Josh500

Well, there's a difference between a brand-new album and an album that's long been OOP and OOS...

I know that many people think like that, and that's their right by all means, but I don't agree at all. A work of art should be judged for what it is, regardless of who created it. That's what I strongly believe in. Otherwise... Let me give you an example. Let's take the score of Home Alone. This probably isn't in your Top 10 John Williams scores, so you don't consider it a masterpiece. But if a lesser composer, say, Patrick Williams had written Home Alone, the exact same score, you'd all of a sudden consider it a masterpiece? Because all of Patrick Williams's other scores are jus

Well, you probably shouldn't sell your ears. Your soul, yes, but not your ears... Yeah, not just John Williams, but we all know that British girls are special...

Earth without John Williams's music would just be "eh"...

I watched the movie Lincoln only once on DVD. It was a decent movie (like 95% of Spielberg movies), but honestly it didn't leave much of an impression on me, not even Lewis's much-lauded performance. I think that may have negatively influenced my opinion of the score. Here we probably have another case where the score just takes a vibrant life of its own--it becomes much more than a part of a movie, it begins to overshadow the movie itself, for which it was written in the first place.... Actually not a rare occurrence, when it comes to John Williams!

You're contradicting yourself in this single pararaph. You're telling us that you have always associated "masterpiece" with status, something prestigious, etc. - but that's your personal opinion. That's not the official definition of the word "masterpiece." Anyway, I might consider The Phantom Menace to be a masterpiece (I actually do), while you might not. Does that make it a masterpiece, then? For me, yes, for others, no. In the end, what it boils down to is that it's all about personal taste and opinion. Oh, and the word "masterpiece" here can be considered a synonym for "what

That's why I intentionally included the word "personally" in my original question. Everybody has their own definition of "masterpiece." Whatever you consider it to be, it is - for you personally! I couldn't disagree with you more when you say most of Williams's scores are flawed in some major way, but you have an interesting view on Nixon. It's not my all-time favourite score, but it sure is an interesting, eccentric, somewhat disturbingly haunting one! In that way, I guess it can be considered special.

I like Nixon, don't get me wrong. But I wouldn't exactly consider it to be outstanding among all of John Williams's works in any way. What makes it so special for you? Well, you don't have to think of all the JW scores (we all know E.T., Jaws, Star Wars, and Raiders of the Lost Ark are masterpieces!), but only his most recent works. Think back, so to speak. And name the 2 scores that you personally consider masterpieces.... Indeed! The only year even more magical was arguably 1993....

Yes! I'd like to think so. Hope dies last.

Always the same!

Maybe you didn't understand the question? Yes. That's actually what came to my mind first... but then I relented and included Memoirs in my list of masterpieces too. I mean this score is just so underrated (unlike the movie, which wasn't bad at all but nothing outstanding)!

Tough choice, but I'd say... 2004: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban 2005: Memoirs of a Geisha There are some real highlights that came thereafter (War Horse, The Adventures of Tintin, The Force Awakens), but I wouldn't exactly call them masterpieces.

It happened only once, didnt it? I didn't mind that... It wasn't necessary, but then who cares. If we ever got a 9-CD Complete Star Wars Prequel John Williams boxset I'd be willing to spend 200 bucks on it!!

Nah, it was either 100 or 200. I forgot which, but I feel like it was the latter... Over the years I spent 100 each on the OS albums of Jaws 2 and Dracula, too.