Jump to content

Contrasting Rozsa and Williams in the late 1970's


karelm

Recommended Posts

I am currently listening to Miklos Rozsa's score to Nick Meyer's enjoyable 1979 film, Time after Time.  I think Nick Meyer's does a great job of using rousing music in his films such as using the then somewhat untested James Horner to deliver a breakout score for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek VI (again with an untested composer, Cliff Eidelman).  Anyway, this got me thinking...Rosza is a very fine composer and extremely diverse but his 1979 score to Time after Time could have come from his 1940's and 50's period.  It must have sounded so old fashion and out dated by the time it was written.  In one sense there is a timeless quality to it.  In another, it feels out of time and place lacking any sense of awareness to what was happening with composers like Goldsmith, Williams, and Barry.  The semi-young John Williams was hitting home runs with each score during this period but without disregarding the past but embracing it yet making it distinctly his own.  Rozsa is best known for his great scores of the 1940's and 50's.  It could be because he was typecast to recreate his sound that directors grew up with.  I believe he became somewhat typecast and we can get a sense of this by how completely different his concert music (and very enjoyable) is to his film music.  Do you think 2010's John Williams is sort of where Rosza was in the 1970's? ...a very talented and skilled composer who is mostly relegated to reprising ideas from 30 or 40 years earlier while the breakthroughs are coming from those getting their first breaks now and utilizing more modern and individual approaches?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, karelm said:

Do you think 2010's John Williams is sort of where Rosza was in the 1970's? ...a very talented and skilled composer who is mostly relegated to reprising ideas from 30 or 40 years earlier while the breakthroughs are coming from those getting their first breaks now and utilizing more modern and individual approaches?

 

You kidding? Not at all. 

 

JW is still arguably the most highly respected as well as successful film composer. Sure, there are others (I'm not saying he is the only one) but nobody matches his creativity, diversity, quality, and success. And this still holds true, imo.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Romão said:

I think what Williams is known for and what he actually does in terms of composing range are not necessarily the same thing

 

Not just Williams....

 

I think what Rosza is known for and what he actually did in terms of composing range are not necessarily the same thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, don't forget, Rozsa was a very substantial composer during the noir and epic days of the 1940's and 50's.  He was a legend through to the 70's.  I think in the 80's he became a bit of a caricature in films like "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid" though historians and buffs still adored him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Josh500 said:

Sure, there are others (I'm not saying he is the only one) but nobody matches his creativity, diversity, quality, and success. And this still holds true, imo.

 

 

 

I'd like this question to be calmly, earnestly discussed.  I am not just trying to rouse rabble.  It is a legitimate point, I believe.  We can take it to another thread if need be - don't want to pollute karelm's topic.

 

Is Williams really as diverse as some other film composers are?  Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prerecorded Briefing said:

Is Williams really as diverse as some other film composers are?  Really?

 

How diverse can you get? Seriously.

 

I mean Home Alone, Saving Private Ryan, Jurassic Park, Schindler's List, Star Wars, Memoirs of a Geisha, Tintin, JFK.... 

 

As far as diversity goes, JW along with Jerry Goldsmith are unbeatable. Only difference is, JW is more successful in picking better movies.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Josh500 said:

 

How diverse can you get? Seriously.

 

I mean Home Alone, Saving Private Ryan, Jurassic Park, Schindler's List, Star Wars, Memoirs of a Geisha, Tintin, JFK.... 

 

As far as diversity goes, JW along with Jerry Goldsmith are unbeatable. Only difference is, JW is more successful in picking better movies.... 

 

Look very hard at those scores.  With one or two partial exceptions, they do not depart at all from one very specific strand of musical possibilities.  There is far more out there than lavish symphonic scores that brandish about big themes - my one and only gripe with film music fans has always been a lack of perspective on that fact.  Williams is masterful at what he does, but it's not very often that what he does varies.

 

I suppose this does tie in to the original point of the thread, after all.

 

47 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

But Zimmer is more diverse, obviously.

 

I believe you'd agree that he ultimately is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, karelm said:

Do you think 2010's John Williams is sort of where Rosza was in the 1970's? ...a very talented and skilled composer who is mostly relegated to reprising ideas from 30 or 40 years earlier while the breakthroughs are coming from those getting their first breaks now and utilizing more modern and individual approaches?

