the \"common folk.\" Nowadays, most aficionados and students of classical music think highly of the The Magic Flute, but we\'re not talking about the \"common folk\" anymore (fans of pop music, for example--boy, I\'m going to get slammed for saying that--be gentle: I, too, am a father of three; yes, only three; I just counted). So, does this support your point? I can\'t tell anymore.

BTW, who do you think in a 100 years or so will hold the \"major orchestral scores for film\" in much higher regard? I\'m neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you (because I haven\'t the foggiest idea what will happen that far in the future), but I am curious about your prediction, particularly in light of what I just said. You\'re searching for parallels between the past and present in the hopes of asserting possibilities for the future of current film music. But I\'m not comfortable with your claims. I\'ve heard them before countless times, and each time I hear them I get this nagging sense that they are little more than sweeping generalizations. Some composers were wildly popular among the \"common folk\" and are now known only to a handful of musicologists; others were wildly popular among the intellectual and artistic elite and are now known mainly by the \"new elite\" (e.g., the classical-music aficionados, university music professors, music students, performers, concert composers) and a comparatively small group of \"common folk\"; and still others, constituting a much smaller group than the first two, were moderately popular (or at least known) for a while, though highly regarded by fellow musicians and a prince here and there, then fell between the cracks, only to be discovered in a fish market and later declared some of the most remarkable composers ever to live; and still others . . . . Do you see what I\'m driving at? Those parallelisms that you\'re grasping are just a bit too simplistic for me. And yet you may very well be right about present and future attitudes toward contemporary film music. How\'s that for being non-committal and deliberately ambiguous? (Some of my students loved it when I played this game; others went bezerk.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Also bear in mind that public opera houses in the 18th Century typically employed house composers and poets, who assembled operas from the works of various old and new composers according to the capabilities of the singers available for performance. Interestingly, the big draw was not the composer or his music, but rather the singers.

Again, this hits on my point. This is very similar to how the big draw in movies are the actors. However as time has passed, we tend to admire the composers of the operas with a much higher regard than they were when they wrote their material. I think the same may happen with film composers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I was referring specifically to 18th-century opera heard mainly, if not exclusively, by the \"common folk.\" Many of those \"popular\" operas don\'t exist now as they were assembled back then. The ones that most people uphold as fine works of art were greatly appreciated in their time, though mainly by the aristocracy, royalty, and A-list musicians (for want of a better term). The \"common folk\" were not always allowed to hear them. In contrast, most \"common folk\" of today choose not to hear them (Simon, that\'s not a reference to you; you\'re anything but common).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Look, if some of you guys really don\'t believe you\'ll learn anything from or develop an affinity for concert or chamber music that has nothing to do with films, then I\'ll move on.

I don\'t see where anyone said they didn\'t have an affinity for concert or chamber music, or that they didn\'t think they believed they would learn anything from it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought the implication was fairly strong in Simon\'s \"cocktail party\" remark (which I now see he has clarified). Maybe I just overreacted. Sorry!

***

BTW, don\'t let all my chit chat about opera fool you into believing I\'m an authority on the subject. Far from it. I\'m just regurgitating general information that I picked up years ago; for all I know, it\'s passe. Musicologists produce information at a snail\'s pace, but I haven\'t been a grad student for ten years. And when I was, no one called me an opera buff. A counterpoint freak, yes! But I had more important things to do than suffer through the Ring Cycle. http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/wink.gif

Pat

[This message has been edited by PatS (edited 02-27-2002).]

Haydn

02-27-2002, 08:51 PM

Simon,

I like the \'point\' you made in your last post!!

PatS

02-27-2002, 08:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Haydn:
Simon,

I like the \'point\' you made in your last post!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow! I just noticed it. Couldn\'t have said it better myself.

Pat

PatS

02-27-2002, 09:00 PM

PatS

02-27-2002, 09:03 PM

Can you blame me? I used to hang out with a guy who upon seeing a \"Do not photocopy . . . under penalty of law\" sign, took the sign off the wall, photocopied it, then placed both back on the wall.

Pat

PatS

02-27-2002, 11:03 PM

Jamieh writes: \"My point about films vs operas or concerts is that the people going to see films today are the SAME people that went to see operas or orchestra concerts in the past. In the past, THEY were the mainstream entertainment and people went to see them because that was the big thing to do.\"

Au contraire, mon capitan! Unless of course these \"SAME people\" are 200-300 years old! (I\'m sorry. I couldn\'t help myself. I\'m such a literalist at times. Please forgive me!)

