Alex Ross on Williams' The Last Jedi

[Miguel Andrade 1,260]

Don't recall seeing this one posted around here, so here it goes...

 

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/a-field-guide-to-the-musical-leitmotifs-of-star-wars

[Chen G. 3,943]

Its been posted before.

 

I have to say, though, I'm not a fan of cataloging each part of what is clearly one theme as a separate leitmotif, as the document linked by the article does.

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

Yes you seem to say that quite a bit.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

39 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Its been posted before.

 

I have to say, though, I'm not a fan of cataloging each part of what is clearly one theme as a separate leitmotif, as the document linked by the article does.

 

Doug Adams does the same.

[Chen G. 3,943]

Indeed?

 

There's not a single theme from the Middle Earth score whose B-section Adams classifies as a separate theme, even where it might be appropriate (e.g. The Shire theme). I recall him explaining at length, for instance, how the introduction figure to the History of the Ring (the one from the opening of Fellowship of the Ring) isn't a leitmotif in its own right.

 

The same is true here. I mean, Lehman makes out three "themes" out of Duel of the Fates alone. Come on...

 

 

[Falstaft 2,132]

They're three polyphonic components of the same musical set-piece, yes. That's why I still call them all "Duel of the Fates."

 

The reason I sort them out this way is that during the Battle of Naboo, they're treated at various points as separable and distinct motifs. In some situations, you hear just the five-note ostinato. On others, just the chordal fanfare, still others the palindromic little motto. A similar thing is true of Rey's Chimes vs. Rey's Theme, the A & B sections of the March of Resistance, and to a lesser extent the Main Theme and BotH.

 

I try to make my criteria for labeling these materials extremely explicit. Anyone else perfectly free to prioritize different labeling criteria, but ideally they are consistently applied.

 

For me, what's so exciting is that Williams's work (and scholarship surrounding it) is being recognized in such glowing terms in a publication with a long history of musical snobbery! That's a big deal!

 

 

[Jurassic Shark 12,030]

4 minutes ago, Falstaft said:

For me, what's so exciting is that Williams's work (and scholarship surrounding it) is being recognized in such glowing terms in a publication with a long history of musical snobbery! That's a big deal!

 

Indeed!

[Ricard 2,242]

6 hours ago, Miguel Andrade said:

Don't recall seeing this one posted around here, so here it goes...

 

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/a-field-guide-to-the-musical-leitmotifs-of-star-wars

 

Yes, it's been mentioned here and here.

 

But it probably deserved its own thread, so thanks for posting it.

[Ludwig 1,120]

2 hours ago, Falstaft said:

For me, what's so exciting is that Williams's work (and scholarship surrounding it) is being recognized in such glowing terms in a publication with a long history of musical snobbery! That's a big deal!

 

I'll second that!

 

Now if Williams himself could only be convinced to allow a much-needed book on his Star Wars music to be written...

[Chen G. 3,943]

I'll third (?) that!

 

14 hours ago, Falstaft said:

They're three polyphonic components of the same musical set-piece, yes. That's why I still call them all "Duel of the Fates."

 

The reason I sort them out this way is that during the Battle of Naboo, they're treated at various points as separable and distinct motifs. In some situations, you hear just the five-note ostinato. On others, just the chordal fanfare, still others the palindromic little motto. A similar thing is true of Rey's Chimes vs. Rey's Theme, the A & B sections of the March of Resistance, and to a lesser extent the Main Theme and BotH.

 

I try to make my criteria for labeling these materials extremely explicit. Anyone else perfectly free to prioritize different labeling criteria, but ideally they are consistently applied.

 

Verbose alert!

 

The criteria is clear alright. Its certainly not an issue of consistency on the part of your analysis, and its certainly not the first time I've seen such an approach so its not like I don't understand where you're coming from. I'm just not entirely sure its the best approach, is all.

