Humpty Dumpty

I, personally, don't see much of a similarity between Don Juan and Indiana Jones. An additional example of lifting which is more obvious to me would be the similarity between the Luke and Leia theme and Make Our Garden Grow from Candide. Sure, it would sound kind of ridiculous to cite your sources in a piece of music in the a way researcher would in a scholarly paper, but just because it sounds more profound not to disclose from where the material came doesn't mean it isn't dishonest to take material from others and pass it off as your own. Also, people here keep accusing me of implying myself to think John Williams is a bad composer and that I would be "lowering my standards" by listening to him. I have repeatedly said I believe, very much on the contrary, John Williams to be a highly talented composer; it's just that he has this funny little habit sometimes. Perhaps the habit is not even intentional; it can be very easy to mistake an idea floating around in your head as your own when your memory of where you first heard the idea is a little weaker than the memory of the idea itself.

I never suggested you are "okay" with anti-Semitism. You justify plagiarism thusly: "The great composers plagiarize. Therefore, John Williams should be allowed to plagiarize." Such a logical statement can be generalized to this: "If a great composer does something, other composers can do it too." I adjusted your argument to "prove" anti-Semitism is okay, thereby invalidating the argument since you and I both agree that anti-Semitism is bad. Plagiarism is not even really a musical issue; it's a matter of honesty. Rachmaninoff technically lifted from Paganini for a famous, wonderful piece of his, but here's the difference in his case: He called the piece "Rhapsody on a Theme by Paganini." Just because a piece is predicated on something originally written by someone else doesn't mean such a piece doesn't have value (as many a piece in theme-and-variations form will attest); just give credit where credit is due.