Actually, your point is a tad misleading. By \"SAME people\" you seem to be referring to common folk. But the class structure in the 17th and 18th Centuries was quite different from today\'s. Yes, since the early 17th Century, opera was a public form of entertainment, but it took almost 200 years for \"opera seria\" to move from the aristocratic venues into the public theatres. This is not to say that operas such as The Magic Flute are not \"serious\" works, but in their day they were regarded as what we might call \"good clean fluff\" (well, not always \"clean\").

Bear in mind that public opera houses in the 18th Century typically employed house composers and poets, who assembled operas from the works of various old and new composers according to the capabilities of the singers available for performance. Interestingly, the big draw was not the composer or his music, but rather the singers.

Finally, don\'t overlook the obvious fact that film is an offshoot of the stage play, not of opera or the musical. The popularity of movies is most likely matched by the popularity of the public play throughout much of Western history. Moreover, I would submit that early incidental music, not opera or the musical, is the proper ascendant of contemporary film music (technically speaking, film music is incidental music).

Pat

[This message has been edited by PatS (edited 03-11-2002).]

Jamieh

02-27-2002, 11:07 PM

LOL on the photocopy thing!

Pat, I\'m guessing that in 100 years the \"serious musicians\", (whoever that may be--instructors or conductors or music buffs or whatever) will hold certain film composers works in high regard. Williams is an example, as I think some of his better works like Star Wars are among the most significant musical works of the latter half of the 20th century. I\'m not saying that all film composers will be dieties or something, but I think there are some, like Williams, whose works will continue to be listened to and loved for many many years. Others can argue about who else will be remembered--I\'m not sure I can decide myself. But to me, the two foremost American composers of the 20th century were Copland and Williams. Maybe I\'m somewhat biased because they wrote some similar stuff, but I think that those two composers have the most widely recognized and enjoyed music, at least by American composers. And Williams has written quite a few pieces that weren\'t film music, so it isn\'t like he is exclusively a flim composer. Obviously if you go outside of America you have to start talking about people like Stravinski and many others. And I\'m not saying there haven\'t been other significant American compoers such as Bernstein. But I would lay a significant amount of money down that John Williams\' music won\'t disappear any time soon. Problem is I won\'t be around to collect on that bet unless they figure out this whole aging thing.... http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Jamieh (edited 02-28-2002).]

Neal Keane

02-27-2002, 11:33 PM

Congrats to Alan Silvestri...best instrumental composition!

Somebody IS listening during those end credits...maybe these will be the overtures and preludes of the 21th century.

02-27-2002, 11:39 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Simon Ravn:
I can clearly differentiate the two because 99% of \'classical\' music I have heard, has been very different from the filmmusic I like, both in orchestration and composition.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But I thought this thread started because you like Williams?

Do you mean you\'ve never heard Brahms or Tchaikovsky? And if you have, you haven\'t heard the many wonderful pastiches that Williams has put together? (Don\'t ask me to list them because all of his music sounds like pastiche to me - that doesn\'t necessarily lessen the enjoyment, of course.)

If you haven\'t heard these guys, have a look at the list that Bruce kindly took the time to post here. It\'s hard to believe you wouldn\'t find things to enjoy. (and it\'s all brand new!) Or are you a wee bit scared of what you might find?

PatS

02-27-2002, 11:55 PM

Well, if Michael Schelle\'s book *The Score* and that UCSB New Music Festival are signs of a changing tide, then you may still be alive if and when Williams\' film music joins the canon. I have my doubts about that happening, but you never know.

When I was an undergrad back in the early \'80s, no one talked about film music, at least with affection. I heard such phrases as \"Williams, the Motif Thief\" and \"Why should I write a tune?\". If you studied music in the shadow of Darmstadt (late \'50s through the \'70s, a bit later for some European countries), you wrote serial music or were an avant-garde composer; otherwise you could kiss goodbye any hope of a commission or a recommendation from your professors. Perhaps this explains Williams\' disastrous Flute Concerto (just an opinion, guys), not that he needed the commissions or recommendations; it\'s what you did if you wanted to be taken seriously by the musical elite. Esa-Pekka Salonen recently commented on the influence of Darmstadt on his writing and how his \"LA Variations\" represented a significant departure for him. Even my own composition teacher, Peter Racine Fricker, made the observation that in \"our time\" (the \'80s) composers were finally free to write what they wanted, rather than what others expected. Still, I witnessed a lot of \"cloning\" in my student days, which is why I never studied with one composer for more than a year. Of course, if had Goldenthal\'s relationships with Corigliano, Copland, and Bernstein (Lenny), I would have had no problem working with any of them indefinitely.

