airmanjerm

Probably not right away Steef. They're a Marine Band and we are the Air Force, so it wouldn't be on the top of a priority list for our commanders. Not to say that it couldn't be done, but the amount of work just to get the music wouldn't be worth the effort. If it gets published and is easily available though, that's a different story. We do play each other's music rather often, and I'm sure any of our groups would be happy to perform it.

Awesome news! Glad to know they didn't screw around and NOT record it...

Yeah how bout that, I always knew the one about the mom being Lois from the old show, didn't realize that about Kirk Alyn until I was looking for the photo and then you posted it too. Again, fun stuff.

Remember the scene where young Clark Kent is running fast and racing the train, then we cut to young Lois Lane with her parents on the train? The lady playing Ella Lane (mom) was Noel Neill, who played Lois Lane in the George Reeves shows in the 1950s. Later on she also played the old lady at the very beginning of "Superman Returns" who signs over her fortune to Lex Luthor. Subtle, but nice. There was also something about the "S" logo that Brando wore, being a little closer in design to the George Reeves "S" than the one Christopher Reeve ends up with later in the movie. EDIT: Looked it up and no, the "S" logo that Brando wore was designed like the one in the serials with Kirk Alyn playing Superman. Again, subtle but nice.

Although I agreed so emphatically with Uni's review, Quint's review brought up a few things that I agreed with as well. There's still a lot about the film that I didn't care for (mostly the annoyingly long fight sequences that keep building and building and building ad nauseam), I do have to admit there were a few things I did enjoy, which make me look forward to the next one. I thought Cavill was great in the role, and played it great. Christopher Reeve is a tough act to follow (although we had Routh in SR). As great as Reeve was, we obviously have to have somebody new, and I think Cavill nails it. It will be interesting to see how he portrays the (adult) Clark Kent persona in the future. I also thought Diane Lane and Kevin Costner were great in their roles as well. I did think doing it all as a series of flashbacks was a little peculiar, but it didn't really bother me, and was probably a good way to keep this film from feeling like a re-do of the Donner (linearly, at least). It was nice to see Jor-El have a little more of a bad-ass role in this one. All in all, I think this series is headed in the right direction, even though I had some issues with the film itself...most of my criticisms are things found in far too many movies now, and not just this one. If I had time I could probably think of some more things I enjoyed about it, just wanted to throw a few positive things out there. Were there any tongue-in-cheek nods to the Donner? I don't recall any, but I was just wondering if I had missed anything. I always got a kick out of the small nod Donner gave to the George Reeves series, so I was curious if anything similar showed up in this one.

THIS. Down to Uni's choice of punctuation.Can I please get MORE of the pointless fight scenes? Uni even referenced that junk in the Matrix movies that irritated the snot out of me when I saw part 2 in the theater. Uni, I couldn't agree more. Also, on a completely different note/rant: Call me a prude, but I've come to believe that maybe taking my kid to see freakin' SUPERMAN might be an okay thing. But 2 minutes after meeting Lois Lane she's gonna make A DICK JOKE???? Ok seriously....I couldn't care less personally, but come on. Before having children, I probably wouldn't have noticed, so I guess maybe I was a little more irritated at that than some. But also, it was a cheap joke, which offends me even more.

Eh, I gave this one the same try I give anything and didn't care for it any more than most of Z's scores. At least it's good to hear what he's up to. I'm sure it will work fine in the film and have a nice following of fans, but it's not for me.

Yeah, I know it just shrinks on you, doesn't it? Karol I was in the pool!!!!

Quint, that's what I figured. I usually don't have time to get down-and-dirty in discussions here, but I did last night and it's fun sometime. I could talk for hours with Prometheus about ridiculously nerdy theory stuff that would interest about 4 people here. I could also B.S. with Steef about everything from French augmented 6ths to French hookers and his retorts would slay me every time. I don't get much opportunity to discuss musical stuff in my current position....I'm still writing music, but I'm surrounded by non-musical types. I'm happy when I get a minute to accidentally get philosophical, but regret that it can probably get really boring for anyone with a life. And oh yeah, I enjoy a good Zimmer dig, although I stand by my earlier comments that I'm not a hater, though definitely not a fan.