You've probably never even heard Death and Transfiguration. First, let me start by apologizing for the length of this reply. But, as a thoroughly educated professional musician and John Williams enthusiast, this topic gets me quite agitated. I've heard Death and Transfiguration. In fact, I've PERFORMED all of the greatest classical works you can ever possibly name; I've received some of the finest music education money can buy in that I have two degrees in Music Performance. One is from The Juilliard School, the other is from the Indiana University School of Music. I've been a professional timpanist/percussionist for nearly 15 years...and during my time at Indiana University, I studied Music Theory and Music History in every possible way, shape, and form. We studied every single minute detail of music you could ever think of and from every conceivable angle, viewpoint, and stance. If you think, for one second, that John Williams is the first and only composer who has ever "borrowed" or "plagiarized" ideas, motifs, arrangements, orchestration, or any other possible musical term/idea from another composer "for profit", as you say...then, you SERIOUSLY need to go back and study your music history and theory a little more closely. Nearly every single great composer/musician in music history owes a part of their greatness, no matter how big or small, to those who have come before them. The great classical composers of the true "classical" era (Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn) influenced each other to a great degree; some theorists even postulate that these greats even went so far as to “borrow” from each other as well. In fact, if you closely dissected much of classical music (which you seem to hold in such high regard) with the intent of doing so, you could find many instances of “plagiarism”...if you look hard enough. And it’s not just the realm of classical music that gives us the chance to point our fingers and shout “UNORIGINAL” at the top of our lungs. The Beatles, whom many people (including myself) believe to be one of the greatest “pop” bands ever, were GREATLY influenced by The Beach Boys. In fact, many people would claim that The Beatles’ greatest album, “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band”, owes much of its success to the Beach Boys’ “Pet Sounds” album. Lastly, and also in the realm of “pop” music; one of the songs that Frank Sinatra was most famous for performing, “I Did It My Way”, sounds nearly identical in many sections to the Second Movement of Beethoven’s Piano Sonata No. 8 in c-minor, Op 33., “The Pathetique”. As I said before, I studied at two of the finest music education institutions in the country...and I’ve encountered your “argument” and people who think as you do many, many times over. You certainly are entitled to your opinion, and, truth be told, there is some validity to your “claim”. Examples...certain sections of the score to “Star Wars: A New Hope” are so similar to Holst’s “The Planets” that it’s quite shocking. The scores to the first two “Home Alone” bear strikingly obvious similarity to Tchaikovsky’s “The Nutcracker”. The first six notes of Han Solo and Princess Leia’s Love Theme sound almost identical to the theme of the First Movement of Tchaikovsky’s Violin Concerto. And, finally, the melody of one of Williams’ newest themes (Irina Spalko’s theme) sounds like a direct tribute to one of Brahms’ most famous themes, from the Third Movement of his Third Symphony. Hell, even my favorite Williams theme of all time, "Indiana Jones' Theme", could be looked at as "borrowing" some of its ideas from Strauss' "Don Juan"; if I wanted to make that much of a stretch, I could. Also, I could go on all day citing examples, spouting facts, and referencing my wealth of musical education and knowledge of classical music like a snob...but, I won’t bore anyone any further with such patronizing nonsense. Bottom line is this; all great (and often non-great) music is derivative in some way, shape, or form. It’s nearly impossible for any one composer to be so completely and entirely creative as you would like to have people believe. Perhaps the only two composers I can think of who could come close to being heralded as “entirely original” are Bach and Bartok. But, even they were derivative in some way, no matter how "small". If I had to name someone who as almost completely original in all of his works...I would have to name John Cage; but, I don't want to make anyone "in the know" roll their eyes and start scoffing. Again, there is some merit in your argument...but, your “judgment” against Williams reminds me of the people I’ve encountered before who have made the same accusation. They haughtily (and sometimes vociferously) cry out about Williams’ “unoriginality”...and usually because he is successful and probably the closest thing we have to a modern-day classical composer who is well known in his time (much in the same way that Beethoven was in his; when Beethoven was alive...classical music was the “pop” music of its culture in many ways). But, to make this accusation against Williams and somehow make it seem like he owes all of his success to his “unoriginality” is completely ridiculous. If anything, it shows that he, like the great composers before him, is steeped in knowledge of music history and theory. He shows a profound and complete grasp of what, and more importantly, WHO has come before him. Like Beethoven, Mozart, and other great classical composers, he pays tribute to the people who have made his art and craft possible. He derives from the incredible works that have come before him because that is what nearly all great composers have done. If you think that it's "just a basic part of human morality to find fault in someone artistically profiting off of the work of others"...then, you should find fault in the majority of musicians who have been financially or artistically successful in the past; and this includes whatever classical composers you hold as "sacred" or "untouchable". Why? Because, as I said before, you can make the same claim against them. Perhaps their "borrowings" aren't as "obvious" as Williams...but, believe me, they're there; sometimes you have to look closely to find what you're looking for, and sometimes you don't. (Besides, what constitutes "plagiarism" to you appears to be "tributes" to others who are perhaps a little less critical or judgmental.) If nothing else...think of Williams' "plagiarism" as a way of keeping the spirit and music of other great composers who came before him alive. And if you think Williams is a “plagiarist”...try listening to some James Horner. Then you’ll know what “unoriginality” really sounds like. (I should clarify that this isn’t how I feel about Horner...but, it’s a great way to throw the wolves off of Williams.) Also, Humpty Dumpty, please...don't take this as an open invitation to get into a "who knows more about music" debate...because I won't even respond if you try such a thing. I wasn't trying to "one up" you with this post...I was merely trying to demonstrate that it IS posible for a "real" musician who is educated in music to hear the same music you hear and take an entirely different stance on the matter. Thanks. It is true there are many examples of plagiarism even amongst the “great” composers. One such example would be Mozart using material from Handel in the Kyrie of his Requiem. However, I haven’t uncovered a consistent enough trend of plagiarism in his work to call it a problem. The finale of Beethoven’s “Tempest” Sonata sounds like a figure in Mozart’s “Prague” Symphony. Handel himself once responded to a critic accusing him of plagiarism by saying that “[he] knew how to use it better.” Brahms was similarly accused of copying Ode to Joy in his Symphony no. 1. Brahms replied, “Any idiot can see that!” From that comment, you can see that Brahms, who was notoriously fastidious, must have felt a bit guilty about this similarity, although the similarity here, in my opinion, is probably too subtle to have been intentional. However, even though there are passages in the work of the big composers that can be construed as having been plagiarized, does that mean plagiarism is okay? Wagner was a great composer who was anti-Semitic; do you think that makes anti-Semitism okay? You also seem to be conflating, to a degree, the concept of plagiarism and stylistic influence. This is not about style; this is about specific content. If you read my comments from before, you would also see I don’t consider John Williams a bad composer on account of his plagiarism and am actually concerned about his plagiarism mostly because I know he’s talented enough not to have to resort to it to write good music. As far as which composers were the most “original,” I’m surprised by your citing Bach as being amongst that group. Bach was very conservative in his musical language to the extent that many of his contemporaries thought of him as a reactionary. What makes him great is not that he was original but that he took all of the existing technical materials and used them better and more fully than any composer before him. He has a very personal voice easily identifiable by the listener, but I wouldn’t call him the most forward-thinking of composers. I’d certainly put, say, Stravinsky before Bach in that regard. And no, I wasn’t attempting to imply by my comment that anyone who disagreed with me had necessarily to be ignorant about music. I only assumed Joey knew nothing because he debates with abusive remarks instead of reasoned arguments, and my assumption appears to be correct, at least in the case of his not having heard Death and Transfiguration.