Pat

donnie

02-28-2002, 12:34 AM

Ok, I\'ll admit that I\'ve only skimmed over the eighty something posts on this one but I\'ll throw my 2 cents in....

The music of masters such as Josquin, Stravinsky, Ravel, Bruckner, etc. should not in ANY way be compared with the \"melodies you can hum\" themes of today\'s movie composers. I mean come on....Williams doesn\'t even arrange his own stuff!!!!!

 I challenge any of you to pull out a Stravinsky score and a John Williams score and compare the two. Not EVEN close. And we could bring up guys like Messiaen, Bartok, or even Guesaldo....heck he was writing 20th century harmonies over 400 years ago.

Do yourselves a favor and take a music rep. class at the local college.

Donnie

Simon Ravn

02-28-2002, 02:12 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by donnie:

The music of masters such as Josquin, Stravinsky, Ravel, Bruckner, etc. should not in ANY way be compared with the \"melodies you can hum\" themes of today\'s movie composers. I mean come on....Williams doesn\'t even arrange his own stuff!!!!!

Donnie<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can\'t be serious - Williams doesn\'t arrange his own stuff... I think you need to re-evaluate that false assumption! http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif

And here it is again - the classical snobbery thing...

Jamieh

02-28-2002, 03:24 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I mean come on....Williams doesn\'t even arrange his own stuff!!!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Complete false. Williams delivers extremely detailed sketches to an orchestrator who is given no freedom to change anything. He only does this because of time limitations. He is more than capable of \"arranging his own stuff\".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The music of masters such as Josquin, Stravinsky, Ravel, Bruckner, etc. should not in ANY way be compared with the \"melodies you can hum\" themes of today\'s movie composers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suppose while we are at it, we need to throw away Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Copland and everyone else that wrote \"melodies you can hum?\" Because you can certainly hum \"Fugue in G Minor\", \"Beethoven\'s 5th\", \"Ride of the Valkyries\", and \"Appalachian Springs\". I really don\'t get what point you are trying to make here. Are you saying that music is only good if it has no discernable melody??

Donnie, I can\'t believe your post is serious. Why would you choose to be so closed minded?

[This message has been edited by Jamieh (edited 02-28-2002).]

Jamieh

02-28-2002, 04:09 AM

Ok, so this is for all you \"film music isn\'t real music\", or \"film music is hobbled\", or whatnot people. I challenge you to listen to this piece of music (a small chunk from a Williams film score) and explain to me how it is \"hobbled\", or \"can\'t compare with REAL music\" or whatever it is you are trying to say.
http://www.nwlink.com/~jamieh/williams.mp3 (\"http://www.nwlink.com/~jamieh/williams.mp3\")

Anyone who knows Williams will instantly know what clip this is, but I will leave it unnamed here as to not give any preconceived notions about it.

From where I sit, this piece (other than the fact that I chopped just a small chunk of it from the score) is just as valid as music on its own as any other piece of music I have listened to by any composer. I don\'t understand why just because it happens to have been written as a score to a film it becomes invalidated a \"true\" work of art in some people\'s minds.

So please explain it to me. What makes this music less valid than something written 100 years ago? What magic quality does it somehow lack that makes it unworthy of my adoration?

Thomas_J

02-28-2002, 07:13 AM

God this is beautiful music Jamieh!
I agree with Simon Ravn. It\'s much more emotionally gratifying than much of what many of the classical masters wrote. Except maybe Mahler. his music is soo emotional. You really gotta listen to his stuff.

Listen to those screaming trumpets http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif Those are the trumpets we want http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif
You could post the CEO3K suite. That one is truely magical as well.

Lets hope this mp3 unfogs the mind of these classical snobs http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/wink.gif

Thomas

02-28-2002, 09:19 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jamieh:
[B]Ok, so this is for all you \"film music isn\'t real music\", or \"film music is hobbled\", or whatnot people. I challenge you to listen to this piece of music (a small chunk from a Williams film score) and explain to me how it is \"hobbled\", or \"can\'t compare with REAL music\" or whatever it is you are trying to say.
http://www.nwlink.com/~jamieh/williams.mp3 (\"http://www.nwlink.com/~jamieh/williams.mp3\")

It\'s lovely. Truly lovely. Why, I almost feel like going out and saving an alien. In fact, this is one of my favorite parts of the movie. Terrific!