 

When was Williams' last breakthrough? I mean, splendid craftmanship, yeah. But you really don't hire Williams if you want fresh musical solutions...at least i  would not. 'Missouri Breaks' really was the last of 'Johnny Williams, jazz symphonist'. With a very few exceptions since then his musical ego was the traditional symphony orchestra - even in his somehwat 'queer' phase from 1995 to 2001, which was more harmonically challenging and thankfully up to today occasionally challenges the very safe handling of 'Lincoln' and 'War Horse' (not to speak of russian pastiches like Potter and BFG) once in a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, publicist said:

When was Williams' last breakthrough? I mean, splendid craftmanship, yeah. But you really don't hire Williams if you want fresh musical solutions...at least i  would not. 'Missouri Breaks' really was the last of 'Johnny Williams, jazz symphonist'. With a very few exceptions since then his musical ego was the traditional symphony orchestra - even in his somehwat 'queer' phase from 1995 to 2001, which was more harmonically challenging and thankfully up to today occasionally challenges the very safe handling of 'Lincoln' and 'War Horse' (not to speak of russian pastiches like Potter and BFG) once in a while.

Yup. Even I as a John Williams fan have to concede to this.

 

Not that I mind. His old fashioned symphonic musical approach is something I love very dearly.

 

But I might seek the new fangled musical approaches elsewhere if the mood takes me every one in a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prerecorded Briefing said:

 

Look very hard at those scores.  With one or two partial exceptions, they do not depart at all from one very specific strand of musical possibilities.  There is far more out there than lavish symphonic scores that brandish about big themes - my one and only gripe with film music fans has always been a lack of perspective on that fact.  Williams is masterful at what he does, but it's not very often that what he does varies.

 

I suppose this does tie in to the original point of the thread, after all.

 

 

I believe you'd agree that he ultimately is.

 

When I said "diversity," I meant he scores all sorts of different types of movies: slapstick comedies, action movies, science fiction movies, historical dramas, etc.

 

I didn't mean that he reinvents himself with every movie he scores. JW writes JW scores, after all. I thought that was understood. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Incanus said:

Not that I mind. His old fashioned symphonic musical approach is something I love very dearly.

 

And that's the catch: one can't have it both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Josh500 said:

 

When I said "diversity," I meant he scores all sorts of different types of movies: slapstick comedies, action movies, science fiction movies, historical dramas, etc.

 

I didn't mean that he reinvents himself with every movie he scores. JW writes JW scores, after all. I thought that was understood. 

 

?

 

So you applaud the simple fact that, by design or association (Spielberg), Williams is called writing for different genres albeit often in very similar idioms? That is not a huge feat if you are working in a medium like film, even Rachel Portman doesn't get around this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Josh500 said:

 

When I said "diversity," I meant he scores all sorts of different types of movies: slapstick comedies, action movies, science fiction movies, historical dramas, etc.

 

I didn't mean that he reinvents himself with every movie he scores. JW writes JW scores, after all. I thought that was understood. 

 

It just seems to me that TGP is slightly hijacking this thread to state his opinion that Zimmer is the more versatile artist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Josh500 said:

 

You kidding? Not at all. 

 

JW is still arguably the most highly respected as well as successful film composer. Sure, there are others (I'm not saying he is the only one) but nobody matches his creativity, diversity, quality, and success. And this still holds true, imo.

 

 

I am with this guy on this matter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

 

It just seems to me that TGP is slightly hijacking this thread to state his opinion that Zimmer is the more versatile artist.

 

Well, to each his own.

 

Me personally, I'm slightly allergic to Zimmer and everything where Zimmer was involved. In my whole life, I only bought one Zimmer score, and that was Lion King. And I bought that for the Elton John songs. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point of karelm's original post is that people like Rózsa, Herrmann and Williams might have been in a way so tied to their specific idiom of orchestral music that they in their later years couldn't or rather wouldn't adapt and explore different and new or challenging musical idioms very extensively.

