Jump to content

.


Fabulin

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, kaseykockroach said:

Half of it is just pure luck. Most composers get maybe one or two dream projects in their entire career, at best, if they're lucky. John Williams, though, would get a dream project at least once a year! 

So with Jaws, Star Wars, Close Encounters and such, he had a generous amount of opportunities to further develop his talents. Right person at the right place at the right time sort of thing. There are composers equally or arguably even more talented than him that simply never got those ideal opportunities (or at least not as regularly).

 

 

Well, was he lucking into dream opportunities, or did he capitalize royally on every solid opportunity that came his way? I don't know that his filmography is necessarily a composer's wet dream in and of itself, more than anybody else's. Like anybody would have had their own classic scores if they only got their hands on those movies. I think he has something of a knack for making it seem that way and that shouldn't be dismissed. He is damn good to be fair.

 

I think he did get pretty lucky running into Spielberg who is more crowdpleasing than most, more musically-minded than most, more loyal to his collaborators than most, more prolific than most. A lot of composers get teamed up with great directors who eventually fall short one way or another. They lose favor and can't come back from a major flop or they take 5-10 years to make a movie. Spielberg turned out to be an ideal partner but on the other hand, developing a creative relationship like theirs does take more than luck. 

 

Star Wars was obviously a good break too but there is definitely an alternative universe where Star Wars music is pretty irrelevant. That's acknowledging the Williams soundtracks are largely novelty items pored over by a bunch of geeks as it is, by the way.

 

I do take OP's point that you could theoretically point to lots of potential "dream projects" that very talented composers and not very talented composers alike get all the time and they just fall by the wayside...movie flops, score's forgettable etc. I think the phenomenon of Williams's success was in a lot of ways beyond his control, but in other ways not really. He's definitely responsible for giving movies some crucial highs that hardly anybody achieves in the same way. Like, Home Alone is a movie that really didn't call for a score like the one it got and I'm convinced would have been a more ordinary success otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Fabulin said:

I wonder, as a person versed a bit with scientific studies of talent and learning, but without a background in musical training, what is it that makes John Williams unmatched in film scoring / modern musical composition?

 

First, the concepts of "film scoring" and "modern musical composition" do not coincide. Nowadays, the former is a subset of the latter. Moreover, film scoring in, say, the first part of the 20th century would not qualify as a "modern" style (neither nowadays, nor in comparison with what was modern at the time). Given the vastness of the concept of modern music, saying that Williams is unmatched cannot be an accurate statement. What is nowadays required from composers outside movies is so different that it is not even possible to make a skill comparison between the two fields, unless in very particular situations (e.g. if you really want, you can compare the avant-garde parts of Close Encounters or A.I., or the most harmonically advanced parts of other scores, with contemporary avant-garde outside movies, but not much more).

 

 

5 hours ago, Fabulin said:

In most areas of achievement, be it scientific or artistic, most people who contribute something that lasts and is preserved in records, contribute only one work. Conversely half of the most important discoveries/works in a certain field are created by only a handful of prolific individuals (IIRC nearly half of the classical ouvre that is frequently performed comes from Beethoven, Mozart and Bach only).

 

The general point you make is right, but please, don't oversimplify by reducing the classical repertoire to 3 people! I could probably list more than 100 people whose works form the frequently played canon (consider orchestral music, operas and stage music, chamber music, keyboard music...) and among them, several 10s who contribute many works. But I agree that it is still a small amount of people, compared to the number of those who ever wrote music. There is also a bias effect on big names, for which an important figure gets also some of his less relevant works played more frequently than they deserve. For example, I believe that most of Mozart's symphonies would be forgotten by now (except for a few of them), if Mozart's oeuvre as a whole had not been so important. Composers who enjoy a lesser status than Mozart have written much better orchestral and piano music, it's just the natural evolution of the art form. That's also why it's difficult to compare composers' skills, and it will always lead to debates that cannot really be resolved. 

 

(I honestly think that the bias effect also applies to some works by Williams, Morricone, Goldsmith...)

 

5 hours ago, Fabulin said:

From what I heard (I can lack information) other composers tend to:

1. Have some of his skills on an equal level but lack the rest, which results in music less complex (for example create a good melody, but most of the orchestra is idling while one section leads) 

less dense (they have the ability to write compelling slow music but not compelling fast music)

2. Lack the versatility in terms of instruments (use exotic instruments awkwardly and on rare occasions OR use them well but lack the general mastery of the classical orchestra to put behind them)

3. Do not change styles easily (whereas JW can be a circus juggler)

4. Do not work with Leitmotiffs even though they are a very basic and versatile idea, or do so on a very superficial level (Oh I shall use the trombone whenever that character enters! ....)

