Is Williams the best composer of the 20th Century?

[jsawruk 0]

Neither Mahler nor Williams makes me cry. Ravel probably comes closest in that respect, but I think the only composer that truly makes me cry is myself :cry:

Why don't you like Shostakovich? Some of his music is very similar, or at least in the same style, as Williams.

[BigKenLittle 6]

I would like to flat out say that John Williams is the greatest composer of the 20th Century, but that would be wrong. I say this, bearing in mind that I am the most fanatical, drooling mad John Williams fan around these parts. But then, to say that Dimitri Shostakovich, Aaron Copland or Sergei Prokofiev are, is also wrong. Music is far too personal to make so sweeping a statement. I say 'John Williams is the finest composer of the 20th Century' and a thousand people would line up to either argue the point or just flat out slap me upside the head. If I say Aaron Copland, same effect. Someone will always say 'what about Debussy or Bernstein?'. And, yes, there is even a fair argument to made for Paul McCartney or John Lennon. What about Duke Ellington? What about Cole Porter? And then add in all the fabulous film composers like Alfred Newman, Dimitri Tiomkin, Elmer Bernstein, Franz Waxman or Bernard Herrmann, and this question is completely subjective.

Now, I also think to tell people

 

Then I am truly sorry. You should listen to more music, and then you will discover that (John) Williams is not as good as some of these others.  

... is also wrong. Because inevitably 'one man's pleasure is another man's poison'. You can rhyme off all the arguements about who copies who, who inspired what, but in the end the only ears that really matter are the ones attached to your own head... I happen to ADORE John Williams' music. I enjoy everything he composes, just on different levels. I don't listen to all his music with the same mindset. I listen to his Violin Concerto differently then say... E.T., neither is better, just different. I don't criticize people who like Hans Zimmer or James Horner, I just don't hear what they hear. I don't criticize people who like Metallica, 'cause truth is I like some of their stuff, too. It doesn't touch me in the same place that John Williams does or where Copland, Prokofiev, Gershwin, Ellington, Herrmann, Puccini, Tschaikovsky or any of a hundred others do. Music is the one thing that all cultures have in common, so the greatest composer of the 20th Century might be a village drummer who lives at the edge of the Orinoco... It's all music, it's all subjective.

Big Ken; O Siem, Susan Aglukark

[jsawruk 0]

I'm not trying to criticize anyone, I am merely trying to tackle the issue from an analytical musicological perspective. If we do quantify the elements of music that we can quantify (such as harmonic progressions and density, rhythm and density, etc) and forget the elements we cannot quantify (such as emotional content, etc), then I think we can arrive at a scientific understanding of each composer, but then can only be compared within their respective genres.

Translation: we should not compare Williams to anyone who is not a film composer. As far as film composers, I would put Williams in the top 3, perhaps even #1.

But I would not put him at the top of ALL composers because of my predisposition that art music is superior to film music. But I cannot prove that statement.

All in all, I think this question is unfair because it does compare apples to oranges.

Why can't we all just write music and enjoy it for the fact that it is music?

[Morn 8]

I'm not trying to criticize anyone, I am merely trying to tackle the issue from an analytical musicological perspective. If we do quantify the elements of music that we can quantify (such as harmonic progressions and density, rhythm and density, etc) and forget the elements we cannot quantify (such as emotional content, etc), then I think we can arrive at a scientific understanding of each composer, but then can only be compared within their respective genres.

But that is only half helpful, because it's not really what music is about even though it counts. It's senseless really to judge music totally objectivily. Yet a subjective judgement means little. So I think it's pretty pointless to say someone is the best composer ever. But makes more sense to say he's one of the best. No judgement that we have is procise enough to call someone the best.

Translation: we should not compare Williams to anyone who is not a film composer. As far as film composers, I would put Williams in the top 3, perhaps even #1.

Who are your top 3? And just because something is film music doesn't mean it has to be dumbed down.

