Marcus

Dear Friends! I don't know why I haven't posted this earlier, but two short pieces of mine are on Myspace, just search for my name, "Marcus Paus"... The two pieces are: "Lasuliansko Horo", a 5 minute piece for violin and piano written in 2004, and played more than 30 times since its premiere. It was commissioned by a collective of New York based Bulgarian musicians, hence the Bulgarian flavor (the themes are mine, though). The other piece is a short intermezzo from my first opera, scored for string quintet, alto sax. and piano, More music will follow soon, hopefully! Best, Marcus

True, very true... But film music can work on so many levels, and I think the general tendency is either to go with the visuals on a surface-level, being part of the viscerality of the film, and the other is a more generic "contemplative" approach, which Thomas Newman sometimes does very well. But I think Williams is clearly in a league of his own here (presently). Goldsmith and Herrmann are two other giants, as far as adding true depth and integrity to the films they scored. And I can certainly appreciate simplicity, and will generally opt for it. (Complexity is most often false.)

Dear Pi! I don't wish to test your knowledge of anything... I am a classically trained composer who has grown up listening to and loving John Williams' music, and who has a great interest in film music as a place where the romantic tradition has survived in exile, and as a fantastic medium with wondrous potential for composers of all traditions. But I'm looking at this from a composer's perspective, and, again- pardon me for sounding elitist and pompous and bragging- very little contemporary film music other than the work of John Williams impresses me. Or moves me, which is more important. And Goldsmith sure was amazing... If you ever wish to listen to where I'm coming from, musically, you can check out my MySpace profile (Marcus Paus). P.S. No one, no matter how inspired, could possibly arrive at Williams' results without the kind of training I'm addressing. Synths and good midi-mock-ups and whatnot cannot replace craftsmanship, and Danny Elfman's music doesn't "benefit" from his lack of training... P.P.S. Obviously, most of the training will be the hours we spend by ourselves working, listening, digesting...But the more knowledge we have, the deeper will our understanding be of that which we immerse ourselves in.

Oh, that may be so, that may indeed be so... But most of the time is frankly spent WRITING it!

Pi, I'm sorry for coming across as "elitist", "pompous" and "bragging". And I never meant to doubt your education, although I find it difficult to imagine that you have arrived at the opinions you have, or rather, your preferred method of conveying them, without somehow foregoing a few extra levels of contemplation. You seem to have the idea that being learned equals being a snob or an elitist, and that this will, in turn, reduce composers to merely emulaters of past music, or nonsensical theorists. Where did you study? You seem to me to be an educated pianist with an interest in composition, which is in itself a great thing (hey, I'm not even a good pianist!), but you seem to have little understanding of, or appreciation for, the level of craftsmanship Williams represents, as opposed to, say, Danny Elfman (who I think used to be an interesting composer). Perhaps I am old-fashioned, but I think it is a composer's responsibility to be as good a performer of his craft, as I imagine you would like to be as a pianist. And I think that the best composers today usually aren't found in Hollywood, and usually aren't found working as professors at academies and conservatories either, but rather as busy professionals writing for all kinds of media, be it concert music or other. It isn't my intention to attack you, pi, but I find your outlook at times seemingly uninformed, and I'm not sure whether I'd so quickly deem others pompous... But I don't wish to get more personal than I have to, and chances are, I've gone too far already. Forgive me. On the other hand, if we weren't separated by keyboards and the internet, I'm sure we would quite possibly see eye to eye quite easily, as dedicated musicians, and would probably realise that we really are on the same page, more or less...

Please, people... There is so much more depth and profundity to music than mere math. There's culture, for one thing, and drama, and ultimately life and experience... Pi, most great composers today aren't "rockers transformed", and being classically trained doesn't preclude you from being imaginative and artistically corageous. But having little knowledge and insisting on ignorance will surely slow you down. Some of us here have actually devoted most of our lives to studying music. (As has John Williams!) I feel I have spent enough time in academia to allow myself to criticize it. I am an insider, and so are many others here. But if you don't have that perspective, it is really arrogant to take such liberties! True revolution always comes from knowledge! Being a "rocker transformed" will not give you the chops to write "Shark Cage Fugue" or A.I.'s "Hide and Seek"... We should study our history and tradition (going as far back in time as we can and up till the most recent of yesterdays), and only with a proper understanding will we discover our greatest potential. You must go to school in order to leave it. That which has no past cannot have a future. Blumenkohl: Your analogy is correct. The only problem is, it took us a good few thousand years to develop western classical music. I'd rather go with those milennia than stroll down to the beach and begin an ancient calculus... Marcus, who uses his ears more and better than ever, despite his education... P.S. Williams is as good as he ever was.

