Harry Potter vs. Lord of the Rings

[Jay 37,336]

11 hours ago, Brundlefly said:

The Harry Potter trilogy consists of two-thirds on The Prisoner of Azkaban

 

What? 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

5 minutes ago, Loert said:

Uh oh, this is beginning to sound like a case of "If you don't like it, then you just haven't understood it"...!!!

 

No, but when you hear stuff like: "LOTR is just Carmina Burana stuff and doesn't go further than that!", yes, clearly, the person hasn't understood the work!

[Josh500 1,615]

6 hours ago, Romão said:

There are sections of LOTR that I like so much, that actually makes the sections that I don't actually like stand out much, much more. And I have no love for the movies, so that doesn't help

 

Huh, what? 😂 

 

Not sure whether you like it or hate it.... 

 

2 hours ago, Loert said:

 

Uh oh, this is beginning to sound like a case of "If you don't like it, then you just haven't understood it"...!!!

 

Ultimately, each score has something to offer that the other does not. I think it's pretty much certain that LOTR is the more profound work, not least because of how extensively Shore integrated all the characters and places in the story into the score, and the numerous subtleties in the thematic presentations and transformations. But it doesn't have the colourful orchestrations of the Harry Potter scores, or the variety in style, to give two examples. So a lot of it falls down to what's important to the listener. For example, I don't fall head over heels for "subtlety" in music. I can appreciate it when a composer begins "Happy Motif #2" in the flute only to cleverly interject "Evil Motif #5" in the oboe at the midway point, or when they change one note in the leitmotif to suggest another motif... But what's most important to me is whether the music sounds "good" to my ears. And by "good", I think most of all of harmonic control, melodic lucidity, and clarity of counterpoint and instrumentation (how I perceive it). Not the manipulation of motifs per se. Having listened through the LOTR scores a couple of times, there are moments in there that I absolutely adore, but in general it's not a soundscape that I find that appealing. The fact that one can discover 200 different leitmotifs in there means little to me, if I don't buy the sound of the music in the first place. I much prefer the glimmering, glistening soundscape of Harry Potter. And by the way, Wagner, whose usage of leitmotifs inspired Shore's writing (and many other film composers'...) is one of my favourite classical composers not merely because he used leitmotifs in such an advanced way, but because I absolutely dig his music, note for note.

 

Well said! I agree. 👍 

[publicist 4,643]

Potter is still the paloozer.

[Bilbo 3,709]

LotR is the finest achievement in the history of film music IMO. 

 

I love Harry Potter but it's no comparison. 

[publicist 4,643]

2 minutes ago, Bilbo Skywalker said:

LotR is the finest achievement in the history of film music IMO. 

 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

10 minutes ago, publicist said:

Potter is still the paloozer.

 

And in the John Williams subforum! What a disgrace!

[publicist 4,643]

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Joni Wiljami 1,206]

Potter of course. 

 

Shore got obviously greater story and images to work with and Fotr is brilliant. The other two boring as hell.

 

It would be very interesting to hear these in upside down universe, johns take of LOTR and howards Potter!!

 

[Bilbo 3,709]

Chamber of Secrets stops me even considering Potter for a second. It's too similar to PS.

 

PoA is great but doesn't sound like it naturally follows the first too. CoS is too similar, perhaps PoA is too different. 

 

LotR is a perfectly unified narrative. 

[Score 770]

4 hours ago, Loert said:

 

