Ludwig

I have just finished reading John Williams's Film Music cover to cover and first of all would like to congratulate Dr. Audissino for writing such a thorough, convincing, and enjoyable book. This is an excellent and much needed contribution to the nearly non-existent body of work on Williams, and Audissino proves beyond a shadow of a doubt just how Williams recaptures much of the spirit of good old classical Hollywood film music. I would like to share some of the book's highlights with the forum members here for those who are interested. Essentially, Audissino takes the reader through a survey of Hollywood film music history beginning with the silents and reaching Williams' classical revival with the major films of the 1970s. For those who have read something on this before, it will be quite familiar but even so, there are new tidbits to be found and it is always enriching to have the story told through the lens of another scholar, since the interpretation of events is never quite the same. Thus, one may be surprised to read on p. 59 that in the "modern" film music style of the 1960s, Of course, Morricone, Barry, and Mancini all wrote "themes" for various characters in the films they scored, whether it was Jill from Once Upon a Time in the West, James Bond, or The Phantom from The Pink Panther. But Audissino's point is that these themes tended to be closed musical numbers and so did not seek to catch the moment-to-moment emotional changes but rather express an emotion that described longer stretches, even an entire scene. And this idea aptly describes a key difference between, say, a Morricone theme and a Korngold leitmotif. Another great quality of this book is that Audissino manages to find the perfect Williams quote for just about every situation. One of my favourites is his quote of Williams discussing his approach to the main title of Star Wars: And Audissino puts the quote in appropriate context by pointing up the many classical Hollywood traits that pervade this main title music. The one thing I would question with regard to Star Wars is Audissino's claim that George Lucas "planned to have the music track made of preexisting symphonic selections, or at least to use preexisting themes arranged as leitmotifs for the film," then cites the conversation Lucas had with Williams in which the latter supposed convinced him otherwise. As members here know from my thread on "Busting the Star Wars Myths", I am of the opinion that there has been some kind of mix-up in the communication of this little anecdote. As great as it sounds that Williams was the one who thought Star Wars should have an original score, it just doesn't ring true--why hire one of the hottest composers in Hollywood (who has just won an Oscar) if all he's going to do is arrange old music? My thinking is that Lucas wanted Williams to conjure up something like Holst here or like Stravinsky there, and that this was Lucas' idea for the entire film. And probably the clear references to these composers in the film are the remnants of what might have been for the entire film had Williams not spoken up. I would be very open to hearing Audissino's thoughts on this. For me, the most eye-opening chapter was the one on Williams' early years (Thor will like this, I'm sure). There, after giving a synopsis of Williams personal history during the 1960s and early 1970s, Audissino traces the beginnings of Williams' classical Hollywood revival in several lesser known scores like How to Steal a Million, Fitzwilly, and Not with My Wife, You Don't!, and compares them to scores in the "modern" style by one of the most prominent composers of the time, Henry Mancini. It was fascinating to read this because no one has mentioned the importance of Williams' early scores in any writings on him. They're usually marginalized in favour of the big scores. But Audissino convincingly argues that their leitmotivic, symphonic, and Mickey Mousing qualities are more prominent than in Mancini (and by extension other "modern" style composers of the era). It is also nice to see that Raiders of the Lost Ark gets a thorough scene-by-scene analysis of how the music functions. If there are any doubts left at this point that Williams drew on classical Hollywood techniques, this chapter puts them to rest. And it's nice to see evidence of Spielberg's own fondness for the classical style of filmmaking discussed as well to further strengthen the argument. One other thing the book does rather well is to show how much Williams has done to promote film music outside of Hollywood and legitimize it as a form of music worthy of concert performance, recordings, and scholarly study. By the end of the book, especially after the chapter on Wiliams' tenure with the Boston Pops Orchestra, one is astounded by just how much the man has contributed in this vein. Finally, one handy feature of the book is its two appendices, one giving short synopses of the films Williams has scored for Spielberg and Lucas (okay, we can look this up on Wikipedia, but let's face it, it's a distraction when you're reading the book), and the other is a comprehensive list of Williams' total output. So if this doesn't convince you to buy and read the book, I don't know what will. It's the kind of thing we need a lot more of, so I'm very glad Audissino has given us a great starting point.

indy4, maybe it's the way the chords are approached that sounds clichéd. Before the Vsus is an inverted IV chord that then becomes vi by the melody falling from scale degree 4 to 3, then to 2 for the Vsus. The thing is, you don't find this in classical music because you get parallel 5ths between the melody and bass, but in film, it's pretty standard. BTW, a master of the Vsus-V progression at cadences is Morricone. But he tends not to approach it from the vi chord, rather from IV, ii6, or even I. And it usually happens in minor, which seems to give it more seriousness.