I'm sorry for my post on "The Terminal", but the thread did actually make a brief stop there, and I merely meant to be helpful...

Which really isn't worth all that much... The kind of craft Williams possesses can only be hinted at at conservatory/university level. It is still a good place to start, but amounts to very little next to a truly thorough study of the repertoire and its technical evolution. Again, a Ph.D. is largely dependent on the student's abilities and the training of his professor. Now, a Ph.D. under Professor John Williams would be something! Conservatories today are lazy, as far as practical requirements for composers are concerned...

Very true. And more and more so, unfortunately...

There is so much great music out there! Sadly, so little is currently being written in Hollywood...

I believe Horner's degree is the same as mine. A degree is something you receive early in life (in your twenties or thirties, usually, if we're talking about a Master's or a Doctorate). The bulk of experience, and the most important studying happens after that. Also: I don't think any conservatory today will offer the kind of training Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco offered. The best training for a composer is 1-on-1 training with a master. This has always been true. We need apprenticeship more than degrees. (I have had the greatest good fortune to receive both.)

Exactly! Shore's orchestrations are indeed weak, and don't work at all live. They sound muddy, and the brass writing is both clumsy and ineffective, and the horn writing is consistently very high and cumbersome, not to say boring. The woodwind writing is similarly boring, and string players in general LOATH the music,- it is even worse string writing than Bruckner! (Who can write beautiful music, but writes as if the orchestra was an organ) From a strict orchestrational point of view, there is every reason to claim that Shore is a relatively poor orchestrator. Then again, he hasn't had all that much experience writing for orchestra, and his classical training and knowledge wasn't the most thorough and isn't the best... Williams writes better than other present film composers becuse he comes out of a different tradition, and knows his craft deeply. And most importantly: He has practiced this craft consistently for more than 50-60 years! I really don't know of many musicians in any field today with a more solid understanding of what our classical heritage is, and not simply in an academic way. Williams is the consummate craftsman, and has both more chops, more grace and more wisdom than his so-called peers.

PoA was high quality music. GoF wasn't. And it isn't our fault that Williams is such a majestically gifted and accomplished composer. If I were to rave a bout Shakespeare or Shostakovich, would I therefore so easily be labeled a 'fanboy'? We cannot compare Williams to his colleagues working in film. It is most unfair to them. But kudos to us for recognizing true beauty and great art where it is to be found! Williams is one of the greatest composers in recent history, and is in a very real sense a modern classic. Patrick Doyle's efforts are dwarved not by a lack of thematic coherency with Williams' 'Potter scores, but by lack of a musical coherency. Also: Williams' new thematic material for PoA grows very organically (and quite cleverly) out of his earlier material.

Of course! Always! Williams Forever!

...And the fact that the music written for it was bad, and by comparison to the series' past sound world, an atrocity, bordering on an insult...

"The Terminal" is another greatly underappreciated recent gem in Williams' catalog! It is absolutely fantastic, and quite elaborate and complex, despite the "lightness" of its surface.

Can we talk about "GoF"? I imagine it has been done to death...Or marvellous scores that deserved better films?

Just a belated postscript: I never meant to imply that I would have liked Shore to completely echo an existing earthly tradition, but I think that by examining the great musical cultures that are now readily available in recordings both recent and historical, and the writings and collections on the subject that has been produced, one could come a lot closer than Shore did in portraying Middle Earth musically, and even in giving its cultures a stronger identity in terms of indigenous music. A stronger identity that, while retaining a sense of what it has "evolved" into, could sound even more archaic, and somehow more universal and more authentic. But I am letting it go...now... I have moved on! And I defer to the rest of you!