No...I can teach you a basic 4/4 pattern, but it takes years of study and practice to actually be good at it. I know there was a big discussion here before about talent/ability/etc, and I don't mean to get into all that... My only point about that whole concept is that the people who are the most successful in music (and any endeavor - artistic or not) are the people who spend years working at it and perfecting their chosen field. If you asked me when the line is crossed between student and artist, I couldn't answer that, and I don't think anyone could. I think it's important to note that the most successful professionals I have met in the music profession are those who never stop learning, and never act as if they've "arrived." I can teach any 5th grade class to play their instruments well enough to get through a Christmas concert, and so by that time they would probably be closer to "craftsmen" than a 40 year-old professional violinist. Even though I said I don't consider artists to be craftsmen per se, it's important to add that we all had to start that way, and we all have to be craftsmen first. You also have to keep the craft in your bag, otherwise you're just overpaid. lol ******************* As for the rest of your earlier comments Blume, again I actually agree with you that Williams doesn't reinvent the musical wheel or anything Godlike when he hits a mental wall.....he does what the rest of us do: drinks a half bottle of Jack Daniels and just puts some crap down and then fixes it later. As far as "fluffifying" the process goes, I guess maybe it is, because the process of writing music (for any composer) has so many levels that it would take forever to not fluffify it. That's not to say that it's a Godlike process, but it definitely has many levels. Actually, Quint's original question is a good one that I wish I could answer, but really nobody can except Williams himself. If I understand Quint's question, he is asking about what JW does when he gets stuck, which is basically asking about the Compositional Process. I don't think there's anyone who could answer that except Williams, with the small possible exception of the people who have worked with him as orchestrators or directors. Williams doesn't give lessons, so it would be hard to find out unless you happened to be in the room while he worked on a score. The concept of "Teaching Composition" is itself difficult. Mainly, because (like teaching judgement) you really can't. You can teach theory and all that book-related stuff, but in the end it's just the composer and the blank page. If you teach a student all your personal tricks, that's not really teaching them anything except "how to sound like you." What most composition students have to learn from a respected composer is often their compositional process, which is what I think Quint is asking about. Everything from "how do you get started," to questions about how a composer chooses a harmonic language for a piece/score, if the melody came first, why you chose this harmonic technique over there, etc. A common technique for teaching a student is to start with teaching them to map out the form of the work they want to write. But no matter what you teach your student, that period of time when they leave your office and then come back a week later with a new piece is the part where they had to develop their own compositional process. For Williams, a lot of things are already determined by the film, but that just means he moves on to focus on the other myriad of things he has to decide. What he does between the time he sits at the piano to start a piece and gets up after writing the last note is, in my opinion, the greatest mystery of what makes him John Williams. Quint: sorry if I'm not understanding your question just right, I may be getting down a little more philosophical question than you'd intended. If you were just asking what sort of B.S. he writes for filler, I'd say the Boom-Tzz and an entire string section playing fast octatonic scale runs in about 5 octaves.

I would hesitate to think of composers as craftsmen, but I do rather agree with your point Blume. Only reason I hesitate to think of it that way is that to me, a craftsman is someone who does something that practically anyone can do with a list of instructions. Fixing an airplane engine, for example. Not to say that mechanics can't attain a degree of artistic merit in what they do, but something as mundane as changing your oil is, at least to me, what it means to be a craftsman. Nobody can just follow a list of instructions and create a successful piece of music. You can know all the rules of counterpoint, and all that stuff I mentioned earlier about melodic development, etc., but their is a certain amount of artistic ability that is required for someone to be successful at actually composing music. I don't know if it's something you can learn or not....I've been writing music for 20 years and I haven't figured that out yet either. One thing I have indeed learned though is that it's often the people who know the most - and try to prove it in their compositions - who are the least successful in the music profession. They've spent too much time analyzing, and not enough time doing. (That's not a blanket statement though.) Not to say they're wizards or demigods or whathaveyou, just people with a passion. Like every endeavor, the ones who are the best are usually the most successful. (Pop music notwithstanding....lol)

Saving Private Ryan. Easily one of the most divisive.