 

I also do not think it is what Williams intended, which is perhaps the most significant drawback I find in such a naming convention, semantic though it might be. I've never seen him suggest anything of this nature in interviews, liner notes, etc - with the exception of one fleeting comment about the main theme, whose B-phrase I believe he had confused, at the time, with Leia's theme (to be fair, I think it was an interview a good 14 years removed from Return of the Jedi).

 

Even looking back at such things as the liner notes to Empire Strikes Back, for instance, at no point does Williams, in his own words, refer to the ostinato accompaniment of the Imperial March, distinct as it is in sound and application, as a different theme alltogether, and how could it be? what, in terms of the story, does it represent that the unabridged theme does not? Does it really represent anything other than the Empire and Vader is some way? I guess that's the deciding aspect, for me: when one starts to dissect a theme, one can be hard-pressed to provide each part of the theme with a unique narrative meaning, which is part of what makes a leitmotif what it is.

 

Again, if we are to look  to the Adams analysis of that other score (as inappropriate as such a comparison might be, given how well Doug knew Shore's intentions, and at the time of the composition no less, unlike we do Williams'), the B-phrase of The Shire theme is distinct, and applied separately and very differently in the score, and I would even argue that it represents a whole other facet of the Shire, and yet its not a theme in its own right, by Adams' account. And its true of other themes in those scores glossary, as well, as it is also true of those of other composers, Williams included.

 

There's an element of personal interpretation there, I guess,  but to my mind its not the best approach.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Indeed!

[gkgyver 1,645]

7 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Its been posted before.

 

I have to say, though, I'm not a fan of cataloging each part of what is clearly one theme as a separate leitmotif, as the document linked by the article does.

 

In this way of thinking, every melodic idea popping up in a cue would be incorrectly labelled as a "theme".

Music is very much based on melody, so I have a problem with calling every melody a "theme". A melody becomes a theme through application and repetition.

[Chen G. 3,943]

And through intention: there are inevitably going to be some recurring gestures in a feature-film length score. Doesn't mean that every recurring sequence of a couple of notes is a deliberate leitmotif.

 

Its like how, in a screenplay, not every repeated phrase, much less a repeated word, is necessarily a callback.

[Loert 2,510]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

I also do not think it is what Williams intended...

 

What do you mean "it is not what Williams intended"? He did not intend to use those motifs where he did???

 

How else would you want to tell somebody that those excerpts which Falstaft linked contain elements from "Duel of the Fates" without referring to "Duel of the Fates" by name?

 

It is perfectly natural for a composer to break up a longer melody or theme and use bits of it in other places in the score. And it is perfectly natural for a music analyst to point out the obvious - that these bits are all linked to the same theme. The game then becomes to see what the effects of this are, whatever the composers' intentions may be.

[Chen G. 3,943]

I don't think he intended for those things to be anything but what you say: one theme, multi-faceted as it may be. Williams writes long themes with introduction figures, bridge sections, b-phrases, end-caps, etc. Rarely, if at all, does he refer to them as separate thematic ideas, nor does he imbue each of them with a distinct narrative function to justify such a distinction.

[Loert 2,510]

38 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I don't think he intended for those things to be anything but one theme, multi-faceted as it may be. 

 

But this is a meaningless statement. Those are fragments of the same theme, so how can they be "one theme"? What is the harm in pointing out that different fragments of the same theme appear in different places? At least we can agree that that is the case?

 

A leitmotif "represents" something because of its contextual placement within a film, opera, musical or tone poem etc...it is not the composer's job to "declare" what his leitmotifs are and what they represent verbally; that's what the music is for. Just because Williams didn't write a note expressing where his themes should be divided doesn't mean that we can't recognize that he used bits of it in other places. 

 

"Distinct narrative function" is a very loose term. Ultimately we have to consider the music first. That 5-note ostinato from Duel of the Fates sounds to me like something/somebody rushing, trying to reach something in desparation but never quite managing to reach it. Well, I'm not quite sure about the last bit, but at least we can agree that it doesn't sound relaxing at all. So it would seem natural to me if Williams used it in a moment of tension in the film. The particular excerpt that Falstaft linked is obviously very fragmented, as if something/somebody is staggering. These aren't "distinct narrative functions" perhaps but these motifs certainly have something going for them, some vague kind of emotion.

