Ludwig

You're half right. I checked the cues for where it turns up, and it's actually bvi in first inversion, or Wagner's famous Tarnhelm progression (or as Lehman's dubs it - 'Vaderhelm'). The brass and strings only play the Db-F third, but the ostinato figure outline the entire chord (F-Bb-Db-Bb etc). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7OAR3JjiSY 2:28 Much more obvious here where it modulates to Fm. It turns out that, although we're talking about the same theme, we're citing different versions of it. Your versions above certainly are harmonized with Dm-Bbm, the Tarnhelm progression. But in the cue I refer to, "Like a Dog Chasing Cars" (called "Action Ice Theme" in the score), it's consistently harmonized as Dm going to the C#-F dyad I mentioned. Written as C# or Db, it doesn't matter - the hearing here is still in D minor due to the persistent ostinato in that key that runs through it. So Zimmer changes the theme's harmonization for different scenes. Talk about having our cake and eating it too.

It was this one: http://www.noteflight.com/login

That's exactly what I was asking. I've always had a hunch it was like this, so thanks for confirming it all.

I see. Makes sense. Do you find that there is more exact recurrence of material in Zimmer than in, say, Williams? If so, is that another reason a longer list might be viewed as a more sensitive reading of a score? What I mean is, we talk about the Force theme, or Vader's theme, but don't distinguish different variations of them, even though their happening all the time in the score. Do you think that's why Adams does this with Shore?

Who, I have a question about your analysis. I'm wondering why you chose to catalog the material of the score with individual names for each element. I see you've collected them together into larger groups based on characters, places, and such. So another way of doing it is to eliminate most of the individual names in favor of variations on the larger idea like, say, the two-note Batman theme. It's not a criticism and I'm not saying you're wrong for doing it this way. I'm just curious as to your motivation for breaking things down in this very Doug Adams way.

You're half right. I checked the cues for where it turns up, and it's actually bvi in first inversion, or Wagner's famous Tarnhelm progression (or as Lehman's dubs it - 'Vaderhelm'). The brass and strings only play the Db-F third, but the ostinato figure outline the entire chord (F-Bb-Db-Bb etc). Isn't the ostinato just doing the Bat-figure F-D altered to the diminished fourth, F-C#? I don't hear any Bb. Well, that's what appears in the orchestrated score. So now you play your trump card. Why didn't you say so? I thought we were doing this all by ear.

Doh! I meant LRP. To quote Lehman: Modalverwandt is my invention. The name “Modalverwandt” (M) is meant to analogize with the similarly fifth-traversing N. M is not to be confused with Kopp’s (2002) mediant-oriented M and m relations; by his system, my Modalverwandt would rather be designated by his F(ifth-change) operation. Morris (1998) observes that P, L, and R have transformational twins when defined such that the defining interval (e.g. ic3, 4, or 5) is inverted about a stable pitch rather than the pitch about an interval. He labels these corresponding transformations P′, L′, and R′, homologous to my S, N, and M. By using distinct transformation labels here, I wish to distinguish these progressions as discrete and autonomous rather than derived. To cut to the chase, Gm -> C would be an example of a Modalverwant, since it's involves mode mixture (Dorian or Mixolydian). Cheers. That makes more sense now. You're half right. I checked the cues for where it turns up, and it's actually bvi in first inversion, or Wagner's famous Tarnhelm progression (or as Lehman's dubs it - 'Vaderhelm'). The brass and strings only play the Db-F third, but the ostinato figure outline the entire chord (F-Bb-Db-Bb etc). Isn't the ostinato just doing the Bat-figure F-D altered to the diminished fourth, F-C#? I don't hear any Bb.

In Neo-Reinmannian Theory this (Dm <-> DbMaj) is called the Slide (S), where the third remains constant, while the tonic and fifth slide down a semitone. You're right about Inception, but actually the Dark Knight one's not a SLIDE because the second chord isn't Db major. It's C#-F and a G is often added on its tail end - I suppose it could be called an altered dominant, especially with that tritone C#-G. Also you've usually got an ostinato running through it that creates a sort of elaborated pedal on D, clarifying that the Db is actually C# of the D minor scale. Are you're we talking about the same progression here? The one I'm referring to alters the ostinato on the second chord, so it oscillates between Db and F (or C# and F). I remember an 'epic sounding' development of this progression in TDKR that uses #4/11th appoggiaturas with a climbing melody - similar to JNH's heroic King Kong theme that Lehman analyses in that paper. Dm -> Bb -> Fm -> Db. L -> LPR (M) -> L. The Modalverwandt transformation from Bb to Fm marking a modulation from Dm to Fm. I think that's what caused me to view the earlier 2 chord motif as Dm - Db, a case of what you might call 'retrospective reinterpretation.' Yes, that's the one. It certainly has resonances with the other progressions that move voices largely by semitones, but it remains different. Play Dm - Dbmaj on a piano and you'll find it sounds too sweet compared to the score. Substitute in the C#-F-G instead and you'll probably find it sounds right. The epic progression you mention is what I called one of Batman's "succeeding" themes, of which there are many (half a dozen or so) and all of which are essentially interchangeable and even play one after the other. What's the M in Lehman's analysis? Performing LPR on Bb takes you to Bm, so I assume the M is another operation - maybe a tritone transposition?