I'll add this to my previous comment that wasn't meant to be mean spirited, but certainly came off that way in print... I'm not a Zimmer fan personally, but for what he does, he does it very well. I don't have any interest in the whole ghost-writer part of his process, but he's been around long enough that people know what they're gonna get, and clearly he's making a lot of people happy. So, good on him and best wishes and all that. My wife loves some of the Rom-Com things he's scored, and the music in those is spot on. It doesn' need a sweeping orchestra. While I don't have any big amount of respect for him as a composer, I think it's important (at least, for me) to stay away from becoming a "hater," simply because of Zimmer's attitude towards being a composer. He constantly raves about how extraordinary Williams and other composers are, and about his own abilities being different. I think it's the fact that he is so open about that sort of thing that makes me not dislike the guy personally. Another example is his recent commentary about scoring the new Superman film and how difficult Williams made that. We were all thinking it, and I'm sure he knew it would be an issue among fans, so I thought it was a nice gesture to mention it publicly. If he showed up with some sort of intense musician ego, I'd probably be singing a different tune.

Hmm...I'd say his tactic is using his real skill as an actual composer to create original music using his knowledge of harmony, melody, orchestration, musical contrast, rhythmic direction, musical development, and how it all relates to different emotions. You know, like a real composer who actually knows more than just jungle drums and D minor.

Hmm. I wrote something about this the day it was first posted, and just realized it's not here. User error, I'm certain. Anyway, I sent an email to a couple people to see if they could give me any info about it, but haven't heard back yet. One is an archivist at the Library of Congress and also works with the Marine Band, so if anyone can get me info about it, it's him. Unfortunately, my best contact would have been their Staff Arranger, Stephen Bulla, but he retired a couple years ago and I don't know the new guy.

In addition to the other things mentioned already, there are also many people out there in the world of music - typically musical academics - who have an underlying lack of respect for Williams and his colleagues, simply because they are considered film composers. That's not a finger point at musical academics in general (I am one myself), but at a small "faction" who seem to do nothing but criticize anything that is enjoyed by mass audiences. I've had several run-ins with these people throughout my career (especially during degree work), and their argument always seems to stop at just saying "John Williams is such a plagiarist." It doesn't go much further. They may be able to spot a few places where things DO sound similar, or even places where it's obvious that the temp-track was a huge influence on the director's wishes ("Star Wars" bits, "Face of Pan," etc), but it's obvious they are totally ignorant of the enormous amount of music written by the guy over the last 60 years. Play them an excerpt from the Flute Concerto, and they'll have no idea it's Williams. Why? Because they are making a blanket statement without having all the facts necessary for the statement. Also, these people are often just repeating something they've heard someone else say, because they feel it makes them sound educated. They haven't spent time and effort examining Williams' entire oeuvre, they just know a few isolated spots, and in order to make themselves feel important, they criticize someone else's work. It's a lazy way to build your own ego, but musicians are often the worst when it comes to petty trash-talking. The other aspect (mentioned already) is that sometimes these critics are educated enough (whether formally or just because they love music), but they aren't educated enough to know that what they are hearing isn't actual plagiarism, it's musical style. When Bernstein's Mass premiered, it was highly criticized for (among other things) sounding too much like everything else he'd written - especially West Side Story. Now, it's considered a masterpiece, although it still generates controversy for completely different reasons. On the same note, nobody ever criticized Beethoven for sounding like Beethoven, or Mahler for sounding like Mahler. I'm not comparing Williams to any other composer, but the fact is that every composer in history had his/her own bag of compositional "tricks," which they would dip into frequently. This board is FULL of examples of Williams' tricks. Want to see the ones J.S. Bach used? Open any music theory textbook written since 1750. And yeah, Bach sounds like Bach too...the lousy plagiarist!

Oh, I'm sure it'll be recorded somehow. Getting that, on the other hand, would be difficult. I once tried to get a recording of one of my own compositions from the Cleveland Orchestra that they had played on a 9/11 tribute, and it was more paperwork than adopting a set of twins. I also had to call a friend who knew somebody who knew somebody, etc.....and that was just for the recording of my own work, not the entire concert. Releasing their archival recordings like that could get them into similar legal issues, and sometimes they get a little paranoid about it (and rightfully so, I guess). For one like this though, it would be wonderful if they would ever release it; the Chicago Symphony is certainly one of the greatest in the world.

The list of reasons would contain many that have to deal with copyrights, licensing, and paying for the rights to record the music and release it in various formats. Pressing it to a CD, internet streaming, and video presentation are all different presentations and require different licenses, with different fees necessary for each. Not that they couldn't make their money back selling a CD of Williams with the Chicago Symphony (I'd buy it!), but fees are typically nonrefundable. If you pay ALL that money for the rights to record the concert, then somebody sneezes during a flute solo or something, that abnormality makes it a less-than-amazing recording. Groups like the CSO don't want to put out a sub-par recording, so paying all those fees and just betting/hoping the concert goes perfectly isn't really worth the risk. Of course I'm sure there's other reasons, but that's a big one, and it affects everyone from big groups like the CSO to small community bands.