 

Williams has far more than e.g. Rózsa even in his later years adapted to the surrounding film scoring climate although he has mostly done it in the confines of the symphonic idiom rather than reinventing himself or taken creative leaps outside his area of expertise, or as JW himself says taken time to retool all that much. Some of this might be on one hand due to Williams' inherent symphonic point of view and his love the orchestra as an instrument and on the other because of his marginal interest in different available modern sound production resources so that they would have played any massive role in his music.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Incanus. Obviously, Williams hasn't gone "all Zimmer" or ventured into completely unknown territory, like EDM (the EDM bit in A.I. was -- to my disappointment -- composed by Joseph, not John). I think that's expecting too much from Williams, given his age and background. He's no Giorgio Moroder, who can keep on doing that even in his 70s. I suspect also the synth backbeat in "Training Montage" from SPACE CAMP was done by someone else, although I'd love it if it was Williams himself then adapting to 80s pop music sensibilities.

 

However, he has adapted wonderfully within the confines of his own sound, like the John Adams/Harmonielehre-like elements -- especially from A.I. onwards (also evident in scores like MUNICH, MINORITY REPORT, WAR OF THE WORLDS....) -- dark, rhythmic textures that explore more harmonies than neo-classical themes. Which isn't THAT far removed from the ostinato-driven music we see in so many thrillers and action music these days (only more interesting).

 

Rozsa never really did this; he just kept on more or less doing "his thang" all the way to the end.

 

Not saying one is better than the other, just an observation of their evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or rather, on which level of musical craftmanship Zimmer has done it. Pragmatically, 'maestros' like Williams and Rózsa have/had a vastly better education in musical theory, counterpoint and orchestration. Which is, as we of all people should know, is not mandatory for a film composer.

 

But my point of view is that in an (often) narratively driven medium like film, having a good understanding of structure and how to do apply it to the music at hand is of great value. Zimmer does that, too, but he's much more limited when he's doing films that require huge and overarching/interconnected musical architectures.

 

As for Rózsa as Williams' equal: Rózsa was always a very strict classical composer (very german-conservatory) - Williams has the advantage of a more broad education especially in hipper american genres like jazz and blues. So he's certainly better at adapting newer styles and idioms but listening to his output, he too prefers to stay within musical confines established at least 60 or 80 years before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Incanus said:

I think the point of karelm's original post is that people like Rózsa, Herrmann and Williams might have been in a way so tied to their specific idiom of orchestral music that they in their later years couldn't or rather wouldn't adapt and explore different and new or challenging musical idioms very extensively.

 

Williams has far more than e.g. Rózsa even in his later years adapted to the surrounding film scoring climate although he has mostly done it in the confines of the symphonic idiom rather than reinventing himself or taken creative leaps outside his area of expertise, or as JW himself says taken time to retool all that much. Some of this might be on one hand due to Williams' inherent symphonic point of view and his love the orchestra as an instrument and on the other because of his marginal interest in different available modern sound production resources so that they would have played any massive role in his music.

 

 

Yes, and in a way, if I see there is a new score by JW, I must confess I would be disappointed if it somewhat didn't deliver what I would expect of a JW score...a throwback in some ways to his golden age of the 1970's and 80's which is where I believe his legacy resides.  Sure, I'd want some awareness to current scoring trends and conventions too.  I wonder if in 30 or 40 years from now these will be considered horribly out of touch with the trends of the time.  Yes, he's written great music before and after that and has diversity but the JW "sound" really comes from those space operas, action adventure, fantasy films of those years IMO.  I also think Rozsa had diversity - but was never asked to deviate from what he was known for and by the 1970's there would be no reason to hire him to try a fresh approach because there were those others who were known for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would rather see a new 'Cinderella Liberty' or 'Reivers' (or 'Memoirs'). Personally i find stuff like 'BFG' awfully anachronistic and, truth to be told, see no reason to enlarge my Williams collection with another Potter-bottlecap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, hornist said:

 

Yes, but the question is, how well has he done all that.

 

Assuming that you refer to compositional rigor, this is a metric with little interest or relevance beyond the niche discussions of theory that may take place here. 

 

A far more useful question to apply to any composer is: how much value do audiences place on what this composer has done?

 

I don't believe that much else matters when it comes to art. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That may be, but in relatively recent years we did get fantastic explorations of Williams' composing range with scores such as AI, War of the Worlds and Memoirs of a Geisha. Not to mention Sleepers. If the project demands it, Williams will stretch his muscles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Prerecorded Briefing said:

 

Assuming that you refer to compositional rigor, this is a metric with little interest or relevance beyond the niche discussions of theory that may take place here. 