Ultimately, each score has something to offer that the other does not. I think it's pretty much certain that LOTR is the more profound work, not least because of how extensively Shore integrated all the characters and places in the story into the score, and the numerous subtleties in the thematic presentations and transformations. But it doesn't have the colourful orchestrations of the Harry Potter scores, or the variety in style, to give two examples. So a lot of it falls down to what's important to the listener. For example, I don't fall head over heels for "subtlety" in music. I can appreciate it when a composer begins "Happy Motif #2" in the flute only to cleverly interject "Evil Motif #5" in the oboe at the midway point, or when they change one note in the leitmotif to suggest another motif... But what's most important to me is whether the music sounds "good" to my ears. And by "good", I think most of all of harmonic control, melodic lucidity, and clarity of counterpoint and instrumentation (how I perceive it). Not the manipulation of motifs per se. Having listened through the LOTR scores a couple of times, there are moments in there that I absolutely adore, but in general it's not a soundscape that I find that appealing. The fact that one can discover 200 different leitmotifs in there means little to me, if I don't buy the sound of the music in the first place. I much prefer the glimmering, glistening soundscape of Harry Potter. And by the way, Wagner, whose usage of leitmotifs inspired Shore's writing (and many other film composers'...) is one of my favourite classical composers not merely because he used leitmotifs in such an advanced way, but because I absolutely dig his music, note for note.

 

I couldn't agree more. The Potter scores display a "magic" command of harmony and orchestration from JW. Think of the Prologue from HP1. Those chords playing when Dumbledore switches off all the lights are worth of Debussy or Stravinsky in their top form, and I have always wondered how the hell could he even conceive those sounds. The cue playing when the students reach Hogwarts is masterful in the preparation and resolution of the climax. The ending of the "Mirror Scene" cue that plays when Harry confronts Voldemort is literally terrifying and extremely elaborated, it strangely reminds me of the coda from the first Ballade by Chopin, but this is much more scary (sadly the film mix does not allow to appreciate all the details, which are evident from the recording alone). "Leaving Hogwarts" makes you feel sorry for Harry even if you don't care at all about the story. 

 

Not to mention the greatness of Azkaban (all the dementor stuff, all the middle-age-sounding stuff, a great Quidditch piece, the time-travelling cues...). Not to mention the beautiful cues that he wrote for Chamber of Secrets (even the suite alone is great - but he actually wrote much more than that, right?  ). 

 

I mean, the LOTR scores are great and they were surely an amazing feat, but from the point of view of harmony and orchestration they are relatively simple. This is not a defect in itself. But I also look for more originality in these matters, and that's why I prefer the Potters. The symphony from LOTR is more than enough for me compared to the scores, while I definitely cannot say this with respect to the HP suites vs. the complete scores, where almost every cue is essential.

 

 

 

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

It's funny that you think the symphony is enough but lament the relatively simple harmony and orchestration - many of the moments in the trilogy that showcase Shore's subtle hand at introducing such complexities are not at all represented in the symphony.  That subtlety is a huge selling point for me and I suspect many others who are not so enamored of the grandiose approach that the Potter films required.  I also might add that the symphony's performances and recordings are a far cry from the standards of the originals, and it surely detracts from the quality of the whole.  Far better to create your own albums from the original material if you absolutely need a streamlined presentation.

 

As for originality, I hear a greater, far greater, degree of that in Shore's work than Williams'.  Both have their discernible influences, but there's tons of music that draws from the same pool that Williams did.  It's wonderful, colorful stuff, but there's next to no cinematic or dramatic weight to hang it all on, and ultimately is a bit been there, done that.  No level of musical mastery or complexity is enough to outweigh those facts for me - those things alone do not great film music make.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

I like how most people who voted for Potter present LOTR in a way that makes it sound like they don't despise it even though they clearly do!

 

"i voted for Potter because I think these are magnificent scores, some of the best of all time and Williams is a genius. Don't get me wrong, I think LOTR is great and all too but I don't really see what's great about it. Actually, there's nothing really great about it, is there?"

 

[Joni Wiljami 1,206]

Ok, more specific: Quidditch third year alone beats every battle/action music in lotr. The three films are 80% battle, so hah hah!! Friendship and shire themes are the only good themes there. Here.

[publicist 4,643]

People, you have it now on good authority.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

[Score 770]

1 hour ago, BloodBoal said:

I like how most people who voted for Potter present LOTR in a way that makes it sound like they don't despise it even though they clearly do!