[BigKenLittle 6]

I'm not trying to criticize anyone, I am merely trying to tackle the issue from an analytical musicological perspective. If we do quantify the elements of music that we can quantify (such as harmonic progressions and density, rhythm and density, etc) and forget the elements we cannot quantify (such as emotional content, etc), then I think we can arrive at a scientific understanding of each composer, but then can only be compared within their respective genres.

Translation: we should not compare Williams to anyone who is not a film composer. As far as film composers, I would put Williams in the top 3, perhaps even #1.

But I would not put him at the top of ALL composers because of my predisposition that art music is superior to film music. But I cannot prove that statement.  

All in all, I think this question is unfair because it does compare apples to oranges.

Why can't we all just write music and enjoy it for the fact that it is music?

If I sounded like I was inferring that you were criticizing anyone, I apologize this was not my intention. Actually, I found your posts to be most interesting, but I really think that trying to analyze music logically is like trying to make math emotional. No one can completely take emotion out of music, just as you can't take logic out of mathematics. Music effects everyone on a emotional level. You don't listen to music thinking 'oh, I really like that key change to the Gmaj7, in the third bar'. Even that would require an emotional response... Music is emotion in it's purest form.

Big Ken; Vision On The Stairs from The Fury, by the greatest film composer ever, IMO

[Morn 8]

You don't listen to music thinking 'oh, I really like that key change to the Gmaj7, in the third bar'.

Hehe, but musicologists probably do listen to it like that

[jsawruk 0]

Actually I do, except that Gmaj7 is a chord, not a key (it would imply the key of C by the way!). I analyse EVERYTHING I listen to, in hopes that I can learn and thus improve my own composing abilities.

I have even (by ear!) transcribed some of William's more recent music the day I got the CD, which was the day it came out!

I cant help it!

[BigKenLittle 6]

Actually I do, except that Gmaj7 is a chord, not a key (it would imply the key of C by the way!). I analyse EVERYTHING I listen to, in hopes that I can learn and thus improve my own composing abilities.

That was actually a boo-boo on my part... I meant Chord change, I thought Chord Progression... I typed Key change... Bad fingers, BAD!!!

I guess the only thing that really matter in how you listen to music is whether or not, you enjoy what you hear... Thats the only meter you need to worry about...

Big Ken: Diana Krall, East of the Sun, West of the Moon.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Johnny ain't bad, but he's a talentless hack compared to the MAN himself:

Neal Hefti

Stefancos-....nananana....nananana...STEFANCOS!!!

[fmfreak 0]

Well....I think that he definitely is. Everytime I see a film, and I think: "Hey, I like this Music"....Music composed by John Williams...

Another Question, I read on a Website that John Williams is the most nominated person alive. Is this true, I won't be suprised if he is...

[Figo 2]

In a sense, trying to express anything with conviction under this topic is a no-win situation. (I speak from experience.) There will be those who embrace Williams wholeheartedly as Messiah. After all, this is a Williams board, and woe betide anyone who brings Debussy, Mahler, Strauss, Sibelius, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Berg, Bartok, Hindemith, Janacek, Shostakovich, or any of those other classical has-beens into the discussion. You will most certainly be branded a "classical snob" -- although Williams himself, knowing a thing or two about music, would most likely disagree with that assessment.

We can say with certainty who our favorites are; we can say Williams will be remembered; but beyond the claim that he is the greatest composer to work in film in the last quarter of the 20th century, there are few objective remarks that can be made that will hold water.

Williams occupies the same realm of popular acceptance as past masters like Gilbert & Sullivan, Victor Herbert, John Phillip Sousa, George Gershwin, Richard Rodgers, and Leonard Bernstein. Yet how many of us remember any of Herbert's or Sousa's operettas? They were extraordinarily popular at one time.

John Williams is a great film composer. He's the most popular, the most financially successful of our day. But only time will put him in his proper perspective. He is not the most innovative artist, even in regard to film. I think he will be remembered, when historians and old movie buffs look back on the 20th century, because of his successes, and because of his hummable themes, although by that time he will seem much closer chronologically to his creative forebears (Steiner, Korngold, Rozsa, Herrmann), and this will steal some of his thunder.