There's a chapter in the French collection of essays on Williams that mentions pedal and ostinato. My French is very bad but I'll have a look...

Rossini's original overture is far better than what Zanelli did with it. I have the feeling many discovered this piece with the remix. Rossini is the real genius here and deserves the applause.

I'm just wandering, is there an academic paper out there on polychords/polytonality (that doesn't limit itself to juxtaposed tertian structures) like that Auvil essay you sent me? Something that catalogues them from the late 19th century to the mid 20th. The Persichetti is great, but I'd to see some of the obscurer composers mentioned. Funny you should mention it. I have a dissertation on polytonality waiting for me at the library. Damn thing is on microfilm, so I'll have to spend some time scanning it. You'd think everything would be digitized these days. Guess it's that people aren't exactly beating down the doors to get their hands on these things. There is an article I read recently on polytonality by Mark Delaere. It's ok, not great. Spends most of its time tracing the theory of polytonality in French writings of the 1920s, particularly Milhaud, and seeing if it applies to Milhaud's work, I suppose to see if he practiced what he preached. Unfortunately, it doesn't try to explain polytonality compositionally. The search continues...

The first one, because without its ridiculously well-known status, you couldn't do this:

I'm with Who in that open cluster is best, but if you wanted to nuance it, you could say it's an open cluster doubled in major 3rds. It's wordy but clear. Also probably the best way to conceptualize it. Even so, it's not far off from being stacked triads, so has a "poly" feel to it that suits the other dissonances in the cue. As for the other location, that would be a "mixed polychord". Notice that each chord is quite a different set: - Trombones --> French-6th-related chord - Horns --> "Quartal" chord - Trumpets --> (014) All are very different in sound, so the result is a wonderfully pungent stinger. I get the feeling that in these early 80s scores, Williams is experimenting with modernist materials. Not that it's unsystematic, but it has a freedom about it, a lack of adherence to any one system (unlike the great 20th-century concert composers, who tended to be more systematic). Maybe that's what gives these scores their very attractive, spontaneous, even "wild" sound.

X marks the double-sharp.

The other examples in the article use the uppercase/lowercase distinction for major and minor chords, and it's still in effect here. So technically the accidentals after the numerals are redundant. Glóin does point out an inconsistency, though, in Type V. Actually Type VI would also be #I#. Just go by the uppercase indicating major and the first accidental indicating a chromatic root.

No, it's in this one @53:28:

Well, a close copy occurs in Ben-Hur at the opening of the naval scene. It's so close it jumps out at you.

What a great score. I love his really notey brass fanfares. No one else writes quite like that.

Don't be so modest, Marcus - there are many fans of your music here (myself included), and this deserves its own thread so we can all find it easily. New thread, I say, new thread!

No doubt that's why Williams usually has 6-12 staves in his sketches rather than just 2-4. I would say that it's not his process per se, but his manner of musical thought that gives his scores such brilliant orchestral colour. In other words, it wouldn't matter if he wrote for piano first then orchestrated because it seems he's always thinking orchestrally regardless. Most of the great film composers of past generations have certainly had this ability. What makes Williams stand out is... he's just a freakin' genius.

I think there's more ambiguity here than it might seem. The tune is largely pentatonic, which can easily swing from major to minor without committing completely to one or the other. Also the song sets up this duality early on, moving between G major and E minor chords from its start. And when it does cadence on E minor, the melody settles on E as a seeming tonic. Finally, the song fades out with the alternation between G major and E minor once again. So the song is largely in G major, but with E minor as a kind of alternate tonic.

Right on. Which song?

