Ludwig

VII? Now I think about, the MOS and HULK examples are similar in that they rely on the VI-VII-I pop progression that originated in the 60s ('All Along the Watchtower' etc.). Yes I considered VII, and perhaps the composers felt a connection to VI-VII-I through the bass line, but I would say we need the thirds and fifths in each chord to hear that progression. In all of these examples, the harmony is static above while the bass line moves. To me that's something different - a contrapuntal construct rather than a harmonic one.

As you know, my understanding of harmony revolves firmly around two things: context and function. No one would deny that the sonority we hear at the points you mention are that of a 13th chord. But how strongly this perception emerges I would argue stems from context and function. In terms of context, in all of your examples, the unusual bass note causing the 13th sonority is the result of melodic motion that forms a dissonance between two consonances. In Hulk, the ostinato is propped up by E on one side and G# on the other with F# in the middle. The E gives us a clear Emaj7 chord that is a true consonance. In other words, it can be given a Roman numeral (in this case, VI7 in the key of G# minor). The G# similarly gives us a consonant chord that is clearly a i chord. The F# chord, however, is the result of the passing figure E-F#-G#. Thus, in terms of function, this F# chord serves to link the VI and i chords contrapuntally rather than to provide a "real" chord. In other words, if we did a Roman numeral analysis of the passage, we'd have trouble coming up with anything sensible for that particular chord. The same goes for the other two passages you cite. In Man of Steel, the G creating the 13th sonority acts contrapuntally as part of a neighbour figure between the two statements of F. And in A View to a Kill, the Eb is part of a passing figure between F and Db. To me, interpreting harmony is all about where we expect chords to go. In the case of these false 13th chords, the real drive in the harmony comes from the melodic motion in the bass - we want it to resolve to a consonant note and of course it does. To hear it as a 13th chord, even in a deceptive or illusory sort of way would be to say that we somehow expect it to resolve the way 13th chords normally do, which I personally don't hear in these cues. I would say it's more like "convergent evolution", in which two things look (or in this case, sound) identical but were arrived at in very different ways.

I think a visual would help explain this better: The reduction and analysis in Bb are the work of Prometheus from the earlier thread. I've added the two lines beneath in G minor and D minor. When I discuss the idea of three tonics in the passage, those tonics are acting at varying strengths. The difference is, as you already surmised, in harmonic function. With the opening two chords, Bb is easily heard as the tonic with a sturdy root-position chord and bass pedal on Bb into the Lydian II chord. Notice, however, that in the second and third bars, that there are several VI and III chords if we continue analyzing in Bb - not particularly strong harmonic functions. In G minor, however, we get a lot of i and V - very clear harmonic functions. Even so, the fact that the G minor triad is still VI in Bb is not lost on the ear. Evidence for this is the very end of the Island Theme, where the second bar proceeds directly into V-I of Bb (just before the jeep music), making the progression more clearly VI-(passing III)-IV-V-I in Bb. In the above passage, however, the music veers further away from Bb in bar 3 with an even stronger turn towards G minor with its own dominant, the III# chord, or V/vi. But again, Bb is not completely obliterated here, as the progression still makes sense in that key. It's just that the harmonic functions in G minor here are stronger than those in Bb, so we hear the G minor more prominently, or as I have called it, in the foreground. Now have a look at the last bar. In Bb, the progression goes IV-VII#7, or IV-V/iii, which, although possible, is certainly no strong harmonic function in Bb because the last chord is a dominant from another key (though it could perhaps be heard as an approach chord in that key, as Prometheus has pointed out before). In G minor, it's a little better, but VI-V/V again is hardly a routine progression. In D minor, however, going bII-V is very easy to hear, so that key enters into the foreground with the final chord, when D minor is confirmed, pushing G minor into a lower (middleground) level of perception and the Bb key into an even lower (background) level. So to summarize, from a compositional point of view, the triple tonic idea is the result of using harmonies that are analyzable in multiple keys at once but that have varying strengths in the function of those harmonies and the progressions they form.