[jsawruk 0]

In a sense, trying to express anything with conviction under this topic is a no-win situation.  (I speak from experience.)  There will be those who embrace Williams wholeheartedly as Messiah.  After all, this is a Williams board, and woe betide anyone who brings Debussy, Mahler, Strauss, Sibelius, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Berg, Bartok, Hindemith, Janacek, Shostakovich, or any of those other classical has-beens into the discussion.   You will most certainly be branded a "classical snob" -- although Williams himself, knowing a thing or two about music, would most likely disagree with that assessment.  

Williams occupies the same realm of popular acceptance as past masters like Gilbert & Sullivan, Victor Herbert, John Phillip Sousa, George Gershwin, Richard Rodgers, and Leonard Bernstein.  Yet how many of us remember any of Herbert's or Sousa's operettas?  They were extraordinarily popular at one time.  

I'm not a classical snob. I'm a classical composer. I enjoy the music of Mr. Williams very much, perhaps even more than any of the composers you or I listed (thanks for reminding me of Hindemith). But as I said before, we cannot fairly compare them to Mr. Williams. And so to say they are better than him, or, even worse (!), to say that he is better than them, is wrong of any of us.

Gilbert and Sullivan are actually now considered to be in the same camp as other classical composers such as Stravinsky (though of different periods and styles of course). L. Bernstein, Gerswhin , and even Rodgers are also considered to be classical composers by most. Sousa is a bit more iffy, although I certainly think he is one of this nation's best composers. Even Lennon & McCartney are considered by some to be classical composers!

I think Williams does deserve to be with these composers, more so than most film composers would. Anyone agree?

[bruckhorn 105]

Yet how many of us remember any of Herbert's or Sousa's operettas?

Sousa wrote operettas? Guess that's my something new for today!

bruckhorn

[bruckhorn 105]

Even Lennon & McCartney are considered by some to be classical composers!

Are these the same people who think that McCartney's first band was Wings?

bruckhorn, who has all of the Beatles albums. And listens to them, too!

[jsawruk 0]

lol. Nope. I would sure hope not. Read the texts by Walter Everett.

[Ross 1]

So, in conclussion . . . . . .?

-ROSS, who doesn't have the time to reread all the posts to gather the conclussion

[EvanED 1]

:Evan puts on a flame resistant suit:

I personally think that people who say Williams is the best composer ever need to look at a few more composers. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Stravinsky, Tchaikovsky, etc. Favorite composer, OK; best composer, no way (sorry for the little rhyme thing in there; it was unintentional).

In fact, I'd argue that he is not the best even of the twentieth century. Second half of the century, perhaps. But you've still got Bernstein to contend with, though I'd still put Williams on top. But Stravinsky, Shostakovitch, Prokofiev (I love Russian music if you can't tell), Elgar (no one has mentioned him...), Holst (The Planets are one of my all-time favorite pieces) etc. all present major competition. If you restrict it to film music, Williams wins (even over Korngold and such), but not otherwise.

But Williams is up there. And he's above Bernstein (as I said) and Copland in my book.

Opinions of other 20th Century people: Walton is up there; Gershwin is too jazzy for my tastes; out of the couple Ravel things I've heard, the only one that I like is his orchestration of Pictures at an Exhibition (Bolero's stupid); Debussy doesn't impress me; Strauss is up there; the only thing I can speak to about Cage is 4:33, which goes along with the wacky "art" that's around nowadays that I don't think counts as art... sure, you can use silence in good ways in music, but 4 1/2 minutes of it isn't music in my book; Vaughn Williams is up there. ANyone who is not mentioned I either didn't feel like mentioning, didn't remember, or don't know enough of their music.