5. Produce something great once, twice or a few times, but the rest is not so good—as if they had a sportsman's career endurance.

6. Don't care or are easily satisfied/awed by their littlest successes, whereas John Williams seems never to feel good enough (at least in public)

 

Points 5 and 6 cannot be discussed objectively. Point 4, in my opinion, is not relevant: leitmotifs are not necessary requirements for a good score. With point 2 I do not agree. 

 

Concerning points 1 and 3, I would rather say that Williams has a pretty much complete musical background and training which is deeply rooted in classical music and jazz, and he was able to make a synthesis of all his influences from which he can take the right thing on demand. So, he can just get the right style to perfectly fit basically anything that is given to him for scoring. Also, he seems to have a natural talent to fit the form of film music, with its constraints. It is known that some great composers just cannot (or could not) write film music because they feel excessively constrained by timing, the need to change a piece of music based on a second shot rather than on musical reasons, and the interaction with too many other elements (not least, the sound effects, which have become extremely loud in modern action movies - that's also why I feel scores like those of the Star Wars OT will never appear again, even if there might be composers technically able to write them). Williams, instead, almost always produces a result that sounds as natural as it can be. 

 

The rest is a mixture of extremely developed technical skills (sense of harmony, melody, counterpoint, orchestration...) that we have discussed here many times.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, gotta agree with those who don't necessarily buy the premise of this thread. Williams is definitely matched, also with composers that are far more "original" (like Morricone). But why he is at the top of his game, and IMO among the best composers of the last 100 years, has very much to do with innate talent (obviously), dedication and also the very environment he's been brought up in (surrounded by music in his childhood and formative years -- family, friends etc.). He's also been privileged to work and be tutored by some of the best in the industry in a time where this meant more than today. Furthermore, he's been able to work in multiple capacities, as performer/pianist, arranger, conductor and composer -- and in multiple genres (jazz, pop, classical), adding to his diverse skill set.

 

But he has limitations, of course. He's not very good at technology and electronic music, often needing external help for compositions that require it, and he can -- especially in recent years -- become a bit "lazy" and rely on his back catalogue of "Americana" tricks. He can sometimes "over-score" a scene etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed.  I love Williams' music, and he certainly has wonderful technical skills, and a great knack for getting the right mood of a film.  But I certainly wouldn't say he's unmatched.  There have been a lot of great composers who have worked in the medium of film, both past and present, many of them perhaps less prolific, but more innovative.  Williams has done a great job of combining many different styles and techniques to establish his own voice, but in the grand scheme of Western art music, he's not bringing anything new to the table that other composers haven't done before, either in the music itself, or in the art of scoring films.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These pop up every now and then, although most of them ask the basic question 'is Williams the best?' instead of implying that statement and looking for validation.

 

Most of the points raised above raised my eyebrows somewhat, in a similar way to when Michael A Levine did his ridiculous sycophantic sermon of why Zimmer was the greatest (found it: https://behindtheaudio.com/2013/07/hans-zimmer/). Other composers having less skills/versatility/use of leitmotifs/changing styles is absolutely baseless to begin with. I can think of a number of scores where I think another composer was better suited, precisely due to a limit in JW's range.

 

5. Produce something great once, twice or a few times, but the rest is not so good—as if they had a sportsman's career endurance.

 

I think JW has been very lucky to have an amazing relationship with a director who loves music, and to get the SW gig at just the right time. And don't try to pretend that JW always produces perfection. We seem to go from deciding a score is either a coaster or a masterpiece, depending on which thread we're in or whether an expansion is coming out.

 

6. Don't care or are easily satisfied/awed by their littlest successes, whereas John Williams seems never to feel good enough (at least in public)

 

Can't really argue with that, but I don't see how that makes him an unmatched composer that he's very humble about his achievements.

 

He's one of the best (before I get accused of being completely negative...) but I'm tired of people trying to pretend that no one else matches his skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally disagree. He is certainly not unmatched, not even among living film composers. I find Newman, Morricone and maybe Goldenthal superior, or at least on his level. They are more original, inventive and/or progressive than Williams. I consider Newman the most original and finest living film composer even if he hasn't written as many very good scores as Williams yet (as he shouldn't, he is after all over 20 years younger than him). I also connect with Newman's style and approach to scoring more - he doesn't put too strong music behind the images like Williams too often does.

 

Takemitsu and North are the kings of film scoring - no one else had their imagination, chops or track record of excellence. I'd put Takemitsu above North as a composer, he had chops even beyond North, but in my mind North's track record of excellence across his film music career is unparalleled, even if Takemitsu came pretty close. Also Takemitsu didn't write any film score as groundbreaking as Streetcar, North was more influential and groundbreaking to the field. I don't think it is controversial to say that objectively speaking, Takemitsu was the greatest composer who ever became a "true" film composer - Takemitsu is the only composer who ranks among the highest rank of modern concert hall composers - something some film composers only aspired to but only Takemitsu achieved.