While I (obviously) don't consider DKR to be anything close to a weak score, I do prefer Inception. But I knew if I did that first, I wouldn't have the motivation to do this one after it. I'll probably have it done by tomorrow night around this time. Looking forward to it.

Okay, cheers! Is the diminished fourth/major third distinction discernible from the actual pitches, or is it something which arises from the musical context in which it occurs? (I suppose I'm basically asking: can this be played properly on a piano?) Yes, it's a contextual thing. Played completely on its own, we would say it's a major third. But notice that the chord is always preceded by a long melodic D, so it's clear that the C# it moves to is the leading note of the scale, giving us the diminished fourth when combined with F. Who? Really didn't mean to start a username war on this. Is was more like, "can I call you Bill instead of William", kind of thing, something that just flows more.

Is there anything in particular that leads you to distinguish the C# from Db? (My meagre musical education was all undertaken in an implicit 12-tone equal temperament context.) The fact that the D minor scale is still audible through the ostinato, which actually starts on C# and leads straight to D. What I'm saying is that the chord is composed not of a major third, which would give it a positive sound, but rather a diminished fourth, which is actually a dissonant interval that has a long association in classical music with expressions of grief. This is why I labelled the theme "Batman troubled" in my blog analysis.

In Neo-Reinmannian Theory this (Dm <-> DbMaj) is called the Slide (S), where the third remains constant, while the tonic and fifth slide down a semitone. You're right about Inception, but actually the Dark Knight one's not a SLIDE because the second chord isn't Db major. It's C#-F and a G is often added on its tail end - I suppose it could be called an altered dominant, especially with that tritone C#-G. Also you've usually got an ostinato running through it that creates a sort of elaborated pedal on D, clarifying that the Db is actually C# of the D minor scale. I thought the same thing, that is was a SLIDE, until I went to transcribe the theme for my blog. But thanks for introducing Neo-Riemannian theory to the board. It'll be a good addition to the theory discussions. ************************************* Who, this is a truly fantastic post. Enough detail to keep anyone busy for weeks. How long did this take you? Also, can I just call you GP? Every time I type "Who", I feel like I'm going to lapse into the old "who's on first" routine.

I can't recall ever seeing the accidental on the right of the number. That happens with Roman numerals for chord symbols, and there it definitely does make a difference. I don't know if you followed the discussion on Lehman's Hollywood cadence article, but it came up there.

Thanks for this. It's fascinating how a piece suddenly transforms with just a few minor changes. I wish I had such a command of harmony to make something sound like I want to. Lots of practice, study, and messing around at a piano. That's my M.O.

If there's only the b5 or #5, then it's a triad. #5 comes up now and then but I don't recall ever seeing b5 on its own. Do you have a particular piece in mind?

Nice little tune, but I might tweak it a bit to give it an even more Russian/Slavic sound. For example, try: - having the first 3 violin notes (above middle C) E-A-E, outlining a fourth - for the 2nd chord after the violin enters, try a G major chord rather than D minor - that gives you a chord on the "flat 7th" of the scale; very Russian (you're also outlining that chord in the violin anyway) - for the 10th and 11th notes of the violin, try D falling down to A with an A minor chord under both notes - again this uses the fourth - right after that, transpose the fourths you have to E-A-E instead of B-E-B, and again use an A minor chord - the I-IV-V progression sounds too Western, I think - after this, try something like B-G-G-A with an E minor chord under the first 3 notes and an A minor under the last - this is a modal cadence that sounds more Russian (the flat 7th again)

Doe, a deer, a female deer... I thought that might be what Homer Simpson calls the old chant tune.

Great question. Accompaniments with arpeggiated chords are one of the most misunderstood aspects of music theory, but what you describe is absolutely right. I guess the thing to remember is that accompaniment figures based on arpeggios are not composed of one voice, but several. So say in an Alberti bass, it's not as if the bass is bopping around all over the place (which would mean the inversions are changing). Rather, an Alberti bass is composed of three voices sounding successively instead of at the same time. The bass, then, is as you say only the first note of the figure, so that determines the position of the chord. A good way to think of this and similar accompaniments is to imagine how the accompaniment would be if it was in solid chords. That way, you'll see all the voices of the chord at once and it becomes clear just what is going on.