[Figo 2]

It's not about you being "impressed" with Debussy that makes him a major composer. It's about his experiments with harmony. He made twentieth century music as we know it possible. Williams has never done anything to compare with "Pelleas et Melisande." I hate "Bolero," but the orchestration is magnificent. If Ravel was anything, he wasn't stupid. "Daphnis and Chloe" is probably one of the ten or twenty greatest pieces of music written in the last hundred years (at least for orchestra). Stravinsky was definitely more important (and influential) than anyone with the possible exception of Debussy and Schoenberg. Elgar, Vaughan Williams and Walton wrote a lot of great music, and all three are among my favorites, but they are nowhere in the same league, just as Williams cannot compare with Aaron Copland or Leonard Bernstein. The latter was an all around better musician. Certainly, as a conductor, there is no comparison. We may like John Williams more than Arnold Schoenberg, but history has shown Uncle Arnie to be right up at the top of the 20th century. And, IMHO, Williams ranks well below Korngold. It doesn't mean that I don't think he is great, just not as great as some of you may think. I know that's blasphemy, but there's a big world out there, and some of you desperately need to be exposed to it.

[jsawruk 0]

No. Williams is not the best composer ever. I totally agree with Evan on this one. Besides, the question was about 20th century only.

I'm sorry I forgot Elgar, along with Prokofiev and Hindemith. There are just sooo many 20th century composers that it is impossible to remember all of them on a moment's notice! (Although I'm still not sure Williams wins total overall for film music).

As for the others he mentioned: Gerswhin is supposed to be jazzy. If he's too jazzy for you, that's fine. He is supposed to be, much in the way that Bartok was folk-oriented. Gershwin is about as jazzy as I get. Ravel I don't know well enough yet to respond to, but Bolero is ok, but not great. Richard Strauss is good, and much better than Johann Strauss II (please always specify which Strauss. Richard wrote Also Sprach Zarathustra, Johann wrote Blue Danube Waltz, and both pieces were in 2001 A Space Odyssey!).

If 4'33" is all you know of Cage, then I am sorry. That's another topic all it's own. Cage wrote a lot of music and a lot of philosophy (I'm reading his one book right now). 4'33" is an extreme case, and is supposed to be the antithesis of something like Boulez's Structures. Whether is music or not will always be debatable. But remember, you cannot achieve absolute silence unless you are deaf. A quiet room still has an ambience of about 20-30 dB, and in an anechoic room you can still hear your heartbeat!

Vaughn Williams is good, and perhaps even a little underrated in recent times.

LOL. Impressed with Debussy. That's a classic! I think Stravinsky was more influential than Debussy and Schoenberg combined, but that's just opinion. More likely, Schoenberg was more influential not because of the people who followed him (Berg, Webern, Messiaen, Boulez, Stockhausen, late Stravinsky, etc), but more likely because of the people who went against him (Cage, early Stravinsky, Riley, etc).

I never said Korngold was that good, and I think Williams is better than him. But Figo is right about Schoenberg and in his last sentence.

[Figo 2]

I may go too far with Korngold, but I do believe, as with Bernstein, that he was a more talented musician. And yes, Debussy was the most influential composer of the last century, bar none. His impact may lack the flashy disorientation one experiences the first time one discovers Schoenberg, but while the latter's influence has been on the wane for decades, Debussy is still very much with us. Gershwin may be overrated (I happen to think so), but if you don't like jazz mixed with your classical, avoid the Ravel Piano Concerto in G, Milhaud's "Creation du Monde," Stravinsky's "Ebony Concerto," a good deal of Copland, a lot of Walton, Poulenc, and Weill, and most of Leonard Bernstein. Rhythm is as much a part of music as harmony. A composer writing in the 20th century could not ignore what was going in the world around him and expect to be taken seriously. Besides, jazz was invigorating. Nearly every major classical composer of the last century was excited by and/or experimented with jazz.

[jsawruk 0]

I don't know. I am guessing you say Debussy is still with us because of ambient music? And that Schoenberg is declining because serialism is down? May I remind you that Schoenberg AND Debussy both influenced John Cage, the grandfather of ambient music, immensly. Plus, minimalism is a direct response to Schoenberg by overemphasizing tonality for example.

Again, I never said I didn't like jazz with classical. I just don't like jazz, even though I am trying to learn how to compose it.