 

Don't get me wrong though, Williams is one of the top 10 film composers of all time and a master, but far from the king of film scoring. My main issue is his comfort zone which he stays in far too often for my liking, the recycling and the lack of diversity which he did quite well in the 70s in particular. As I have said before, some other composers are more original, inventive and/or progressive - Newman, Morricone and Goldenthal among living film composers - Takemitsu, North, Herrmann and Goldsmith among dead film composers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Lewya said:

Don't get me wrong though, Williams is one of the top 10 film composers of all time and a master, but far from the king of film scoring. My main issue is his comfort zone which he stays in far too often for my liking, the recycling and the lack of diversity which he did quite well in the 70s in particular. As I have said before, some other composers are more original, inventive and/or progressive

 

Definitely - especially recently I'd say Williams is probably one of the the least original composers currently working- he will rarely surprise us with his sound. To be fair, at his age and career level he's got an established sound, but if I hired him today, I wouldn't expect anything 'new'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well no, he doesn't do electronic music much as it wasn't really around when he started and he's mentioned he doesn't have the time to learn how to use computer-based tools.

 

'Good taste'..... mmmmmghhhh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you also implied that electronic music was somehow in bad taste. that makes me feel that you are basically worshipping JW because of his strictly old fashioned orchestral approach. This is surprising given that some of the most original and wide-ranging material from recent years is electronic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can just be music that uses some sort of synth/electronic instrument, to compliment the orchestra.

 

Have we descendied to debating whether scores must be totally orchestral to be in 'good taste'? If so, we've got some seriously pretentious opinions in here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll give Fabulin (and hornist) the benefit of the doubt and just attribute it to a 'jibe' against an idiom he doesn't personally care for. Were it a a serious dismissal of all the wonderful variations of electronic music that we've seen throughout the last decades, the criticism would fall on its own lack of reason and 'historylessness'.

 

To be fair, Williams has used electronics in his scores on multiple occasions, but almost always understated as an organic element beneath something else (and, I assume, mostly with the help of his son Joseph or Randy Kerber or other people). A few occasions more clearly stated, like "Training Montage" from SPACE CAMP, but again not something I believe Williams has programmed himself.

 

It is a limitation, of course, but I doubt it's something that bothers Williams much. He's at a point now where he's comfortable with his skill set and weaves his projects around that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hornist said:

In my world it must be totally orchestral to be in good taste. I hate hansu and I hate Solo because of the synt perc. 

 

Ouch. And here I thought you were such a reasonable fellow. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Synth perc in Solo? Tell that to the 6 percussionists in the London orchestra credited in the booklet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fabulin said:

I will be a gentleman and merely point out that you assumed... poorly. Just because I said I have no background in training, it does not necessitate that I do not traverse many roads.  

 

So you write such nonsense despite better knowledge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand. Who said John Williams is unmatched, who said he wasn't, and why do I care? I love listening to his music. I listen to his music the most. The only person I listen to music of more than is Mozart. So Mozart>Williams, Johnny's a great film composer and my favourite, and I enjoy talking about him and others on JW Fan. Case closed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personnaly, because I'm snob, I like only the best artists of each era.

 

Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Charles Aznavour, Roy Orbison... and John Williams.

 

That's it.

 

Sorry for that, but I'm really snob. That's true! I don't like many artists!!!!

 

Let's open a bottle of Champagne to celebrate that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bespin said:

Personnaly, because I'm snob, I like only the best artists of each era.

Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Charles Aznavour, Roy Orbison... and John Williams.

Bach, Beethoven, Mozart are the patriarchal heads of my music collection. Many others fill the gaps. Williams has his own space on the shelf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Illustrious Jerry said:

Bach, Beethoven, Mozart are the patriarchal heads of my music collection. Many others fill the gaps. Williams has his own space on the shelf.

 

I talk about the international ones I love. Of course, I love many others from Québec, among others. But They are not well-kown out of Québec.

 

Félix Leclerc, Beau Dommage...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

Beautiful shame?

 

Yes It comes from an old french expression, what it really means is obscure, as nobody today use that expression anymore.

 

But a group of the 70's took this expression for their band name.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lewya said:

My main issue is his comfort zone which he stays in far too often for my liking, the recycling and the lack of diversity which he did quite well in the 70s in particular. 

 

As far as I am concerned, if there is one thing that cannot be said about John Williams is that his output (as a whole) lacks diversity! He has done plenty of different things, using very different styles, and almost always doing greatly. We cannot expect a composer to invent something completely new with every assignment. If we were to judge non-film composers with the same criterion, very few would be judged positively. 

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.