 

It seems to me that you think unless a sequence of notes categorically is known to represent "X fighting Y" or "Relationship between Z and A" then we can't treat it as an individual motif. My point is, until we find what a short sequence of notes DOES mean (even if it doesn't mean anything specific at all) then there is no harm in labelling it as a motif if it is repeated more often than usual, especially if it is clearly derived from another motif/theme, as this means we can start putting together a sort of network which could give us useful information about the music on the whole.

 

And if we really can argue that a sequence of notes "represents" something then we might begin to call it a leit-motif.

[Bayesian 1,359]

6 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I don't think he intended for those things to be anything but one theme, multi-faceted as it may be. Williams writes long themes with introduction figures, bridge sections, b-phrases, end-caps, etc. Rarely, if at all, does he refer to them as separate thematic ideas, nor does he imbue each of them with a distinct narrative function to justify such a distinction.

 

I don’t find your position on this compelling, Chen. The discussion is more on leitmotifs, which by nature have to be musically idiosyncratic, and not so much on themes, which can definitely be more complex (as you point out above).

 

If a leitmotif cannot be broken out into its idiosyncratically-distinct parts for analysis, you actually force the discussion to be muddier, not clearer. If A + B + C = Theme 1, then we can speak of A, B, and C as leitmotifs that live in Theme 1, which is really key when A, B, and C are used independently in the film. Otherwise, what are we supposed to do? “In this scene, Williams harmonizes the ‘second’ part of the X leitmotif so nicely; don’t you love how it’s followed by the ‘first’ part of the Y leitmotif?” Lehman’s approach makes perfect sense: identify the recognizably unique phrases or ‘musical moments’ (per Wagner) and give each one its own name. If a few of them can string together into a theme, so much the better. If not, who cares, the phrase can stand alone. (That’s why it got identified and named in the first place.)

 

You also seem fixated on the idea that JW needs to have explicitly stated somewhere his intention for his leitmotifs to be short and broken out as Lehman provides for in his (admittedly awesome) analysis. I would offer that such a requirement goes both ways.

[p0llux 392]

Lmao we break the themes down into pieces so it's easier for us to identify stuff. It's just being organized. We know it's part of the same theme. Don't overthink it...

[Chen G. 3,943]

43 minutes ago, Scintillating_CA said:

 

I don’t find your position on this compelling, Chen. The discussion is more on leitmotifs, which by nature have to be musically idiosyncratic, and not so much on themes, which can definitely be more complex (as you point out above).

 

Our distinction between themes and motifs is an artificial one. "Themes", at least in the case of these scores, are just leitmotives that are much longer than usual. "Luke's theme", for instance, is a leitmotif for Luke, regardless of how long it is.

[Bayesian 1,359]

There’s nothing being overthought here. It’s just a matter of recognizing (and, in Lehman’s case, carefully documenting) that JW has produced dozens of recognizable musical phrases for the SW trilogies and that sometimes two or three of these phrases are used to represent aspects of a particular character.

1 minute ago, Chen G. said:

 

Our distinction between themes and motifs is an artificial one. "Themes", at least in the case of these scores, are just leitmotives that are much longer than usual. "Luke's theme", for instance, is a leitmotif for Luke, regardless of how long it is.

But there needs to be a distinction. The whole idea of a leitmotif is that it quickly identifies the thing it’s associated with. Storytelling would be atrociously sluggish if a long leitmotif (or “theme”, as you say) had to finish being stated each time it showed up — and it’d be pointless anyway, since after a few bars (or notes) the listener would already have made the association.

 

When a scene calls for it, a leitmotif can be extended at length and turned into a theme. Marion’s Theme is an example that comes to mind. You don’t need the full “theme” statement to know it represents Marion; the first seven notes do that. Those first seven notes are her leitmotif. 