Gerswhin, on the whole, may be only slightly overrated. I think popular musicians overrate him, while classical musicians underrated him. He should really be in the average of those two.

As a composer, I find rhythm a more important element to my music than any other. Plus, from a compositional and musicological standpoint, rhythm is just as important as harmony, as they both function as different parts of the musical universal of tension and release.

There are more ways to get rhythm than from jazz. Ghanian drumming, Gamelan, Hindustani talas, even alea or series!

Did you know it is possible to write jazz using the serial method? Just FYI.

Oh, and John Williams was first and foremost a jazz pianist long before he became a serious composer (even though he wrote some classical things during his jazz years).

[McD 0]

JW is probably the greatest composer for orchestra of the century. I'd go along with that.

But if Mozza was alive today, would be be scoring for orchestra, or be a songwriter?

I'm shocked to have had the option in the poll, but I do believe the modern day Mozart is PRINCE. He's the only person in the last century whose artistic output is literally hard to comprehend. Composing an album's worth of (mostly fabulous) material week in, week out - I just don't know how he does it.

I honestly believe that in 300 years PRINCE will be as well known as MOZART. Will JW's reputation grow and grow? I'm not sure.

[jsawruk 0]

I'm not even gonna try to respond to this one. I'm not posting anymore.

[Figo 2]

LOL! I understand your frustration, jsawruk. People are constantly confusing favoritism for what is truly best or most important. We've been through all this before, probably more than once. You're fairly new, I think, so just get used to it. If you're going to open your mouth around here and speak your mind, you'd better be prepared for a lot of opposition, even if you can support your comments with factual evidence. For instance, the remark about Mozart and songs. Obviously, the poster isn't aware that Mozart wrote songs. Dozens of them. And I don't mean arias.

Anyway, Debussy. No, I don't mean "ambient music." Is that all you think of the single most important composer of the 20th century -- wallpaper music? The fact of the matter is that Debussy, for all his supposed anti-Wagnerian tendencies, took the earlier master's "Tristan" and ran with it. He stretched harmony well beyond what anyone had previously envisioned, and he influenced EVERYONE, including Stravinsky. Listen to "The Firebird." Debussy all over the place. Schoenberg had his "Gurrelieder." Would it have been written, if not for Debussy? I don't think so. The fact of the matter is that the harmonic language of today's composers, including that of John Williams, would be much blander without Debussy

As for minimalism, that's a whole other can of worms, influenced more by Eastern styles than by anything else. (Although Debussy wrote an interesting piano piece called "Pagodes" that tries to emulate gamelan effects.) It is not my favorite kind of music, although when somebody like John Adams breaks away from its strictures, he can produce some very interesting stuff. His "El Nino," for instance, is a masterpiece. I didn't think he had it in him. John Cage is a footnote, more interesting for his philosophies than for his actual music. He made some ripples in his day, but nothing, I think, which really effected the main stream.

Yes, Schoenberg is on the wane. His experiments were important to music in the 20th century -- and I am by no means anti-Schoenberg -- but, with the exception of university dinosaurs like Milton Babbitt, I think twelve tone music has pretty much run its course. Most audiences have very low tolerance for that sort of thing, and no music lasts long without an audience. Fortunately, Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern are enough a part of the repertoire at this point that I doubt they are going anywhere. Musicians enjoy the challenges they present, and once listeners know where the music is "coming from," so to speak, they generally embrace it. The Alban Berg Violin Concerto is one of the most popular concertos to have emerged from last century.

Stravinsky's influence remains vital. Yes, rhythm is important, and Stravinsky more than anyone else liberated our sense of rhythm. There are riffs in "The Rite of Spring" that wouldn't be out of place in contemporary rap. Naturally, the work caused a tremendous riot at its premiere (in 1913). The composer went on to become something of a chameleon, but his most characteristic works -- the neo-classicism for which he is best remembered -- derives from a kind of primitivism held in common with early jazz. It's almost possible to say that Stravinsky, jazz and minimalism, if you follow the influences back far enough, share a common ancestory.