 

"i voted for Potter because I think these are magnificent scores, some of the best of all time and Williams is a genius. Don't get me wrong, I think LOTR is great and all too but I don't really see what's great about it. Actually, there's nothing really great about it, is there?"

 

 

Well, this is not what I said  . I definitely see what is great about the LOTR scores and I like them a lot, especially FOTR. I just think the Potters are greater, because of more interesting (for me) choices of harmony and orchestration, which make them "better", or if you want, more engaging and more satisfactory, to my ears. 

 

1 hour ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

It's funny that you think the symphony is enough but lament the relatively simple harmony and orchestration - many of the moments in the trilogy that showcase Shore's subtle hand at introducing such complexities are not at all represented in the symphony.  That subtlety is a huge selling point for me and I suspect many others who are not so enamored of the grandiose approach that the Potter films required. 

 

Can you point me at some cue/cues from LOTR not included in the symphony that you consider more subtle, more complex, more brilliant etc. than the best stuff in the HP scores? Or to some genius harmonic choice that escaped my attention and will blow my mind?

 

(Of course I would like to compare the best cues with the best cues, not with Aunt Marge's Waltz). 

 

As for the poorer cinematic weight of HP compared to LOTR, I agree, but this is not the scores' fault. I tend to separate the score from the movie and let the score tell its own story. Otherwise I could not even listen to TPM...

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

It would be exceedingly difficult to make a comprehensive list of such moments and as such I suggest that people just find the time and listen to the damn scores, but off the top of my head, there's quite a bit of dark music in the third installment that is nowhere to be found in the symphonic presentation - and this is some of the most densely cerebral stuff in the trilogy.  It's refreshingly different, then and now, especially compared to the more conventional and familiar (relatively, of course) sort of density and angular writing in the Potter scores.

 

I think it's also worthwhile to ask yourself what "good orchestration" means in the first place.  Whether you have a dozen different things happening at once with complete clarity, or an immaculately balanced, voiced, and colored single chord, there is good orchestration at work.  Too often, people seem to equate orchestration with frantic activity, if not total overwriting.  

 

Even if you do prefer more floridly orchestrated music, it may help you to appreciate what others see in Shore's work to consider this.  This is music that is much more austere and monolithic, but as a result of very fine strokes within larger, more obvious shapes.  On the surface, it may give the impression of simple orchestration, but you need to listen to every sonority to hear the brilliance of what's going on within - there are no big woodwind runs or glittering tuned percussion sticking their heads out to impress.

[mstrox 6,649]

Lord of the Rings is good because it sounds good.

 

Harry Potter is good for the same reason, but I don't think it sounds as good as Lord of the Rings.

[Joni Wiljami 1,206]

1 hour ago, publicist said:

People, you have it now on good authority.

 

I envy You!!

1 hour ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

and You!!

[Loert 2,511]

1 hour ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

I think it's also worthwhile to ask yourself what "good orchestration" means in the first place.  Whether you have a dozen different things happening at once with complete clarity, or an immaculately balanced, voiced, and colored single chord, there is good orchestration at work.  Too often, people seem to equate orchestration with frantic activity, if not total overwriting.  

 

OK, here's an example of something I take issue with in LOTR:

 

 

0:35 - 0:40 sounds very clumsy to me, the way the trombones obscure the rising strings and wind in the bass. The last couple of notes in the second bar are barely distinguishable, where is it going? In fact, what sounds like the foreground (the strings + horns playing A then F) sounds like it's acting more as a background...but then the jump from the 3rd of F# minor, to the 5th of Bb minor, back to the 3rd of F# minor seems a bit odd. So is this the start of some melody? I don't get it.

 

Another example is the cellos starting from 3:03. I think I get the gist, Shore is building a "rising tension"  in the bass. And yet it doesn't sound forceful enough. The first run sounds like it's out of time. I'm not convinced by the ending of the second run at all; is it a trill on G-A? If so, then it is too obscured in the choral texture. Besides, the choral line after the timpanis kick in at 3:31 seems a bit random: E(+F?) D Bb D D D F E D(+cluster). Maybe fits the film perfectly well but on album it doesn't impress me.