[p0llux 392]

11 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Our distinction between themes and motifs is an artificial one. "Themes", at least in the case of these scores, are just leitmotives that are much longer than usual. "Luke's theme", for instance, is a leitmotif for Luke, regardless of how long it is.

 

Actually this isn't about themes vs motifs. It's about being organized. Organization requires labeling stuff to help us remember where they're from. Lehman wasn't trying to create new motifs out of an existing theme. He's just trying to make it easy to read and organized for everyone. Take Duel of the Fates as example, he breaks it down in parts. It's like breaking New York down into boroughs. If someone that's new to JW music were to read the Lehmans catalog, it would greatly help them learn and identify parts of a theme. He's just being organized. 

[Chen G. 3,943]

17 minutes ago, p0llux said:

Actually this isn't about themes vs motifs. It's about being organized. Organization requires labeling stuff to help us remember where they're from. Lehman wasn't trying to create new motifs out of an existing theme. He's just trying to make it easy to read and organized for everyone. Take Duel of the Fates as example, he breaks it down in parts. It's like breaking New York down into boroughs. If someone that's new to JW music were to read the Lehmans catalog, it would greatly help them learn and identify parts of a theme. He's just being organized. 

 

That's certainly a good idea, but than, some of them are labeled under "themes" and some under "incidental motifs", no doubt depending on their prominence. So its more than just being organized and convenient.

 

Its not a criticism by any means: the paper clearly states that it "includes B-themes when they are heard detached in underscore." I'm just offering a different take on that.

[Jurassic Shark 12,030]

I'm hereby unfollowing this thread.

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

It's turned into a who's who of "who?"

[Marcus 390]

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

I don't think he intended for those things to be anything but what you say: one theme, multi-faceted as it may be. Williams writes long themes with introduction figures, bridge sections, b-phrases, end-caps, etc. Rarely, if at all, does he refer to them as separate thematic ideas, nor does he imbue each of them with a distinct narrative function to justify such a distinction.

 

 

I just thought I'd chime in briefly:

 

Williams' leitmotivic technique is often more symphonic than dramatic, which is to say that narrative/extra-musical connotation will at times be subservient to purely abstract musical qualities. 

 

An aspect of this, is that Williams will tend to deconstruct and develop his material on purely musical terms, working in this respect (unlike Howard Shore, since he is inevitably mentioned) more like a composer of concert music.  

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yes, very much so.

[artguy360 1,843]

Nice write up. I'm glad Ross identified The Spark as the strongest moment in the score. 

[Bryant Burnette 654]

15 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Its been posted before.

 

I have to say, though, I'm not a fan of cataloging each part of what is clearly one theme as a separate leitmotif, as the document linked by the article does.

 

Are you physically incapable of not being disagreeable?  What is wrong with you?  You help make this a very unpleasant forum to read.

 

 

[ymenard 54]

Ross has always "got" soundtracks in terms of their place in modern classical music.  I can only suggest The Rest is Noise for trying to understand that everybody steals, everybody was influenced by others, from Schoenberg and his 12-tone music to today's composers.   There is no looking from above, no snobbing, good music is intemporal good music.

[Chen G. 3,943]

2 hours ago, Bryant Burnette said:

Are you physically incapable of not being disagreeable?  What is wrong with you?  You help make this a very unpleasant forum to read.

 

 

 

Since when is disagreement unpleasant? This is a discussion board, and discussion is, by its very nature, driven by disagreement. If everyone agrees to something, there would be no need to discuss it.

 

At no point did this discussion (unlike others) took a turn towards the unpleasant. It's just a friendly, intellectual exchange of ideas and opinions, I think.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

Bullshit.  No matter what anybody has to say about anything, you're all like "Well, ACtually..."

 

And if you do in fact disagree with everything, that's cool.  That's your right.  But you could just keep your trap shut about it every once in a while, is what I'm saying.  Nobody needs your "disagreement" on every single topic.