I have one question: Who wrote it? I understand that it\'s probably an ensemble work, so prizes will be awarded for themes, harmonic progressions, orchestration, inversions, transpositions etc., and, of course, a special prize for the brass arrangement. (In fact, I think he got that brass from Thomas:-)

Here\'s a link to the Confutatis/Lacrymosa from Mozart\'s Requiem: www.mozarts.stuffs.kikin.williams.arse@snobs.com (\"http://www.mozarts.stuffs.kikin.williams.arse@snobs.com\")

I challenge anyone to tell me how this is \'background\' music, or \'cocktail-party\' muzak (or whatnot people).

The ET score is beautiful. I\'ve always enjoyed it. And no one will ever, ever, ever write anything as .... (oh, someone already said that).

Understand that it\'s possible for we snobs to enjoy Williams\' music just as much as you do without having to blurt out embarrssing declarations of our love. You can\'t take Williams\' music away from me any more than I can convince my dog Spike that Einstein was a clever guy.

As to your \'hobbled\' question: I think the music \'works\' better when ET\'s going home than when I listen to it here at work. (Do I have to apologize for that? Am I offending anyone with that?)

Williams is a great film composer. That is enough. Maybe one day all the copies of the film will spontaneously disintegrate and we\'ll be left with nothing but the score on its own merits, and future generations might \'judge\' the music as so great as to relegate all of classical music to the \'background\'. Perhaps archeologists will uncover Simon\'s original post and he\'ll become a 21st century Nostradamus for his penetrating insight.

Until then, we can never know.

Simon Ravn

02-28-2002, 10:18 AM

Jamieh, ahh this is one of my favourite parts of E.T.... I still think the intro track is my fave though http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif

And Z6 - I don\'t know if you\'ll ever return from la-la land and contribute seriously to this thread instead of acting in the childish way you\'re doing now. You have done some funny, humourous posts in the past, but it just doesnt work when everybody but you are having a more serious discussion... BTW funny you should \'accidentally\' pick out Mozart\'s Requiem to demonstrate how brilliant Mozart is. That is probably the only Mozart composition I ever really liked - at least the first part of it - don\'t know if that is what you have picked out, since your interesting link doesnt work http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Simon Ravn (edited 02-28-2002).]

Jamieh

02-28-2002, 12:54 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It\'s lovely. Truly lovely. Why, I almost feel like going out and saving an alien. In fact, this is one of my favorite parts of the movie. Terrific!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting that you mock Williams because his music comes from a movie about an alien. Do you mock Wagner because his music is about a bunch of female winged Viking mythological figures? Do you mock Stravinski because his music is about a young prince who battles an evil ogre with a magic feather from a magic bird?

There is a TON of music throughout history that has images, seen or unseen, as its inspiration. Many classical composers have even said that they composed to imaginary scenes in their head. Film composers just compose to already created scenes instead of imagining the scenes themselves.

Personally I\'ve never said that classical music was \"background\" music (though there is certainly a lot of classical music that WAS created specifically for that purpose at court events). I know that some here have said that and I don\'t really agree. But I also don\'t agree that film music is somehow lesser or addled because it happens to be created to a preexisting scene.

If some of you choose to dismiss film music as being something lesser because it doesn\'t fit some personal definition that you have for \"real\" art, then so be it--I consider it your loss. History is littered with examples of this--that is why so many of the considered \"great\" artists aren\'t recognized until they are dead and gone. I never understood why an artist needed to be dead before their work could be considered something special.

[This message has been edited by Jamieh (edited 02-28-2002).]

02-28-2002, 01:33 PM

\"Do you mock Stravinski because his music is about a young prince who battles an evil ogre with a magic feather from a magic bird?\"

All of it? I\'m not mocking Williams. When I hear that music I do want to go out and save an alien. It\'s just that they\'re so hard to find (even here in la-la land), so I have to make do with the movie. You might be underestimating the effect of Williams\' music.

Frankly, I think the people who are trying to disassociate Williams\' music from the receptical of entertainment for which it was written and \'elevate\' it to their own misapprehension of what they believe other people consider \'art\' are doing Williams\' art a great disservice.

\"If some of you choose to dismiss film music as being something lesser because it doesn\'t fit some personal definition that you have for \"real\" art, then so be it--I consider it your loss\"

I certainly don\'t dismiss \'film music\'. In fact, I was over the moon that the Soggy Bottom Boys were recognized with a Grammy last night. The music to Oh Brother Where Art Thou is simply wonderful and bluegrass has suffered too much snobbery from all those orchestral types.