 

By the way, I don't think in these terms while listening, it's just that occasionally something will make me go "huh???" or "meh" and in the case of the three examples above I've tried to put into words what I don't like. Perhaps it's just a result of my musical experiences, or I'm looking at it from the wrong angle...but in any case I'm not convinced as of the present moment. 

 

On the other hand, I love 0:00 - 0:34, and 2:00 - 2:20 almost knocked me off my chair when I first listened to it on album. Moments like that are what make me go back to listening to LOTR.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Well I'm not sure if you're looking to have your mind changed, but I don't think it could be done regardless.  I honestly don't hear anything wrong with these moments.  The first is just a flourishing/transitory gesture and it leads quite clearly into the high strings that then descend into the "Journey There" segment, I don't think it's lacking in direction, nor do I feel anything is obscured.  It actually sounds pretty transparent to me, though youtube here is of course muddying things.  Also, no trombones in there.  Cellos and basses and 2 bassoons on the low runs, and horns in 3 parts doubled by tremolo violins and violas on the top line.

 

Also don't really get what you're saying about that second passage either.  The bass elements there have always been really appealing to me and I think they build appropriately to the climax rather than starting out with a full tutti in the low voices, and I think the final choral phrase ends the whole thing nicely - I hear the entire sequence as this dark incantatory declamation (of the Ring text of course), and that final phrase has always struck me as almost a profane "amen" cap.  You have to listen to the whole passage as one, hearing the long line (thank you, Nadia), if that makes any sense.  That is one department in which I will say Shore's scores satisfy me, far, far, far more than the Potters.  I wonder if that key difference in scoring style explains a lot of folks' preferences.  Moment to moment activity, or these longer, broader gestures that are more demanding on one's musical memory and ability to internalize the big picture.

[Loert 2,511]

49 minutes ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

Also, no trombones in there.  Cellos and basses and 2 bassoons on the low runs, and horns in 3 parts doubled by tremolo violins and violas on the top line.

 

Low horns...trombones...same thing aren't they?  Only kidding, thanks for the correction.

 

I see what you mean about the "amen" cap, I hadn't really thought about that. I guess my problem is that that last choral line sounds less declamatory than the stuff preceding it, and yet it's the last line that gets the "declamatory" timpanis. Anyway, we can go round like this in circles. I find it fascinating how some people might perceive certain music as meaningless noise whilst others find something meaningful in it, and vice versa. I guess it's what makes places like JWFan interesting! (and sometimes frustrating)

 

On the subject of long lines vs short moments...for me, long lines are effective only if I get good "note to note" satisfaction. They are certainly mutually compatible. If somebody writes some clumsy counterpoint, and then somebody praises it because it has organically evolved from some preceding material, that's not enough to win me over. Of course this note to note satisfaction is a very tricky thing to define...but what can I say, I know it when I hear it.

[Romão 2,274]

11 hours ago, Josh500 said:

 

Huh, what? 😂 

 

Not sure whether you like it or hate it.... 

 

 

I was refering to the scores in the first sentence, of course. I adore the books.

 

And only two themes really managed to really capture the sense of loss that I think permeates the book so much. The Ring theme of course, but also the following, which is my favorite from the whole trilogy and the one I find better captures the whole essence of the book (it was sadly underused, though):

 

Other themes, like for example the Shire theme or the Fellowship theme, I just can't stand

[Score 770]

14 hours ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

It would be exceedingly difficult to make a comprehensive list of such moments and as such I suggest that people just find the time and listen to the damn scores, but off the top of my head, there's quite a bit of dark music in the third installment that is nowhere to be found in the symphonic presentation - and this is some of the most densely cerebral stuff in the trilogy.  It's refreshingly different, then and now, especially compared to the more conventional and familiar (relatively, of course) sort of density and angular writing in the Potter scores.