Yes, the melody's chromatic changes are dependent on the chords. The chord changes you can think of in terms of Lehman's "Chromatically Modulating Cadential Resolutions" - he shows them abstractly in this very passage in Example 29 of his online article. Or it might help to think of the key relationships. The main interval used to change keys is the third in various forms. In your diagram, in terms of keys, bar 10-11 (according to your bar numbers) is a minor 3rd down, bar 13-14 is a minor 3rd up, bar 15-16 is a minor 3rd down, and bar 17-18 (18 is not shown) is another minor 3rd down. You can see how much this passage relies on thirds to keep the key changes sounding fresh. There's also the lack of resolution where we expect tonic chords of each key to come in, part of the "sensation of wonderment" that Lehman discusses. One other thing I'd mention is the pattern of motives in the melody. For one thing, every bar is based on the same basic rhythmic motive, but varied. And these are grouped into pairs of bars, and the first pair is varied over another three statements of it. So you could write it schematically as: a1 - a2(extended to 3 bars) - a1' - a2' And these could be grouped further into larger segments like this: A1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A2 - - - a1 - a2(extended to 3 bars) - a1' - a2' This is a very typical Williams device - always drawing on the same basic motive, but never stating it quite the same way. Many of his themes do this.

It depends what kind of pieces you're thinking of. But there are certain features that tend to be linked with these kinds of music. In terms of rhythm, a lot of slavic music has meters of 5 or 7, so you get beats of unequal lengths like 2+3 or 2+2+3. Bartok's Dances in Bulgarian Rhythm from his Mikrokosmos all do this kind of thing. In terms of harmony, one stereotypically Russian sound is the use of the flat 7th scale degree in minor keys rather than the raised 7th you get in more European-style classical music. Think of the opening of Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade, which goes tonic, dominant, flat 7th. In terms of melody, one typical trait is the use of fourths, like the end of the first two short phrases in Song of the Volga Boatmen. You'll hear nearly the same phrases with fourths at the opening of Mussorgsky's opera Boris Godunov. But these are stereotypes and the question certainly goes much deeper. This only scratches the surface.

Well, yes. But everyone seems to think it was an "either/or" situation - that either classical compositions were going to be used as the score or they weren't. This is what they call a "binary opposition" that simplifies matters that may exist on more of a spectrum rather than at opposite poles. All I'm saying is that people never consider the possibility that the classical pieces may have been planned to be used as mere raw materials for an original score rather than simply arranged or used in their original form, like in 2001. That, to me, fits all the evidence the best. Lucas' talk about having an "old-fashioned" and "Steiner-type" movie score, which he says he always wanted for the film, just doesn't make sense otherwise.

Thanks for clarifying, Emilio. You raise good points here. Still, the first four points you mention are circumstantial rather than definitive. It's that last one that seems strange, as you say. And that's where I think there has been a great deal of misinterpretation by others, inferring that Star Wars was originally to have a Kubrick-style compilation score. You do allow for an alternative in your book, so I'm not saying there's anything the matter with your fine work. I only think there is some confusion that needs to be cleared up. In any case, the alternative you presentn is that Lucas wanted pre-existing classical music arranged as leitmotifs. And yes, that would account for Williams' quote, but it doesn't sit well with other pieces of evidence. First, why would Spielberg recommend Williams coming off of Jaws if that was the case? Williams had never arranged for Spielberg, so the recommendation would seem inappropriate. But most of all, there are two quotes from Lucas himself that have not been accounted for in arguments for a compiled or arranged score. I give these below (from The Making of Star Wars). Quote 1 - Lucas on why he chose Williams Quote 2 - Lucas on what type of score he wanted If one combines these quotes with the "strange" one Williams gives, and if we are to believe that they are all credible, then the compilation idea starts to fall apart. The only way these quotes all seem to agree is if what Lucas was talking about was a score in which the themes were from classical works, as you say, but were re-composed into a new original score, something like Steiner's Casablanca. There, Steiner uses "As Time Goes By", the Marseillaise, the Deutschlandlied, and "Die Wacht am Rhein", but they're used as raw material for an original score. No one would call Steiner's score compiled or even arranged. It's an original score based on pre-existing themes, which is quite different from a complied or arranged score. Consider also that, in talking with Lucas, Williams says that "I felt we needed our own themes". So clearly, the themes were going to be unoriginal. But they're re-use throughout the score would have to have been planned to be original from the start. And this is the confusion that needs to be cleared up (again, from all past sources, not your book per se). The Kubrick-style score is, for me, one of the great myths of the plans for the Star Wars score. Again, congratulations on a very fine book. Hopefully there will be more from you on Williams in the years to come.

I have now edited my OP and converted it into my latest blog post - see below. There are some new things I added to it if you're interested. http://www.filmmusicnotes.com/book-review-john-williamss-film-music-by-emilio-audissino/

Lehman assumes the reader has familiarity with this material - not an unreasonable assumption for an academic audience. It's best explained with this diagram (a picture's worth a thousand words): If you really want to go cross-eyed, you can read the article this comes from, but this is probably all you need.

I purchased it through Amazon.ca, where it's been available for the past month or so. Usually Canada gets things later than the US, but this was a lucky exception! EDIT: By the way - thanks, Ricard!