Yes, rhythm is as important to music as harmony, but it is harmony more than rhythm that causes that feel of tension and release that you describe, and it has always been that way. Music, unless it is very bland music (i.e., New Age), is created through the gravitational struggle between consonance and dissonance. People complain, "Oh, I don't like dissonant music," but what they don't realize is that Bach, Haydn and Mozart were constantly employing dissonance. This is what draws us into the music, and what helps create the impression of forward momentum. The resolution of the tonic, or home key, would not seem so powerful if not for dissonance. Sit down at a piano some time. (Not you. I know you're a composer. But someone who is unclear on what I am saying.) Strike two adjacent white keys. Dissonance, right? Then strike, say, a C and a G, or the C an octave above. Sounds pleasant, doesn't it? Consonance. Now listen to an 18th century piano sonata. If you listen closely, you will notice that the music is constantly leaping back and forth between the two, that the use of dissonance can be mainpulated to screw up tension, or simply to maintain interest.

Anyway, this is becoming far too didactic. Let me just say something quickly about jazz. I am not a huge jazz fan, either. But major composers of the 20th century have all dabbled with or been influenced by jazz, even if only to add spice to their otherwise wholly classical compositions. Think Walton's "Belshazzar's Feast." Copland's "Danzon Cubano." Ravel's "Piano Concerto in G." Weill's "Three-Penny Opera." Shostakovich's "Jazz Suites." There's an energy to jazz that can't be ignored, or at least it couldn't at a time when it was first gaining wide popular exposure.

I am familiar with Williams' jazz roots. His "Prelude and Fugue for Jazz Orchestra" has been recorded. Ned Rorem's "Piano Concerto for the Left Hand" is a good example of a piece of music which opens with a tone-row that actually sounds quite jazzy. It's a clever work, not strictly twelve-tone, as it turns out, although the row appears again and again. Which brings me to one final point -- just as the somewhat tame-sounding (by our standards) classical music of the 18th century can in reality be quite dissonant, music of our own time which can sound downright cacophonous can still be tonal in a very traditional sense. So the next time you hear something you don't like and you feel the need to dismiss it as "dissonant" or "atonal," it may very well be written in the key of C Major!

Okay, how about this:

Greatest composer (effecting harmony): Debussy

Greatest composer (effecting rhythm): Stravinsky

Greatest composer (effecting tonality): Schoenberg

Greatest film composer of the last quarter of the 20th century: Williams

I think that's fair.

[jsawruk 0]

Yes, Schoenberg is on the wane.  

Yes, rhythm is as important to music as harmony, but it is harmony more than rhythm that causes that feel of tension and release that you describe, and it has always been that way.  Music, unless it is very bland music (i.e., New Age), is created through the gravitational struggle between consonance and dissonance.  

Okay, how about this:

Greatest composer (effecting harmony):  Debussy

Greatest composer (effecting rhythm):  Stravinsky

Greatest composer (effecting tonality):  Schoenberg

Greatest film composer of the last quarter of the 20th century:  Williams

I think that's fair.

Thats probably fair, although I still favor Stravinsky. Schoenberg is not dead because it is the anti-Schoenberg camp that is growing. Therefore, his influence towards tonality is continually growing, while the 12-tone technique itself is diminishing in favor of tonality.

As far as your harmony vs. rhythm, may I just say that your remark there is very ethnocentric. Each culture expresses musical tension in different ways: we use both harmony and, to a lesser extent, rhythm to do this. However, other cultures may lack harmony etc. Ghanian drumming is totally based on the tension/release of polyrhythms! So while your statement holds true for us, it does not for others.

[Figo 2]

I know it is insensitive of me to say so, but -- SCREW OTHER CULTURES!

I'm interested in WESTERN music, and that's what we've been talking about all along, I thought. Unless anyone here is pushing a raga composer as the greatest of the century.

Ah yes, the old "influence through negative means." I forgot that trick. Schoenberg being influential because of other composers reacting against him. Chortle.

[Figo 2]

Hey, check it out! That was my 100th post! I'm now a "regular poster!" I'm finally somebodyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!