 

I did listen to the damn scores more than once - but I will go back to RotK and see if I agree 

 

14 hours ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

I think it's also worthwhile to ask yourself what "good orchestration" means in the first place.  Whether you have a dozen different things happening at once with complete clarity, or an immaculately balanced, voiced, and colored single chord, there is good orchestration at work.  Too often, people seem to equate orchestration with frantic activity, if not total overwriting.  

 

If this is true, I am not one of those people. I am a musician and I know that a good orchestration does not necessarily equate with frantic activity. It also does not necessarily equate with aleatoric writing or with a minor chord with added 9ths or 4ths played by a choir. It's about the intelligent use of the instruments to achieve a certain effect, and I note when a composer makes a choice that surprises me. E.g. Mozart was a genius orchestrator, even if his orchestra was extremely limited if compared to what we have nowadays. 

 

As an example from LOTR, I really appreciate when Shore voices chords in an unusual way, for example by giving the chord to the brass but the lowest note to the timpani (it happens in several statements of the Fellowship theme). If I had seen this on paper only, I would have expected it not to work at all, instead it sounds great: hats off. But I don't remember many more examples of situations like this in the LOTR scores, which I like for other reasons.

 

In the Potter scores, I find something exciting in almost every cue. Take the statements of the Hedwig's theme, where the melody is given to alto flute, English horn and bassoon in a very high register ("Rite-of-Spring"-like!), over a landscape of violins + celesta playing those fast runs, and there is almost nothing in the bass register, except for those pizzicato notes by the cellos, which are actually in their high register. What I find interesting is not the mere fact that the violins are playing fast, but the fact that the combination of woodwinds is unique and well-conceived, the absence of basses combined with the speedy runs perfectly gives the idea of flying, and the combination of all these elements defines the HP sound in a way that is instantly recognizable and evokes a whole world. It's not about woodwind fluorishes or glockenspiel, which I also find irritating when used just for the sake of impressing. 

 

But then you could reply that Shore achieves the same effectiveness just with simpler means, you could give me an example with which I could agree or disagree, I could reply, and we could go on forever. At the end, whether an orchestration is great or just good might be a bit subjective. And this thread is about opinions, after all. What impresses me most about the HP scores, however, also compared with LOTR, is the harmony (I have always considered this as Williams' strongest point as a composer).  

 

... at the end, we all like and listen to both the HP and the LOTR scores, right?

 

 

 

 

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Ok then. 

[mstrox 6,649]

I think they're both bad.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

1 minute ago, mstrox said:

I think they're both bad.

 

They certainly are nothing special compared to the actual greatest, most genius score of 2001:

 

David Newman's Dr. Dolittle 2!

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

1 minute ago, mstrox said:

I think they're both bad.

 

hey thats ur opinion ur entitled to it everyones different different strokes at the end of the day have a good mstrox day

[mstrox 6,649]

Neither of them really "gets my toes a-tappin'," if you know what I mean.  If the Beverly Hills Cop trilogy had been a third poll option, it would win - no contest.

[Joni Wiljami 1,206]

23 hours ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

It's funny that you think the symphony is enough but lament the relatively simple harmony and orchestration - many of the moments in the trilogy that showcase Shore's subtle hand at introducing such complexities are not at all represented in the symphony.  That subtlety is a huge selling point for me and I suspect many others who are not so enamored of the grandiose approach that the Potter films required.  I also might add that the symphony's performances and recordings are a far cry from the standards of the originals, and it surely detracts from the quality of the whole.  Far better to create your own albums from the original material if you absolutely need a streamlined presentation.

 

As for originality, I hear a greater, far greater, degree of that in Shore's work than Williams'.  Both have their discernible influences, but there's tons of music that draws from the same pool that Williams did.  It's wonderful, colorful stuff, but there's next to no cinematic or dramatic weight to hang it all on, and ultimately is a bit been there, done that.  No level of musical mastery or complexity is enough to outweigh those facts for me - those things alone do not great film music make.