Well of course. But from this point of view, it sounds like you can't have a tonicization of a diatonic chord without losing the sense of the original key, or in other words that every time we have a chromatic chord, we must have modulated. But surely, it's more nuanced than this. Consider the notation V/vi for this DM chord. What we're really saying with that symbol is that we haven't lost the sense of Bb major, but the G minor comes to the fore for the moment. Why couldn't it be V/vi in this regard? That way, we retain both the "here and now" sense of G minor as well as the "in the background" sense of Bb major.

Impressive. Thank you for such a lengthy and detailed analysis. I'd like to build on some of your points on the Island Theme. You rightly point out that the theme... Eight-bar themes in classical music have certain names depending on how this kind of internal structure breaks down. The type of structure here might be called a "period", which has two phrases, antecedent and consequent. The main unusual thing here is that the theme does not end with a cadence on the tonic to close it off but rather on a dominant (and not even in the home key at that) to keep it open. Periods are extremely common not just in classical music, but in many of Williams' themes, so it's a good one to tuck away. The main thing is that you'll have two four-bar phrases (themselves comprised of two two-bar groups) that start the same way. Still, there's usually something quite different about Williams' period themes, as there is here. Another good point you mention is that, after the opening two chords of the theme, Williams... Of course you're right, what with the use of the dominant of G to confirm that key area. I wonder if we might open up the discussion as to whether there is only one key at this point or perhaps more than one acting simultaneously. In an earlier thread on this theme, Prometheus said of this passage: I would add that we might think of multiple keys in this passage as being unequal in prominence. Since there are a good two and a half bars that could be heard in G minor, as you observe, we might hear this key at a "foreground" level. And yet, we can't entirely say that Bb major has been left behind because it is possible to hear these G minor bars as being an emphasized region of Bb major. In other words, we could analyze it as: vi - iii6 - IV - vi - iii6 - V/vi - vi - IV So one might say that Bb major is acting on a "middleground" level - it's still there, but not as prominent as hearing G minor as the tonic. Then it turns suddenly to a half cadence in D minor, the third key to be suggested in the passage. At this point, one could hear the cadence chord in three different keys: V in D minor - the "foreground" key since a cadence is a strong way of establishing a key V/V in G minor - now the "middleground" key since it has been the more prominent leading up to this point V/iii in Bb major - this key has now faded to a "background" level, but can still be heard because all the chords in the passage are closely related to that key Another general point you make is on the modes used in the B section of the theme. You mention that, at its start... I wonder if you might entertain the possibility of hearing a shift in tonal center here as being more prominent than a single mode. In other words, G minor is clearly the most prominent (foregrounded) key ending the theme's opening period since its dominant is the cadence chord. With the first two bars of the B section, however, we hear a strong ii-V-I in F major, so we might hear that key as being the foregrounded one here, and perhaps G minor as more of a middleground key once we hear the V chord. The Dorian interpretation would need an E natural, which seems to be implied by the sus chord (V), but is never actually sounded. One last point I'll mention is the way you succinctly sum up the harmonies at each point primarily with jazz notation. I think that's the way to go with much of Williams' tonal writing. Of course, jazz chords are often very functional as well, so you also use Roman numerals at times too, which I like. Though some chords can be given different symbols, some allow harmonic function to be gleaned more easily than others. So for example, the ii-V-I progression I mention above you write as... The first two chords correspond with ii of F major, Fsus2/4 with V, and Fadd9 with I. It would be nice to show the ii-V-I through the roots of each chord, so to replace the Fsus2/4 chord with a chord on C, which would be: C7sus4 Then the last chord has the F we need to show G-C-F as ii-V-I. But actually I didn't find a G in the last chord, so I would revise it to simply F, so the progression becomes: Gm - Gm7 - C7sus4 - F Well done once again on your thorough analysis of this monumental cue.

Film music is still a small field, especially in music theory. But I am actively involved in trying to change that and also to encourage more scholarship on JW. Hopefully we'll see more in this coming year.

The opening seconds sound like the Star Spangled Banner with the first two notes lopped off!