Figo, wondering what became of his hundreds of posts at the old board.

[Omen II 1,235]

Did you know it is possible to write jazz using the serial method? Just FYI.

Quite right, jsawruk. And the most accessible example to support your claim is David Shire's wonderful 12-tone jazz score for The Taking of Pelham 123 (1974) . Although Shire broke the rules once or twice, he should have got an Oscar for this outrageous score.

Other members unfamiliar with this score may want to check it out (you can order it from Film Score Monthly's website) .

Damien

USA 3 - Portugal 2 (told you all so)

[Morn 8]

And, IMHO, Williams ranks well below Korngold. It doesn't mean that I don't think he is great, just not as great as some of you may think.

What is so great about Korngold? Other than his advanced for the time harmony?

We may like John Williams more than Arnold Schoenberg, but history has shown Uncle Arnie to be right up at the top of the 20th century.

In influence and originally. Technically best doesn't make one the best but makes one technically the best. Considering that there is no other objective way to judge a composer, it really doesn't make much sense to call a composer the best. Music's prime purpose is to be enjoyable and it really doesn't make any sense to ignore that side of it when comparing composers, yet it is impossible to objectively compare composers by enjoyablitly. That is why I think it is pointless to call a composer the best and if you do you must be specific, instead of saying the best, you must say what he is the best at. Schoenberg has a big influence on music and is one of the biggest innovators, but that doesn't necessarily make him the best composer because what about plain enjoyablity? It is impossible to objectively judge that and foolish to ignore it so we must say it is impossible to place him above Williams but possible to say he was a bigger innovator and a bigger influence on music.

I may go too far with Korngold, but I do believe, as with Bernstein, that he was a more talented musician

Being the most talented doesn't make one the best, it's want one does with the talent. Besides, with Bernstein, he was primarily a conductor, we are comparing talent at composing. So sure it might overall be more talented than Williams, but that doesn't make him a better composer.

Second half of the century, perhaps. But you've still got Bernstein to contend with, though I'd still put Williams on top.

Yes with Williams on top. But I'd place Alex North on top of Bernstein. He's had a massive impact on film music, he does infact have more in comman with Williams and Goldsmith than his peers at his time. He's more innovative and complex than Herrmann. He has thicker orchestration and layers compared to Herrmann. He's done rhythm based stuff. He introduced jazz to film music and has mixed it with a classical style much like Gershwin and Bernstein.

[jsawruk 0]

So long as we are speaking strictly about film composers. As far as classical composers of the 2nd half of the century, then Williams falls short of many people (unless we limit ourselfs to the last quarter century, 1975-2000. Then we can talk about moving Williams back up there. But 1950-1975 was probably the single most innovative time in music history. A lot of important and good composers, classical, pop, and film came out of that school, including the budding John Williams).

Being a conductor first and a composer second does not make one a bad or even less of a composer. In fact, I would argue that a lot of composers since Beethoven have been primarily conductors, such as Mahler and L. Bernstein.

[Morn 8]

Being a conductor first and a composer second does not make one a bad or even less of a composer. In fact, I would argue that a lot of composers since Beethoven have been primarily conductors, such as Mahler and L. Bernstein.

What I ment is that you can say Bernstein was over all a more talented musician, but that doesn't make him a better composer.

And which composers of the last 50 years would you say are the most important?

[EvanED 1]

I don't know enough about classical music to analyze who is a great composer musch more than "I like this" and "I don't like that."

I hate "Bolero," but the orchestration is magnificent.

You can't argue with that.

Also, I'll say that Prokofiev was the on who get me into music... I was going to play the violin just so that I could play Peter and the Wolf. I don't know why I changed my mind and decided to play cello instead after trying each of them. Maybe it's because violins squeak in the hands of a newbie while you have to try pretty darn hard to get a cello to do so. Anyway, I'm glad that I switched.

But the comments saying how much Williams has gotten people into music don't seem all that supportive of his greatness... who knows how many people Bach got into music. He's dead, so it's hard to ask him how many people he influences. But I'd bet it's more than Williams... same with Beethoven and all the otherbig guys.

