Jump to content
batmanand

Will John Williams be remembered mainstream in 2100?

Mainstream remembrance?  

55 members have voted

  1. 1.

    • Yes
      43
    • No
      12


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, SteveMc said:

Williams will be like Bach.  People will eventually realize that a titan was in their midst.  

After we’re dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Williams will always be the pinnacle of film music well into the 21st century and beyond.

 

I'm confused about the word mainstream though. If you were to ask the average young person who John Williams was, I'd bet not many would be able to tell you. So on a grand musical scale, the popularity of film music in general, especially in the future, is minimal. But for those who do listen to it, it's obvious John Williams will always be there. People involved in film should also know him or recognize the name at the very least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

If you were to ask the average young person who John Williams was, I'd bet not many would be able to tell you.

 

71Fu2IRwSdL._SL1500_.jpg

 

7 minutes ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

If you were to ask the average young person who John Williams was, I'd bet not many would be able to tell you.

 

People don't know the names of songwriters of hugely popular songs either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it matter whether you answer yes or no. Chances are not a single one of us will be around as the 21st century end. (SOME of you no doubt think 2100 is in the 22nd century. IT AIN'T)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Williams writes top-notch music, but along with Williams there's soo much better music out there than the foundational classical composers (Beethoven, Mozart,) but people don't study these 20th and 21st century composers first and in-depth. They're used to the classics and the 'classics' are what they enjoy because they've built their understanding around them. Even though there is soo much better music out there than the old era, they (meaning most people and schools) limit their ear to classical and baroque first, and it becomes what they enjoy due to traditions (traditional knowledge and theory.) It is sad. Truly, if Williams gets high remembrance, he will be quite lucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Just curious, what do you mean with "so much better music"?

I'd like to know too, but I doubt the answer is worth the wonder.

 

There's a reason why people listen to the 'classics' because they've served as a great influence to the composers who came after - setting trends of music into a shockwave-like motion, the ripples of which we're still experiencing today. None of the greats of film scoring wouldn't have had their ears and minds closed to the old masters and this will be true for many years to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well instead you sound like someone who's never ventured outside the box and done things in that reverse way. You learn significantly more from newer composers than you do older ones. How do you think the original masters got there, if you can seriously pinpoint the start of these 'originating masters' without some contradiction in your categorization? It's just a fact of evolution, there becomes a significantly greater amount of new masters with greater creations, better lessons and upgraded theories to learn from every day--though you might open the door to the box you're in. Much of classical theory, although worthy of listening and learning from to some degree, is incredibly limiting on the mind and dated in all effects and styles. Am I not saying it's great music and some solid and correct theory, but there are thousands of times more creations and theories to learn from outside the 17th century box many such as yourself have grown up believing is foundational, but most are too lost in traditionalism to understand that they're fargone in the past and don't hold any 'silly key' to music, from the masters of some made-up starting point. Our learning always goes backwards as it's significantly improved our intuition and long-since enhanced our understanding: Most of us who study music know more than Beethoven or Mozart ever did, based on the time we live in, and the same is true for all studies we adopt. It's just the grippingly "traditional-minded" who keep things slow-changing for their pupils, and less and less people are learning from classical theory, it won't matter, and intuition is how we've always evolved and broken away from the "brushed-under-the-rug nonsense" you put up with in the gaps of your learning (the gaps of the classical composers who you rate much too high and forgot you brushed under the rug, the idealism and nostalgia you had to create with them to accept them completely.) There is no musical genius after Beethoven who ever settled for "what Beethoven did," instead (s)he had their mind mesmerized by what others were thinking and how they caught onto a new wave of musical philosophy--that nurturing spirit, that symbiotic connection with the present, is how they got their flash of genius, the same way Beethoven had to. The form he wrote in was merely a copy of the influences from many of those just before him. The pieces of the puzzle today look entirely different from before, BUT unfortunately, the majority of people, the sheeps, have always simply been unawake to this reality. Like with all expected standards, society lives in its memory and not in the present. Some societies, because of their elitist school ideologies, live far far in their memory and haven't even begun to perspective shift and see the true span of the reality they live in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you seriously suggesting that music history curriculums should teach John Williams instead of Beethoven and Mozart? John Williams' contribution to the field of instrumental music is not greater than those men from centuries ago, regardless of whether you can hum more John Williams than Beethoven or Mozart. Teach the classical founders in school, but encourage the students to discover the contemporary masters on their own. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry W0$, I don't know what point you were attempting to make so I can't respond to your comment. Maybe you were implying "classical composers" contributed more to musical knowledge than "20th century composers," and that would be false. There were way more composers and musical inventions during the (even early) 20th century, endless foundational theories of music have been created since then, you're just clinging to the one people told you was correct or accessible.