 

A far more useful question to apply to any composer is: how much value do audiences place on what this composer has done?

 

I don't believe that much else matters when it comes to art. 

 

But audience tastes are fickle and can take time to catch on.  I would disagree with you and say what matters less is how it is valued by audiences (if we are talking about art).  I would change your statement slightly to say that when it comes to art, what matters most is that the creator achieved their intention based on their own assessment.  That might mean the intention is to make a popular piece and the metric would be that it is valued by the audience.  But it might mean that it is a work of self expression where the creator doesn't care if it is understood by scholars, audiences, or critics.  Etc.  For our discussion of film music, I would argue it clearly needs to have some pop culture impact so maybe that's what you meant.  Example:  The 1960's and 70's Bond scores were just fantastic and merging pop and theater with while staying very trendy and adding to the character's unique cultural style. 

6 hours ago, Romão said:

That may be, but in relatively recent years we did get fantastic explorations of Williams' composing range with scores such as AI, War of the Worlds and Memoirs of a Geisha. Not to mention Sleepers. If the project demands it, Williams will stretch his muscles

 

The same could be said of 1970's Rozsa.  But at that time you had these young kids who were redefining genre's like Ennio Morricone, Bill Conti, Lalo Schifrin, Barry, Goldsmith, Williams, others that were in their prime. 

4 hours ago, Romão said:

I just think it's more due to the nature of JW's recent movie projects, rather that his predisposition or unwilingness to branch out

Agreed...but the same with 70's Rozsa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, karelm said:

But audience tastes are fickle and can take time to catch on.  I would disagree with you and say what matters less is how it is valued by audiences (if we are talking about art).  I would change your statement slightly to say that when it comes to art, what matters most is that the creator achieved their indention based on their own assessment.  That might mean the intention is to make a popular piece and the metric would be that it is valued by the audience.  But it might mean that it is a work of self expression where the creator doesn't care if it is understood by scholars, audiences, or critics.  Etc.  For our discussion of film music, I would argue it clearly needs to have some pop culture impact so maybe that's what you meant.  Example:  The 1960's and 70's Bond scores were just fantastic and merging pop and theater with while staying very trendy and adding to the character's unique cultural style. 

 

Yes, for the most part I agree with this.  I don't think it is irrelevant whether a composer has reached some personal satisfaction with their work, but as time goes by I find myself feeling more and more sure that, for myself at least, the best way to gague the "value" of art is to see the impact that it has on people.  Something written for oneself, one's peers, or the desk drawer, is becoming harder for me to justify.  I think there is plenty of fertile ground where composers can fulfill themselves while still providing something to the world at large.  And so this has become an important way of thinking about all this for me. 

 

The reality is, unsurprisingly, that if you look at, say, Youtube comments, many people, most people, love Williams and Zimmer equally.  None of the quirks and biases that we're used to enter into it for them.  They are moved by both and it's that simple. 

 

Along these lines, whether it's Rosza or Williams or whoever, diversity and evolution are nice, but if they are moving people, I can not fault them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might be interesting to have Williams do a fully Zimmer-style score. But truth be told, I wouldn't want him to.

For me "Star Wars" and "The Lost World" are already worlds apart, making both very original for Williams in very different ways.

 

I wished I could say something sensible about Rozsa, but I'm just not familiar enough with his work.

El Cid is absolutely bloody brilliant though, fully on par with anything Wiliams has done and still does not sound excessively old-fashioned to me.

But last weekend I watched the film The Thief of Bagdad, which really DOES sound excessively old-fashioned and is clearly a product of its time.

Which actually makes it great in its own way: It's like having a time machine that allows you to experience a world that no longer quite exists.

 

The one thing I will say for Williams and Rozsa is that they have never written music that distracted me from the movie I was watching.

Zimmer might be considered to be supposedly "more versatile", but sometimes the music he comes up with is just plain wrong.

Though I'll admit that is most likely because of my personal preferences, more than anything else.

 

I do think these three composers come from very different directions though:

Rozsa seems to me to be unabashedly romantic

Williams' music, to me, always signals a general "joy for life" and "hopefulness" that seems to be there even when the music turns to its darkest

Zimmer's, on the other hand, has a darkly oppressive undertone (or occasionally overtone) that seems to be the polar opposite of Williams' approach

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Prerecorded Briefing said:

The reality is, unsurprisingly, that if you look at, say, Youtube comments, many people, most people, love Williams and Zimmer equally.  None of the quirks and biases that we're used to enter into it for them.  They are moved by both and it's that simple. 