 

21 hours ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

It would be exceedingly difficult to make a comprehensive list of such moments and as such I suggest that people just find the time and listen to the damn scores, but off the top of my head, there's quite a bit of dark music in the third installment that is nowhere to be found in the symphonic presentation - and this is some of the most densely cerebral stuff in the trilogy.  It's refreshingly different, then and now, especially compared to the more conventional and familiar (relatively, of course) sort of density and angular writing in the Potter scores.

 

I think it's also worthwhile to ask yourself what "good orchestration" means in the first place.  Whether you have a dozen different things happening at once with complete clarity, or an immaculately balanced, voiced, and colored single chord, there is good orchestration at work.  Too often, people seem to equate orchestration with frantic activity, if not total overwriting.  

 

Even if you do prefer more floridly orchestrated music, it may help you to appreciate what others see in Shore's work to consider this.  This is music that is much more austere and monolithic, but as a result of very fine strokes within larger, more obvious shapes.  On the surface, it may give the impression of simple orchestration, but you need to listen to every sonority to hear the brilliance of what's going on within - there are no big woodwind runs or glittering tuned percussion sticking their heads out to impress.

 

20 hours ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

Well I'm not sure if you're looking to have your mind changed, but I don't think it could be done regardless.  I honestly don't hear anything wrong with these moments.  The first is just a flourishing/transitory gesture and it leads quite clearly into the high strings that then descend into the "Journey There" segment, I don't think it's lacking in direction, nor do I feel anything is obscured.  It actually sounds pretty transparent to me, though youtube here is of course muddying things.  Also, no trombones in there.  Cellos and basses and 2 bassoons on the low runs, and horns in 3 parts doubled by tremolo violins and violas on the top line.

 

Also don't really get what you're saying about that second passage either.  The bass elements there have always been really appealing to me and I think they build appropriately to the climax rather than starting out with a full tutti in the low voices, and I think the final choral phrase ends the whole thing nicely - I hear the entire sequence as this dark incantatory declamation (of the Ring text of course), and that final phrase has always struck me as almost a profane "amen" cap.  You have to listen to the whole passage as one, hearing the long line (thank you, Nadia), if that makes any sense.  That is one department in which I will say Shore's scores satisfy me, far, far, far more than the Potters.  I wonder if that key difference in scoring style explains a lot of folks' preferences.  Moment to moment activity, or these longer, broader gestures that are more demanding on one's musical memory and ability to internalize the big picture.

ok!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

This thread is going nowhere, but I like where it is going.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

This thread is gonna heat up until people kill each other.

 

Gandalf vs. Dumbledore

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Gandalf is an immortal entity, Dubmledore is a dude with magical powers.  Again, there is no competition.  Please read this post in the nerdiest voice imaginable.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

3 minutes ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

Gandalf is an immortal entity, Dubmledore is a dude with magical powers.  Again, there is no competition.  Please read this post in the nerdiest voice imaginable.

 

 

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

2 minutes ago, Brundlefly said:

This thread is gonna heat up until people kill each other.

 

Gandalf vs. Dumbledore

Gandalf.  Dumbledore is just some asshole manipulates schoolchildren into risking their lives to do his bidding.  

[Brundlefly 2,385]

Okay, if we let fight Gandalf vs. Dumbledore there is a clear winner, but the result of Shore vs. Williams should be different.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Should?  So you know better than those who disagree?

[Bilbo 3,709]

18 minutes ago, Not Mr. Big said:

Gandalf.  Dumbledore is just some asshole manipulates schoolchildren into risking their lives to do his bidding.  

Dumbledore. Gandalf is just some asshole who manipulates Hobbits into risking their lives to do his bidding. 

[Fancyarcher 350]

The Potter scores are great, but the LOTR films are among the earliest films I saw in the cinemas, where I can recall actually remembering the music extensively. They definitely get my vote.