As for the others he mentioned: Gerswhin is supposed to be jazzy. If he's too jazzy for you, that's fine. He is supposed to be, much in the way that Bartok was folk-oriented. Gershwin is about as jazzy as I get.

I know. I'm just (:puts on his flame resistant suit again:) not a big fan of jazz.

If 4'33" is all you know of Cage, then I am sorry. That's another topic all it's own. Cage wrote a lot of music and a lot of philosophy (I'm reading his one book right now). 4'33" is an extreme case, and is supposed to be the antithesis of something like Boulez's Structures. Whether is music or not will always be debatable. But remember, you cannot achieve absolute silence unless you are deaf. A quiet room still has an ambience of about 20-30 dB, and in an anechoic room you can still hear your heartbeat!

What do you suggest I look for? (As a side note, for a recounting of an... interesting... performance of 4'33", go to http://charon.sfsu.edu/disaster.html and read "out of the cage". Then read some of the other stories.)

[McD 0]

Obviously, the poster isn't aware that Mozart wrote songs.  Dozens of them.  And I don't mean arias.

Be careful in assumptions about the 'poster'. The only thing the poster was guilty of was believing he didn't have to spell it out for you, and could do the job required in only a few words.

I think you'll find the assumption of Mozart 'songs', not arias, might not fit a lot of people's preconception of numbering 'dozens'. In any case, it's academic - by the time Prince was the age that Mozart checked out on, Prince had written AND recorded THOUSANDS of songs, a truly astonishing sum, unmatched since the start of the 'rock' era.

Whilst you may throw up the likes of Richard Rodgers or Lloyd Webber as 'songwriters' who did not concern themselves with the composing for the modern 'song orchestra' (guitar, bass, keyboards, percussion, vocals), it is the modern 'song orchestra' I was referring to.

And unlike the above two examples (and, say, Elton John, a classically trained pianist a la JW), Prince writes all his own lyrics, plays (almost) all his own instruments, and produces his own recordings.

Now, can we assume that a fun-loving polymath like Mozart may have taken control of the lyrical aspect of his work in the modern era? Yes, we can certainly ‘assume’.

And is it reasonable to assume that a virtuoso like Mozart might feel inclined to as big an impact in the 'recording' field (with his own work) as in that of composition? Certainly. Are any of the named 'would-be-20th-Century-MDMs' as well known as soloists as they are as composers? Is Prince? Yes, by a country mile. Not to mention that Mozart's major passion was for the piano and violin. The modern equivalent? Why, it's the keyboard and guitar. Two instruments Prince is known worldwide as being a master of.

The playing field, if looking for a 20th Century Mozart – has to be expanded considerably, and more thought given to its result. Would the modern day Shakespeare be Akiva Goldsman, winning an Oscar for A Beautiful Mind, or be responsible for writing Death of A Salesman? No, he’d probably have bridged out with the modern times, and be behind the camera as well. Think Milos Forman. Probably.

What should the modern day Mozart consist of? Virtuoso instrumentalism, innovative musical approaches, prodigious beginnings, awesome output, heart-on-the-bloody-pulse-music. Not to mention the matter of succeeding in business beyond their wildest dreams, and then failing with the false moves of a child. From worldwide fame (ok, only Euro-wide for Moz, but back then it was the same thing) to a position approaching obscurity (despite NO drop in quality). Sure, Prince may have invented Gansta Rap, and it’s nothing to be proud of, but it’s all there, folks. Could Prince have filled 180 CDs, Mozart style, even at the age of 35? With ease.

Of course, if the argument is to descend into ‘who occupies the same position in Classical Music as Mozart did in 1790’, at any point in the 20th Century, then the argument for Prince falls flat. But that didn’t seem to be the argument at all, and there was no hint that the debate was as narrow minded as that. Hell, why don’t you just go for the one who sounds most like Mozza, and award victory to Patrick Doyle for his work on Sense and Sensibility?