I spoilered this without realizing Blume had written about it in his review, which I just saw. And yeah, it's just nice to hear again. Edit: I'm admittedly not as familiar with the 2009 score as most of you. Just checked that out Jason, I didn't remember it from before and didn't realize the new one is basically the same little treatment, but again....it's nice to hear the allusion.

I've given this a single listen, and have to say one of the things that was nice to catch in "Kirk's Enterprise" (although I almost missed it) was....

Ehh. It's source music, which I guess is good to know. Won't end up in my playlist, but I guess in future edits it'll be one less thing people have to search video game files for...

Sorry it's taken me a few days to reply, but I've done a little research (including stopping by the MTI museum here at Lackland Air Force Base, where I am more-or-less stationed) and have spoken to a couple older Air Force band veterans ("alumni" lol) who were in the AF back in the 1950s. I've separated it here into Basic Training info and then some stuff more related to the bands specifically. I know it's a lot, but here you go... Basic Training Info: It's important to realize that when JW joined the AF, the Korean War was in full effect. With air power becoming much more popular due to WW2, the Air Force had LOTS of people joining up. In fact, here's something interesting I found out: from January 1st - 5th of 1951 there were 11,569 NEW RECRUITS who showed up for basic training. Yes, 11,569 people in FIVE DAYS. Because of that, basic training was cut from 13 weeks down to just 2 weeks, and then even cut down to essentially just in and out processing, with only a little time for issuing uniforms and paperwork. Those who underwent this sort of hectic training did follow-up training at their next base. After that massive amount of people was dealt with, Basic Training settled at eight weeks (as I've mentioned previously) in March, 1951. It underwent more change in following years, but not until well after we know JW was through with BMT. At the time - and even now - basic trainees don't really even touch or go near an airplane. So, there was no "mending airplanes" for JW as you asked (and it's a common question, so no worries). Any sort of aircraft maintenance training is (and was) given after basic training in what they now call "Tech School." In tech school, people spend anywhere from 6 weeks to a year learning the aspects of the job they are going to do in the Air Force. Some jobs (such as military police, aircraft maintenance, and others) take less time; others (such as a military linguist) can take close to a year. What did they do? Well, a lot of what they do now, and what we did when I went through it in 2000. Lots of exercising, naturally, and (like you mentioned) first-aid classes, weapons training, and other classes on things like Air Force regulations & policies, etc. There's lots of attention on things like uniform care, team-building, and of course marching and drill. During JW's time, they did two separate field training exercises, where they simulate the construction of a remote air base and live there for a couple of days. We still do that, but when I went through (and now) it's adapted slightly into one lengthy training, and set in a (simulated) desert environment. Air Force Band "Life": In the bands, our "training" is a little different. In JW's day there were dozens of Air Force bands, and anyone who could play their instrument successfully could join. Nowadays, we only have about 9 bands in the Air Force, and only a certain number of people in each band, so joining is a little more selective. When we have a vacancy, the hiring process is similar to a professional orchestra: we announce and publicize the vacancy, accept applications, and invite qualified applicants to the live audition. If a person is selected in the audition, we do paperwork-type things and they work with an Air Force recruiter to get scheduled to go to basic training. After that, there is no Tech School for Air Force Band members: because of the competitive nature of our auditions, anyone selected to join the band has already had to demonstrate their ability to perform their instrument during their audition. About 95% of those who are selected to join the band have already earned at least a Bachelor's degree in music, and many have a Master's or DMA. So, there's no Tech School...it wouldn't make sense to have that. During JW's time, the bands weren't quite so selective, just because there were so many of them and they had plenty positions for musicians. You still had to pass an audition, but other than that, life in the band was pretty much the same as it is now. In the Air Force bands, you are a musician and that is your job. In some other services (notably the US Marine Corps), bandsmen are considered "musicians second," so they can be pulled away from their musical duties for more militant things. So, during JW's time he likely did as you suggested....just sit around in offices and arrange music. (Which is what I do....ha!) It's highly doubtful that he ever conducted a parade, and aside from the "You are Welcome" project he probably didn't conduct much, if ever. Keep in mind he was a very young man at the time, and although he was a talented pianist and upcoming composer/arranger, band commanders in those days were notoriously "territorial." I won't say it's unheard of (in fact, I've had the opportunity to conduct our bands several times), but at the time, it was highly unlikely that his duties ventured much outside of writing music and playing piano. I'm still doing some research to see if I can locate anyone who was ever stationed with JW at any of the three bands we know he was in. I'll keep you posted! P.S. - This is EXTREMELY trivial Thor, but just for what it's worth, it's incorrect to refer to an Air Force member as an Army member, or doing "army duties." It doesn't offend me in the least, I only mention it for the sake of your writing. It's very common in the USA for Air Force or Marine Corps members to be referred to as soldiers, when that term is technically reserved only for members of the U.S. Army. When referring to AF members, the correct term is "Airman" or "Airmen" (capitalized). Again, doesn't offend me, just some FYI junk.