 

No sale here. You just bulldoze a discussion with Trumpish knockout arguments. While this is may be appropriate within another Zimmer-vs-the-world borefest, it also is a cop-out of epic proportions (people are moved by all kinds of bullshit all the time, and how often have we to value this as art??)

 

But i will let it go - basically because we're headed nowhere, anyway, except for:

Quote

Might be interesting to have Williams do a fully Zimmer-style score.

 

What on earth this score should entail??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Pieter_Boelen said:

 

Williams' music, to me, always signals a general "joy for life" and "hopefulness." 

 

Yes! Not comparing the two, or even looking at either's larger body of work, I do want to agree that Williams always seems to be able to write passages that, indeed, display such an immense joy in life. 

 

Think the ending of "Dartmoor, 1912" (which I gushed over in another thread recently), the "rolling" section of "Dream Country," or the beginning and take off music from "Farewell and the Trip." 

 

56 minutes ago, Prerecorded Briefing said:

 

Yes, for the most part I agree with this.  I don't think it is irrelevant whether a composer has reached some personal satisfaction with their work, but as time goes by I find myself feeling more and more sure that, for myself at least, the best way to gague the "value" of art is to see the impact that it has on people.  Something written for oneself, one's peers, or the desk drawer, is becoming harder for me to justify.  I think there is plenty of fertile ground where composers can fulfill themselves while still providing something to the world at large.  And so this has become an important way of thinking about all this for me. 

 

The reality is, unsurprisingly, that if you look at, say, Youtube comments, many people, most people, love Williams and Giacchino equally.  None of the quirks and biases that we're used to enter into it for them.  They are moved by both and it's that simple. 

 

Along these lines, whether it's Rosza or Williams or Giacchino, diversity and evolution are nice, but if they are moving people, I can not fault them. 

 

Edited to display a possible interpretation of these words. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the examples I gave of optimistic Williams music weren't the best, as those are tinged with just a pinch of melancholy (which is part of why they're so beautiful). 

 

The 1941 March and stuff like it is just totally fun and optimistic, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a bitch of a time finding some film scores to play at my wedding because so many great themes actually had a air of melancholy to them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, publicist said:

 

No sale here. You just bulldoze a discussion with Trumpish knockout arguments. While this is may be appropriate within another Zimmer-vs-the-world borefest, it also is a cop-out of epic proportions (people are moved by all kinds of bullshit all the time, and how often have we to value this as art??)

 

But i will let it go - basically because we're headed nowhere, anyway

 

You are forever looking for some conclusive argument, it seems, but balk at anything that smacks of that.  I'm not trying to shut anything down. 

 

I've paid my dues to academia in time as both student and teacher, and as composer.  What I come away with from all of that is little interest in judgements based on anything other than the effect of something on someone.  This is just where I've ended up.  I leave what must inevitably be more sage and sublime reasoning on these matters to others more equipped. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why it is so puzzling that you drop such a nullities and then pat yourself on the back for being such wise old peasant. I'm all for love in the world and people enjoying what they like but it's still kind of....unworthy, i might say, as a contribution to a discussion to offer such relativist platitudes. 

 

But even when popularity is a totally valid yardstick to measure the success of an artist, i hope that never will stop serious discussion about the means used to arrive there. And that i say because gross oversimplification and intellectual lethargy are so commonplace today in all things cultural (and i don't even like the 'art' term).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's kind of TGP's modus operandi.  He likes to pop into threads and say why certain things people have said is wrong and that what he feels is right, but never wants to take the time to actually go into any detail about his beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good 'ole Briefing often gets it right but this time his remarks suck. Though god knows no one wants to see pagelong filibustering on the dreaded 'what is art?' question again...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Will said:

I think he often goes into quite a lot of detail. His posts are often some of the longer ones!

 

He used to, but lately?  Well, maybe I'm juts reading the wrong threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jay said:

 

He used to, but lately?  Well, maybe I'm juts reading the wrong threads.

 

You surely read way more than I do. I just remember some longer posts in the political threads particularly, I think. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.