\"I never understood why an artist needed to be dead before their work could be considered something special.\"

They don\'t absolutely have to be dead, but I do prefer it if they are. I suppose an incapacitating disease would do just as well.

I happened to be in Figueras when Dali made his protracted journey into the great beyond (did anyone see Bob Dylan last night at the Grammies? He\'s the spittin\' image of Dali) and it really did wonders for his reputation. I liked his stuff a lot, but I gained a much deeper appreciation after he shuffled off his mortal coil. I watched his funeral on telly not thirty feet away from the actual funeral taking place outside the cafe where I was parked with my drink. Sure, when he was dying in the building, they could jam a pen into his hand and play etch a sketch with the half-dead guy and sell more autographed prints. But when he died and you actually got to stand on top of the dead guys plot, sales went through the roof.

So, in general, I think dead is best for greatness.

fmfgs

02-28-2002, 01:45 PM

Jamieh said: I never understood why an artist needed to be dead before their work could be considered something special.

Usually thats because the artist is ahead of his time and is trying to do what has not been done before. Given the fact that most people like the already known better then something new....
In this regard I understand why so many people like Williams.
oops http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/rolleyes.gif

pantonality

02-28-2002, 03:36 PM

Hi All,

This is what usually happens when I travel on business. I come back to an exciting discussion. Of course the film music vs. classical debate has raged on the internet since,... well, the internet. I really don\'t have a lot to add as I enjoy both genres.

I\'ve been listening to the William\'s American Journey CD a bunch lately. It\'s great stuff. My personal harmonic language might be a bit more chromatic, but his music is thoroughly enjoyable. Regarding his orchestration, perhaps he\'s stolen a few techniques from Mahler, I can\'t think of a better source to steal orchestration techniques from. Every composer has borrowed from the previous generation, especially as regards orchestration. This is neither new nor worthy of criticism. I do believe Williams has invented a few techniques of his own and that overall the quality of his work is exemplary.

Why this became an argument that spawned three pages of discussion is beyond me.

Steve http://www.mp3.com/stevechandler (\"http://www.mp3.com/stevechandler\")
aka Ettienne http://www.mp3.com/ettienne (\"http://www.mp3.com/ettienne\")

donnie

02-28-2002, 03:51 PM

Here\'s my problem with Williams....granted every composer \"borrows\" from others; unintentionally though. Williams on the other hand intentionally lifts things are just barely moves them around a little. A friend of mine did a whole semesters work on Korngold and how J Williams stole so many of his themes...some of them note for note. Check out this site.
http://korngold.com/englishframes.htm (\"http://korngold.com/englishframes.htm\")

Donnie

Simon Ravn

02-28-2002, 04:27 PM

Donnie, what are we supposed to find there? Besides, your problem with Williams at first seemed to be that he \'didnt even arrange his own stuff\'.... http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif

Jamieh

02-28-2002, 04:51 PM

I\'m assuming we are supposed to be noticing the similarities between King\'s Row and Star Wars. The first 5 notes of the King\'s Row theme and the Star Wars main theme are quite similar:
http://korngold.com/sound/Kings_Row.mp3 (\"http://korngold.com/sound/Kings_Row.mp3\")

However this is hardly a unique situation. Composers have been borrowing snippets of material from their favorites for years. Williams probably grew up liking and studying Korngold\'s work.

I guess I just don\'t see this as some egrigious offense that should make one shun Williams as a composer. If we shunned every composer who reused some material that was floating around in their head, we wouldn\'t be left with anything to listen to.

Simon Ravn

02-28-2002, 05:03 PM

Yeah the Kings Row thing is old news. You gotta do better than this, Donnie.... http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif

Beckers

02-28-2002, 06:29 PM

It is easy for someone who is able to appreciate a wide range of music to be critical of someone who is \"narrow minded\"; but it would be far more interesting to account for the differences in taste. Musical taste, like that for food, is acquired, usually from pre-teens onwards, often earlier, and develops with exposure.

It seems to me that the taste for some music genres is easier to acquire than others. E.g. music from the Renaissance, Baroque and Classical periods, is easy for us to “understand” and therefore easier to appreciate. But as we progress through the Romantic Period and particularly towards atonality it becomes more difficult to penetrate, requiring much exposure (or study) to be able to appreciate it.

PatS may know more about this, but there is something basic about the language of melody confined to modes, or the pentatonic or diatonic scales, which is immediately recognisable. Once composers started to breach these confines in the 19th C, the audience’s appreciation needed to evolve with the composer.