Another thought- It's possible that if that IS our John Williams in that photo that it doesn't mean the photo was taken at the end of the 8 weeks of basic training. I don't personally remember what week of training we were in when they took our photos, but I do know and remember that it wasn't close to the end. It was much closer to the beginning, so they have time to have then developed and all that. So, even though I made another comment about how your appearance can change and all that, he's never really been a chubby guy, so he'd of probably looked like that photo early on in his BMT time anyway. So, if that IS him (and like you, I'm still not sold), then he could have entered basic in June or even July, and the picture still say July.

Of course Thor, I wouldn't expect you to change anything until there's something more definite. I've popped into the other thread a few times but haven't had much chance to spend time with the info you've accumulated there. I know it's a lot! I was just wondering about the possibility of the UCLA time being earlier in the year. Another thing I've had bugging me is the time he spent at the base in Arizona before being transferred to Newfoundland. We call it "Time on Station," or TOS. Moving from one base to another in less than a year is unheard of, BUT...there's a possibility that the band there was considered a "training" unit, before members shipped out to a more permanent assignment. We still do that now with Air National Guard band members, who spend a few weeks in an active duty band after basic training. The other possibility is that he was sent to Arizona as an assignment, then was sent to Newfoundland because they had a vacancy for a piano player. The air force assignment system has always had a clause where overseas assignments must be filled first, and I've seen piano players (and other rhythm players) get bounced around with less than a year time on station. Anyways, just more food for thought.

Yes, the whole thing is a little confusing to sort through, but the 1951 is at least a definite. I'm not being argumentative, please understand Thor, but I think it's highly likely that his entry to the AF was much earlier than December. The reason being that his 6-digit personal number - 389,341 - is much lower than the 420,000 number that was reached by the end of December, 1951. If his number was something closer to 420,000, I'd definitely think it was December. Again, I'm not being argumentative on purpose, I'm trying to talk through this thing too. It's very difficult to sort through and I don't have the answers either. :-) Are you using the old AF newspaper article as your source for saying that JW was enrolled in classes at UCLA prior to joining the Air Force? I wonder if it's possible that JW may have been enrolled in classes during the summer? Or even possible that UCLA used the "quarters" system instead of semesters. ALSO: Something more trivial but a thing you can edit in your original post: During the 1950s, March Air Reserve Base was an active duty base, not a reserve base. So, it was just called (at the time) March Air Force Base. It wasn't changed to a Reserve base until just a few years ago, as a result of the BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) decision. The band that was at March AFB (which had been the for a long time - the same band that JW had been in) was decommissioned in the early 1990s, and the personnel and equipment transferred to Travis Air Force Base in northern CA where it combined with the AF Band of the Golden West. This is the band that I spent the first 12 years of my military service in, and a few of our members were guys who had even been in the March AFB Band. Oh yeah, another thing. I don't have a CLUE if this means anything, and even if it's the right guy, it's not a big deal. But.... I wonder if this article (by Roger Ebert) is about the same Paul Galloway who wrote that article about Johnny Williams back in 1954. This Paul Galloway (who eventually became fairly well-known in the Newspaper industry) would have been 20 years old at the time, and he did serve in the Army, so he could definitely have been assigned to the Air Force Public Affairs office at March AFB in 1954. http://www.rogerebert.com/interviews/paul-galloway-a-beloved-legend-sheep-galloway-sheep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Galloway