 

40 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

I doubt that Borodin knows "more than Beethoven and Mozart ever did". And FYI, it's possible to like music by the old masters and the newer ones.

 

We have Beethovens and Mozarts every single year now, due to the world's current prolificacy of musicianship. We learn much more from our recent past and present. Borodin as a part-time composer came a little bit after these guys and he probably did have tons of intuitive musical knowledge that they didn't have, just from him analyzing modern music: Remember, Beethoven and Mozart were very prolific--they spent much more time learning musical trends, creating and experimenting, so it's not a fair comparison, Borodin : Beethoven. I think you missed the point a bit. Nobody prolific wanted to be Beethoven, because it was boring to do that and they were learning way more from their peers and their recent past. They, meaning, a way larger volume of knowledge than Beethoven and Mozart ever contributed that they couldn't now get from other places. The issue here is that many have been brainwashed by traditionalism to set the bar at certain classical composers and theoretical benchmarks, but that's not really where the bar is. Not the bar of "foundational theory", nor the bar of musical understanding and virtuosity. More correct and useful schools of music can be found everywhere, born from a modern evolved understanding, they're not the 'popular 17th century' ones, they're not your 'holy church.' The temple of Beethoven you defend and think is untouchable--some relic of the past whom there have been many of already. Beethoven and Mozart are of but the tiniest cogs in foundational theory, but must music scholars don't ever learn these theories because they're traditionalists who are dedicated to their marriage with old composers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Borodin said:

Sorry W0$, I don't know what point you were attempting to make so I can't respond to your comment. Maybe you were implying "classical composers" contributed more to musical knowledge than "20th century composers," and that would be false. There were way more composers and musical inventions during the 20th century, endless "foundational theories" of music have been created since then, you're just clinging to the one people told you was correct.

We have Beethovens and Mozarts every single year now, due to the world's current prolificacy of musicianship. We learn much more from our recent past and present. Borodin as a part-time composer came a bit after these guys and he probably did have more musical knowledge, that he didn't apply. Beethoven and Mozart were very prolofic. I think you missed the point I made above.

I am open. Please link something modern better than Beethoven's 5th

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fabulin, I go with what I said already: "Intuition is how we've always evolved from the "brushed-under-the-rug nonsense" you put up with in the gaps of your learning (the gaps of the classical composers who you rate much too high and in effect forgot you brushed under the rug, the idealism and nostalgia you had to create with them to accept them completely when you adopted them.)... Beethoven and Mozart are of but the tiniest cogs in foundational theory, but most music scholars don't ever know because they're traditionalists who are dedicated to their marriage with old composers."

 

I can list countless unknown pieces better than Beethoven's 5th, and I also think Beethoven's 5th is one of them but out of soo many. I won't here because it won't sway your personal learned opinion. Instead if you'd like you can follow my post history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to forget that music that's based on melody and classical harmony (and this includes pop songs) will always be more audience friendly than various modern experimental stuff, most of which is forgotten soon after its premiere.

 

10 minutes ago, Fabulin said:

I am open. Please link something modern better than Beethoven's 5th

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of the best songs aren't closely based on classical harmony or rhythm either. Classical harmony is what you call up until ~17th century, but the majority of our schools have forgotten to upgrade our foundational theories to countless new trails of knowledge we've collected. That's why you buy good theory books reworked by experts of all music if you want to learn foundational music theory, don't go to your traditional church aka "school" who do the money-making and brainwashing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority of this classical theory was already summarized ~17th century, regarding what the elite term "foundational" theory, which is taught by schools today. It only then extends mostly into classical period discoveries near the ends of your 4-6 year term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romantic era actually had significant reworkings on musical theory by professionals, these theories were much more popular than they are today, mainly because they're now obsolete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also true that much of the ground knowledge was still in play; it's the theories that really started changing and evolving to clearer interpretations, stronger mathematical principles, and society, as in the rule-makers, haven't caught up with this explosion of creative structural thinking yet, or have reason to.

 

So I guess if John Williams doesn't get remembered in 50 years, and hell he's not even remembered a lot by people today, I really won't be surprised. Great ideas aren't always the most marketable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...