Raising issues of plagiarism is a legitimate form of critique. There's nothing "elitist" or "snobbish" about it, and there is no knowledge of John Williams' "soul" required to make these criticisms. If you can't tolerate that John Williams isn't perfect, then that's your problem. The shape of the first 5 notes are, to my ears, clearly derived from Strauss at some level. But writing the entire effort off as plagarism is, in my eyes, quite unfair. How Williams uses those five notes, and expands upon them, to create something that is his own. In context, the five notes do not sound nearly as similar as they do when taken alone. Yes, Williams uses them as a starting point. But he expands upon it, adds phrases, orchestrates them in his own manner...I'm not saying it's not dissappointing, at some level, that JW uses something someone else wrote in a score. It is. But what he does with it is so much more than 'a Strauss rip' gives it credit for. John is absolutely a talented guy and can take the D&T theme in new directions, but that's exactly why I'm so upset he steals in the first place: He's good enough to write great music on his own without having to take from others. It's not exactly accurate, however, to say he took only 5 notes because the whole cue uses those notes as its main theme and has those notes interwoven around all the other material.

The chord progression is the same on those five notes (C major to D major seventh; it can also be defined as C major to D major with a C pedal). There is a slight difference in the five notes in that Williams just forms the beginning of the melody out of an arpeggiation, whereas Strauss uses a passing tone to connect the tonic and the third degree (and the third and fifth in the accompanying line below the main melody), but the basic shape is clearly derived from Strauss. That's definitely plagiarism. I don't think Donner requested this as Death and Transfiguration has nothing to do with flying around New York/Metropolis. On the other hand, I always saw Krypton more as an homage to Zarathustra than as a steal, so I'm okay with that. However, there is a passage in the music in the Phantom Zone scene that was quite obviously lifted from the initial buildup in Alpine Symphony. You've probably never even heard Death and Transfiguration. whether I heard it or not isn't the point, you newbies who come here then spout your crap about John being a thief certainly don't ingratiate yourself very well. It might be similar it might be inspired by, hell do you even know if John has ever listened to it? Fact is you don't. Of course John Williams knows Death and Transfiguration. That's sort of like asking if a painter knows the Mona Lisa. Please stop being so insulting. You are only revealing your own ignorance.

You've probably never even heard Death and Transfiguration.

you know,we don't care. It only bothers snotty classical elitist So believing plagiarism to be bad is "elitist"? I've never heard that defense before. I would think it's just a basic part of human morality to find fault in someone artistically profiting off of the work of others. What makes me most upset about these instances of plagiarism is that they are completely uncalled for; John is clearly a skilled-enough composer to do without them.

It doesn't bother me Williams might copy himself from time to time. What does bother me, however, is his penchant for copying others. Take, for example, the disturbing similarity between the Superman love theme and one of the main themes in Richard Strauss' Death and Transfiguration. He really needs to refrain from doing stuff like that; it's absolutely unnecessary and makes me and others feel a bit ashamed of him.

Is this in reaction to the mariachi music as it appears for a fraction of a moment at the end of the second Alkator clip?

Hayden Christensen should be grateful the most significant burden in his life is entertaining requests from fans that he sign memorabilia for them. If he doesn’t understand this, he should consider taking a trip to a third-world country or visiting a pediatric ward in a hospital.

Ian McDiarmid stalked for autographs I don't blame any Star Wars actor for being an a-hole given what they sometimes go through. As Carrie Fisher once said, Star Wars has provided them with "a small merry band of stalkers." I was at a screening of Shattered Glass at the Chicago Film Festival a few years ago and some of the SW fans were pretty obnoxious and angry with Hayden Christensen when he didn't take 6 hours to sign every toy, poster, book etc. for everyone lined up outside of the theater. I met him because he happened to be in the audience at a classical concert I was attending. We weren't at a fan-filled event. He was not being mobbed or harassed. I approached him politely in intermission, telling him I enjoyed his work as an actor; he half-heartedly said "thank you" and then rolled his eyes at me and turned away with the clear intent of trying to ignore me. He's an a-hole. I've met Martin Sheen, who is a much bigger star than McDiarmid is and also presumably much more sought after by fans, and he's one of the friendliest people across whom you could ever come.

DARTH VADER: Master, is Revenge of the Sith a film? EMPEROR: No, it's just a movie. DARTH VADER: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I met Ian McDiarmid once. He's a complete a-hole, almost as mean as how he is in Star Wars.

Is Spielberg into all of the alien conspiracy theories or something? It makes you wonder when the theme of extraterrestrial encounter recurs over and over again throughout his body of work. Supposedly, his earliest home-camera movies as a child were also about aliens, and his dad, who was an engineer, helped him to make a rudimentary special effect that looked like a UFO for them. With such an interest in alien movies so early on, it appears this fascination is something more than a mere calculation that a movie, if aliens are put into it, will automatically improve its chances for commercial success.

Here’s another one: Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story. First of all, I didn’t so much as snicker once throughout the entire duration of the film, very bad considering I was supposed to have been watching a comedy. Secondly, the whole movie was so convoluted that when it was over, I still felt as if I had never seen it.

I agree with the critics. The movie is fascinating and one of my personal favorites of this decade. I'm glad that the film wasn't explanatory because film is not about resolving. The answers are not important. Why, because Kelly is a bad screenwriter?