It seems to me that folk who enjoy 19th and 20th C composers needed to acquire the taste through exposure, and may initially have been drawn by works that stuck more rigidly to the diatonic scale. Once they have developed this appreciation, the rigid melodic structure from earlier composers may become less interesting.

A parallel can be drawn with painting: until the impressionists, paintings accurately depicted real subjects, recognisable and easy to appreciate. With the emergence of abstract painting in the 20th C, tastes began to diverge, with only some acquiring the ability to appreciate Picasso’s distorted figures, or the green dot, with purple lines on yellow background. Yet who does not recognise the beauty of Michelangelo’s “the Creation of Adam”. So maybe a melody in a diatonic scale is “real” and chromatic or atonal music is abstract?

Should the owner of the green dot painting (or a Picasso) look down on those who would not have it on their living room wall? Should a lover of Debussy and Schoenberg criticise those who donot appreciate them?

Williams et.al., writing for film, needs to produce music which can be appreciated easily. It is no wonder his music sounds “shallow” to some. So what?

I love this stuff, -the mechanics of music appreciation. I wish I knew more.

Beckers

02-28-2002, 06:36 PM

Please feel free to totally contradict

[This message has been edited by Beckers (edited 02-28-2002).]

02-28-2002, 07:07 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Beckers:
Please feel free to totally contradict

[This message has been edited by Beckers (edited 02-28-2002).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Couldn\'t disagree with a single word. I listened to that ET stuff four times this morning: Fabuloso. It brought back fond memories; I actually remembered thinking (when I first saw the movie) Wow! what a lovely change there (I think it was as the spaceship was leaving - not sure).

John Williams has written some great movie scores. I wish that people wouldn\'t \'project\' so much when they read posts here. I still think Bruce\'s post was right on the money (if you actually read it carefully, and not just see the word \'twinkie\' and start applying it willy-nilly). Taste isn\'t about right and wrong or yin and yang; it contains paradoxes, like most things in the real world.

02-28-2002, 11:46 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Simon Ravn:

And Z6 - I don\'t know if you\'ll ever return from la-la land and contribute seriously to this thread instead of acting in the childish way you\'re doing now.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do I have to be serious? Hell, I am serious. This is the way I talk and think and write. Can\'t I express myself (seriously) in any way I please? I think we have to \'differentiate\' between outright rudeness; \"Not worthy of a remark\" or \"la-la land\" or \"acting in the childish way\" and humor: \"Hey, Simon. Who wrote Tchaikovsky\'s Violin Concerto sometime in the future in a land far, far away?\"

Not that that\'s so funny, but it\'s not a personal attack. I responded to your original post without \'putting you down\' (the way you keep \'trying\' to do to me), didn\'t I. I didn\'t say \"Simon, that\'s not the most stupid thing I\'ve ever heard, but it made my top thiry.\"

When you relegated all of classical music to the background, I didn\'t recommend a trip to a nose, ear and throat specialist for a quick syringing, followed by a reverse-lobotomy, did I?

If that seems rude then understand that that is MY version of telling someone he\'s in la-la land. I have a huge zit on my nose right now. Is that enough material for you to cool it with the \'dismissals\'? Could you work with that? (Any suggestions as to how a forty-plus geezer can deal with zits would be appreciated, by the way. Maybe if I stop being childish, my acne will disappear?)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
BTW funny you should \'accidentally\' pick out Mozart\'s Requiem to demonstrate how brilliant Mozart is. That is probably the only Mozart composition I ever really liked - at least the first part of it - don\'t know if that is what you have picked out.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I\'m not really getting the \'accidentally\' part here. My telepethic powers are not so great as you might think. Was I supposed to know that?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
since your interesting link doesnt work http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No? Well, I\'m firing my webmaster right now.

This isn\'t la-la land. It\'s bizarro world.

Simon, I\'m not trying to put you down. I have no interest in putting anyone down. If you disagree with me that\'s fine. If you don\'t want to reply to something I say, that\'s fine (but don\'t post telling me it\'s not \'worthy\' of a reply - that\'s rude).

Nothing any of us say here makes a blind bit of difference to anything. Whether \'serious\' or not.

I don\'t like it when these things develop into what you young \'uns call flame wars. But you spontaneously combusted with your first post and nobody attacked YOU.

(Note that I even posted this thing with a smiley face on it in the hope that we can get back to serious business of deconstructing Williams.)