Dear Incanus, Thank you for your thoughtful reply. While I cannot disagree with any of your points, I would like to stress again that my main criticism of the work of Shore, besides the fact that I find it lacking strictly in terms of musical parameters, echoes my criticism of Peter Jackson's work: It doesn't go nearly deep enough in terms of capturing the essence of Tolkien's project, which was on the one hand an almost Ruskin-esque arts&crafts critique of industrial society, and on the other, an attempt to restore a mythology behind mythology, a sense of commonality pre-dating existing cultures. (Atlantis, if you will.) I think the problem arises in the use of references: Tolkien had a very deep, very learned understanding of norse, celtic, classical and eastern mythology. Shore simply doesn't, in my mind, create anything that musically even begins to approach a similarly deep understanding. Again, I realize what I'm asking for is difficult, but being an ardent reader of Tolkien from my early childhood, and an equally ardent and keen studier of musical cultures and musical "mythology", if I can be allowed to put it a bit colorfully, I know that it can be done, and therefore should be done. Tolkien deserves nothing less. I certainly feel that these different cultures could be paradoxically adhered to more strongly, and developed more freely. As far as specific references go, coming back to your points, I think that, while using the metric techniques of Runosong would perhaps be inappropriate, the general texture could be evoked, and would somehow sound much more ancient and otherworldly than the faux-orientalisms of Shore's elves. The same goes for Kantele-traditions. A persian reference would perhaps be more correctly used for the men of northern Harad. Georgian music has traditions that are more related to Baltic traditions than Persian, again because Persian music is a classical, and not a folk tradition. To me, Shore's music for the Hobbits sounds generic, and the music for the elves has none of the mystery and beauty and serenity I would have liked to hear. And here, we come back to a purely musical criticism: Shore's technique is far too limited to have earned the right to musically accompany the great writings of Tolkien. (The same goes for Peter Jackson, in terms of dramaturgy.) P.S. It is called Hardanger Fiddle, not "hardinger", as Shore writes, after the area in Norway whence this fiddle came, Hardanger. A colloqial term would be "hardingfele", which is the terms most Norwegians will use.

While I love and cherish the listed options, I have always had a soft spot for "Seven Years in Tibet", which has some of the most deeply tragic waltz music Williams has ever penned.

I hope my edited post explains a bit more thoroughly...

Going back to Shore's LotR scores and the amount of research he did: As someone who has dabbled with ethnomusicology, I think Shore's treatment of different existing musical cultures and his application of these in a Middle Earth context is very superficial, and at best undigested, and at worst, slightly misconceived: While I agree with some of his choices, I think he could have tried harder both to capture a certain flavor and to integrate it more seamlessly with the rest of the fabric of his scores. Of course, this is very difficult. One example is the use of the Norwegian Hardanger Fiddle to give a northern texture to Rohan's people (ancient Norwegian architecture is also the model for Edoras). In stead of giving us a musical theme that connects with this existing culture (which Tolkien would have probably liked), he gives us a very generic "action" theme transcribed for an instrument with other connotations. Also, I would have loved to see Runosong hints in the music for the lothlorian elves (as their language was indeed informed by Finnish and, I suspect, Welsh). There is a happy-go-lucky quasi "Celticity" about the Hobbit music, but I think, again, it is highly superficial, and more in tune with Jackson's vision than Tolkien's, which I suppose it means to be too. And I think Shore fails to see just how connected norse and celtic traditions have been, and he completely neglects other northern traditions, such as Baltic music. Latvian Kantele-type music would have been a very appropriate texture to conjure some of the stillness and beauty of Rivendell. And when in Latvia, one could easily move further east, and perhaps even include traces of Georgian music (which has many similarities with certain Baltic traditions). The list of examples could go on and on and on...

While I agree Shore's Lotr scores have thematic coherency and integrity, I find the actual quality of music lamentable. And the different musical cultures are very superficially treated, he could easily have done a LOT more reserach. But it matches Peter Jackson's vision, which isn't a compliment... And Williams' Star Wars work is much, much more complex than many realize. It is vastly more layered and subtle than anything a composer of Shore's stature could ever pull off. Also: Goblet of Fire!!!

The Lord of the Rings trilogy deserves scores that are worthy of Tolkien's majestic achievement. It could also have used a better director... Wait, are some of you actually suggesting that Star Wars, Schindler's List and Jaws could have better music? Those scores are three of the greatest scores in history, surely I must have misunderstood your posts in some way?