You beat me to it. I was about to say that Zimmer had a history as a keyboard and synth player as well as producer in the pop/rock world before he started composing for film, and I think that history is clearly audible in his film music. Also, James Newton Howard commented that when he worked with Zimmer on Batman Begins, it was a good match because they both conceived of the score much like an album, i.e., the way a music producer would. Consider how different his soundtrack albums are from their respective films, blending cues together and rearranging them according to the concerns of an album. All this is to say that Zimmer's film music has strong roots in another kind of music than the formerly more typical connection to concert music. We could probably say it's a new kind of film music, but it would be difficult to call it a new, purely "filmic" type of music. I agree with the sentiment you raise, but it's not really fair to say he's not a composer, is it? Anyone who writes music of any kind is a composer. There's no other way to define it objectively. Why not just say there are different types of composers, some who have a background in pop and rock rather than classical? I know this isn't what you're saying, but it can sound like we're trying to preserve the term "composer" for only those who are "worthy" of the title, when there is no objective distinction to be made. No, I agree with you. I'm (rather jokingly) suggesting it might soothe the souls of others if Zimmer and Williams are more semantically segregated. Ah, jokingly. Gotcha.

You beat me to it. I was about to say that Zimmer had a history as a keyboard and synth player as well as producer in the pop/rock world before he started composing for film, and I think that history is clearly audible in his film music. Also, James Newton Howard commented that when he worked with Zimmer on Batman Begins, it was a good match because they both conceived of the score much like an album, i.e., the way a music producer would. Consider how different his soundtrack albums are from their respective films, blending cues together and rearranging them according to the concerns of an album. All this is to say that Zimmer's film music has strong roots in another kind of music than the formerly more typical connection to concert music. We could probably say it's a new kind of film music, but it would be difficult to call it a new, purely "filmic" type of music. I agree with the sentiment you raise, but it's not really fair to say he's not a composer, is it? Anyone who writes music of any kind is a composer. There's no other way to define it objectively. Why not just say there are different types of composers, some who have a background in pop and rock rather than classical? I know this isn't what you're saying, but it can sound like we're trying to preserve the term "composer" for only those who are "worthy" of the title, when there is no objective distinction to be made.

You beat me to it. I was about to say that Zimmer had a history as a keyboard and synth player as well as producer in the pop/rock world before he started composing for film, and I think that history is clearly audible in his film music. Also, James Newton Howard commented that when he worked with Zimmer on Batman Begins, it was a good match because they both conceived of the score much like an album, i.e., the way a music producer would. Consider how different his soundtrack albums are from their respective films, blending cues together and rearranging them according to the concerns of an album. All this is to say that Zimmer's film music has strong roots in another kind of music than the formerly more typical connection to concert music. We could probably say it's a new kind of film music, but it would be difficult to call it a new, purely "filmic" type of music.

Generally, there seems to be several ways he writes these cues. One is by adding semitonal dissonances to a triadic structure. Like in "You Bred Raptors" from JP, he has an Eb minor chord up on top, but beneath it a whole tone G-A. It seems to me this cue is a combination of tone clusters and tonal chords either used singly (like the Eb minor chord) or with "split" thirds, so G-Bb-B-D as a G major/minor chord, or even in combination like a D major/minor chord combined with its dominant, an A7 chord, in the same arpeggio. Another way is through the use of tone clusters, which also happens in this same short cue. This is a great topic that is really quite understudied, so I hope we might use this thread as a repository of observations on these kinds of cues.

I'm speaking mostly about the writing of cues with primarily only one or two instruments. From what I recall, in the earlier scores you mention, there is usually a fairly full sound harmonically. So the sound might be more intimate in terms of having a softer, more thinly scored sound, but harmonically it's usually pretty complete. By contrast, in scores like Lincoln and this new clip from The Book Thief, there is a solo clarinet then a solo piano, much like several cues in Lincoln, giving a more pared down sound than in his earlier scores. Minimal, though not minimalist. It's this kind of paring down that many composers have sought after a lifetime of experience composing. I bring in the classical world merely as a comparison. I'm sure there is some influence from changes in Spielberg's filmmaking style, but to ascribe this more minimal sound solely to that influence seems unconvinving to me. I would think that's more the case with most other Hollywood composers, who have to follow strong mandates from the director and producer(s). With Williams, I would think that he is given far more flexibility than most others because of his stellar history, so he's probably freer to "do what he likes" than just about anybody else in the business.