Isn't it bVI-bVII-I, no V7? I'm not sure. Lehman's description is a bit vague. He writes 'bVI-bVII' as a approach. An approach to what, the dominant or the tonic? In Example 21 (Steiner's Key Largo), Lehman marks the chord progression of Ab-Bb-C (major chords) as a Picardy-aeolian cadence (VI–VII–I), so I presume the dominant is not required, the bVII instead acting as a substitute. But there is another possible answer to tedfud's question. Tedfud, you've marked everything as though it's in the major key, but you say the second cadence is not a "second time" one. If that was actually in the key of the last chord (the E minor chord), then everything changes. The iii-V7-vi becomes reoriented to v-VII-i. This is exactly the progression that occurs in the main theme of Morricone's For a Few Dollars More. Once the opening theme becomes fully harmonized in the middle of the cue, it ends with that progression. Funny thing is, it doesn't have the VI chord preceding it, meaning it's not an Aeolian cadence. I therefore asked Lehman what he would call that. He said he'd label it a subtonic authentic cadence (S-AC), "perhaps with a stipulation that v in the melody has some functional fuzziness." Feels right to me.

Isn't it bVI-bVII-I, no V7?

I haven't heard it yet, but any particular cues stand out for you?

For years, it was Donington's Wagner's 'Ring' and Its Symbols that was the go-to source on the leitmotifs, but it's now rather old and as Donington himself admits, he probably missed several leitmotifs (he did). I recommend Wagner's Ring: A Listener's Companion and Concordance by J.K. Holman because it is more comprehensive (145 leitmotifs in the four operas compared to Donington's 90-odd total, IIRC), and because of the "concordance", meaning it gives the exact act, scene, page, and staff number where the motifs occur in the authoritative Schirmer vocal score, and gives all the appearances of and motifs associated with each character. A real tour de force.

Whenever studying Wagner's Ring leitmotifs, we always have to consider their relation to one another, which usually gives insight into an interpretation of their meaning. This one is the "Volsung" motif, the race of which Siegmund, Sieglinde, and their son, the hero Siegfried, are a part. So one can find connections with motifs linked to these characters and their actions. The motif for Siegmund, for example is this: Notice the same lower neighbour motion by a semitone in the same rhythm. This helps explain why the F# in the Volsung motif is there in the first place. It helps serve as a distinctive marker to form associations between motifs and aid our interpretation. You'll also notice that the Volsung motif bears significant similarities to the motif for "Valhalla" (since Wotan, god of gods and ruler of Valhalla, is the one who sired the Volsung race) and for "The Sword's Chosen" (not the Sword motif, but related to it) since Siegmund is the one who draws the sword from the tree.

Do you mean the rising long-short figure in the violins with the descending bass line?

I wasn't implying that you don't know a major 6th from a major 7th. There is a major 7th for sure. The question is, is that 7th from B-Bb, or is it from Db-C, interacting with the tremolo, or is it possibly both? I just listened to it again slowed way down with Sonic Visualiser and do hear a Db resolving to C. There may be a B as well, but I can't hear it.

I pretty much agree with your transcription. I'm just wondering about the first bar (the hardest to hear). I'm thinking it's this: http://www.noteflight.com/scores/view/1109b7d5f544f0839197ef12d6c89bf6acafea86 When I hear that spot in the cue a few more times, I don't think it's B anymore, but probably a Db that's getting nearly buried by the lingering sound. Also makes nice parallel sixths all the way through.

You're joking. Williams verbally says otherwise in the DVD extra for the film. How could it be a myth? Somewhere I have an Evening At The Pops tape which I believe Spielberg himself corroborates with Williams on how that sequence went down.I'll have to check though. That would be great. Do share if you find it. Great point. And here is yet another myth about Star Wars that persists to this day - that the score is a "classical Hollywood" 1940s-type score. I agree that it's not. It certainly draws on that era and uses it as a basis for the score with obvious things like the full orchestral scoring and the use of themes as leitmotifs, which had long gone out of fashion by the late 70s. But Star Wars is a score based primarily on three musical techniques: polytonality, parallelism, and pedal point. For that reason, I don't consider Williams to have begun a "return" to classical Hollywood techniques, but rather a modernization of them. "By the late 70's..." I think you mean the late 60's. And during the early to mid 70's, Orchestral Scores had not completely died off-they just seemed to be in hibernation. The Orchestral Score was still being employed-just not as much as popular music was, but scores like The Cowboys,The Poseidon Adventure, The Towering Inferno, Jaws, and the Godfather pts One and Two continued to persist. And when Star Wars broke, it signaled the beginning of a new age for the Orchestral Score.... We're actually on the same page here. I do know my film music history and know it's like you say about orchestral scores. I was just making the point that when Star Wars came out, the orchestral score was no longer the norm. That's why I said "long gone out of fashion". But thanks for making sure. I'd hate to start a new myth about Star Wars.