35 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

discussion is, by its very nature, driven by disagreement

 

This is not exclusively true.  I don't sit around with my friends and discuss all the things we disagree about.  Who does that?!?  We'll get into disagreement on occasion, of course.  There's nothing wrong with disagreement.  It can be both entertaining and instructive. 

 

I've rarely seen you practice it in that manner.  What YOU do is run around trying to give people wedgies, and it's tiresome.

[Arpy 4,145]

Come now, I think @Chen G. has contributed some great arguments here. The same goes for @gkgyver whom I think has been a bit abrasive the last few days, but a member whom I've often agreed with on a range of topics. I like this range of personalities on here, it isn't a vanilla forum and no matter how much I disagree with someone I would never consider using the ignore function - even for obvious trolls like Skyy38!

 

I think the best thing to do is to take a step away from this forum and the computer and do something else, then come back and read, respond, laugh, cry, cringe or destroy all of your equipment, or all of those things!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

In my opinion Gyver has been a morally bankrupt, racist, sexist Nazi for quite a few years now.

 

I will have a drink to celebrate his death.

[Arpy 4,145]

I will just drink!

[Joni Wiljami 1,206]

Hey, I am the official drunk-master here!! Cheers

[TownerFan 4,983]

15 hours ago, artguy360 said:

Nice write up. I'm glad Ross identified The Spark as the strongest moment in the score. 

 

I'm glad too, especially for the (likely unconscious from Williams's part) reference to Strauss' Elektra. It just fits the bill in terms of how much operatic Williams' writing for these movies truly is. I think "The Spark" is a very beautiful example of JW as pure dramatist. The way he uses Luke and Leia, then Han & Leia love theme and then going to the new thematic subject is truly great.

[Chen G. 3,943]

Oh, I loved that statement of Luke and Leia. Works wonders in the picture!

[Score 770]

On 7/1/2018 at 5:47 PM, Ludwig said:

 

I'll second that!

 

Now if Williams himself could only be convinced to allow a much-needed book on his Star Wars music to be written...

 

... and the complete full scores to be published, so that people could analyze, study and enjoy every note of them, and write books...

 

Many people here have been writing for years about the need to have this material available for study in its complete and original form, just like "normal" music. We can only hope that we reach a critical mass of posts about that, so that someone will pick them up and convince Johnny that his music is more important than he thinks  

 

 

 

 

[karelm 2,903]

On 1/7/2018 at 8:47 AM, Ludwig said:

 

I'll second that!

 

Now if Williams himself could only be convinced to allow a much-needed book on his Star Wars music to be written...

 

Why do you think he is so reticent to allow such a valuable in depth study?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Modesty, obviously.

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

I imagine that when Williams passes his estate may donate a significant portion of his scores to a library of some variety. However, while the cultural value of the material is unquestioned, the estate reserves the right to do with it as they please, including further exploitation for financial purposes.

 

I'm fairly confident we'll see scores and sketches for the entire Star Wars saga compiled, analysed and released at some point, but I don't think it'll happen til after his death.

 

How much archival footage of scoring and spotting sessions do you think exists somewhere, waiting to be seen? It would be incredible to watch that stuff. Spielberg would have hundreds of hours alone.

[crumbs 14,301]

There was probably a camera crew filming every recording session for TFA and TLJ.

[karelm 2,903]

4 hours ago, Stefancos said:

Modesty, obviously.

 

You mean he thinks it is shite and not worth study?

3 hours ago, Docteur Qui said:

I imagine that when Williams passes his estate may donate a significant portion of his scores to a library of some variety. However, while the cultural value of the material is unquestioned, the estate reserves the right to do with it as they please, including further exploitation for financial purposes.

 

Why should they wait for his passing?  What do you think is the intention of not sharing it before his passing?

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

Because Williams seems uninterested in doing it himself, otherwise he would have done so by now. We can only guess why, but it's clear he doesn't want his scores or sketches widely available. My guess is also modesty.

 

1 hour ago, karelm said:

 

You mean he thinks it is shite and not worth study?

There's a big difference between being modest about your own work and considering it shite. Perhaps he is unable (or more likely, unwilling) to see the full scope of his own music and its place in cultural history. 

 

[karelm 2,903]

On 1/8/2018 at 6:57 PM, Docteur Qui said:

Because Williams seems uninterested in doing it himself, otherwise he would have done so by now. We can only guess why, but it's clear he doesn't want his scores or sketches widely available. My guess is also modesty.

 

There's a big difference between being modest about your own work and considering it shite. Perhaps he is unable (or more likely, unwilling) to see the full scope of his own music and its place in cultural history. 

 

 

I think you are right.  It is also a generational thing I think.  It is no false modesty but a very sincere disinterest in talking about a major achievement in their life that everyone else seems to revere.  Another example of this is Neil Armstrong and the Apollo 11 astronauts.  They hated talking about the mission and it showed.  I think I have maybe only seen one or two good interviews circa 1969 where they actually seemed engaged and after that, they just seemed to really not get why this captured the worlds attention.  In Armstrong's case, he became quite reluctant to discuss anything other than the most superficial description of his lunar experiences.  He was first and foremost an aviator and his mode of expression was not to verbally discuss his inner thoughts, feelings, insights, historical/cultural impact, etc., but would rather discuss the mechanics of space flight, propulsion, descent, etc.  He was a very private man and never sought publicity or fame and got out of the public spotlight as soon as he could.  He just so happened to be immortalized in the history books for his significant accomplishment.  I think this is generally the same with JW.  These men see themselves as professionals doing their job to the very best of their abilities at that time with little notice of its full impact.  He has nothing to hide, just values his privacy and is very pleased with the joy many of us get from his work, but finds there is nothing more of interest to be said about it that can't be learned from the product available to the masses.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I believe this is in fact true. 

My guess is Williams prefers composing and performing music rather than dissecting music.

[Loert 2,510]

13 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

My guess is Williams prefers composing and performing music rather than dissecting music.

 

I believe this is also true.

 

However, something that struck me in an interview once was how he said, when speaking about learning music in his younger years: "I was fascinated by the orchestra, what worked and what didn't work...". After some thought I realized that it is not at all trivial to know what "works" and what "doesn't work" in a piece of music. People often have a sense of what they like and don't like in a piece of music but it is one thing to say "I like this bit in the music" and another thing to say "This bit works because..." which is the kind of thing a composer needs to think about a lot if they are to write good music, not only because it's good to focus on bits that work but because it narrows down the amount of music to what you are capable of analyzing well. So I think Williams has a particular gift in differentiating the wheat from the chaff in music, knowing what tiny stylistic tendencies and orchestral combinations to "steal" in order to achieve a great sound in his own work.

[publicist 4,643]

27 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

I believe this is in fact true. 

My guess is Williams prefers composing and performing music rather than dissecting music.

 

Imagine the fun he could have with all these spreadsheets.

[Score 770]

1 hour ago, karelm said:

He has nothing to hide, just values his privacy and is very pleased with the joy many of us get from his work, but finds there is nothing more of interest to be said about it that can't be learned from the product available to the masses.

 

I think he really thinks so. And I think he is wrong!

20 minutes ago, publicist said:

 

Imagine the fun he could have with all these spreadsheets.

 

If someone gets the permission to write a book on TESB, he should definitely present JW a complete spreadsheet and ask him, at every occurrence of the Han Solo + Princess theme, whether he meant it as a theme for Han alone or as a love theme!

[Chen G. 3,943]

Yep.

 

It is however kind of a shame that we can't have an analysis of the leitmotivic aspect of the score which is based on the composer's own intentions as stated around the time of the composition (besides what's stated in brief at interviews, liner notes, etc...) but I do believe the works of Lehman, Adams, Matessino, et al. could be used to provide a relatively cohrent representation of what Williams presumably meant.