Interesting. It would be fascinating to see an analysis of an entire score along these lines (your next analysis?) as the orchestrator's job varies greatly, as karelm so thoroughly wrote above. I miscommunicated here. I was asking whether the scoring decisions that the orchestrator makes in places where Williams writes a general direction of "wind" or leaves it simply to the strings (which could be distributed among the parts in various ways including the use of divisi) are dictated by the most practical playability. I'm thinking of the short rehearsal times orchestras have and getting the most out of those hours with the players.

Anyone else hear a lot of Lincoln in this snippet? I definitely do. I think it's now been integrated into his drama sound. Yes that was my first thought. Which isn't a bad thing. I love the intimate small scale writing in Lincoln. Yes, more intimate writing is something that composers, at least in the classical world, tend to do in their later years. And more intimate writing is part of a trend toward a greater simplicity in these composers' music, probably as a means of communicating in a more personal and individual way. After all, how much music is written for just one or two parts in symphonic music or film music? In film, the orchestral sound still dominates, so it's nice to hear fresher approaches like the solo clarinet or solo piano we hear in this excerpt. Further down the road, it will be interesting to see whether Williams incorporates this more pared down sound into his score for Episode VII.

Precisely what I was thinking. There's very little literature on the subject, so it's hard to know. For Williams, I'm wondering what interpretive decisions Spencer would had to have made. Or whether it was more an issue of playability since the orchestra doesn't have much rehearsal time, so finding the most idiomatic way of scoring of a line would be a valuable skill. I'd have to do a close comparison of sketches with the final score and see if there are any scorings not marked in the former that appear in the latter. What do you think, Datameister? I know you've looked at a ton of sketches. Have you had a chance to compare them with the scores? (I once did this with Ravel's orchestration of Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition, only to be disappointed that Ravel so rarely deviated from Mussorgsky's original pitches - hardly even an octave doubling until near the end of the suite!)

Anyone else hear a lot of Lincoln in this snippet?

Of course not, he was far too busy cleaning up Shore's mess with the DoS score, after Peter Jackson fired him. Either that or JW finally realised he doesn't need an orchestrator.....as everyone says his sketches are so complete. In fact on some of the cues post 2005 are written on 16 staves....... he's really making the orchestrators job a piece of cake! Isn't the orchestrator more of a copyist in his case anyway as it has been said by Mr. Pope and others quite a few times. It's always been a bit mysterious what the orchestrator does exactly, I think because it can change drastically. Orchestrators do sometimes add quite a bit from a composer's sketches. But more often discussed are those composers who need very little added from the orchestator. Herrmann was famous for being insistent on writing out all his own orchestrations. Williams, of course, worked with Herbert Spencer for some time, but as Datameister said, the sketches are quite thorough. Even so, there are aspects that Williams left to Spencer that were more than just copying, generally on deciding how to distribute instrumental parts among the players of an orchestral family like winds or strings. But it's not the kind of thing that changes the sound of the music much. Primarily it's a time-saving practice and the less time there is, the more orchestrators there are. In The Artist (2011), for example, there were five orchestrators!

I can only speak for myself but I don't dispute Zimmer's MASSIVE influence in both the medium and wider pop culture (does anyone?). I'm merely getting involved in the debate as to whether or not Hans' contributions will have longevity and enduring appeal beyond his working lifetime, to which I believe the answer will be no: his sound is just the latest musical fashion and as a result it will not stand the test of time. Hans Zimmer's score work IS revolutionary - in its time. But I don't accept that it represents a lasting musical evolution. Where is this happening in this thread? I must have missed it. All seems relatively civilised to me. It's the general mud-slinging I'm opposed to. There are more respectful ways of disagreeing. I would agree, though we could simplify somewhat. Point (d) falls under (b), and © is a consequence of (e). For point (a), I would add that the participants need not disagree, only to be willing to assess things from another point of view, whether or not one has encountered that viewpoint before. In short, if one is interested in the in-depth discussions you mention, what is needed is a willingness to change or refine one's thinking based on others' ideas, and a respectful manner of discussion. Disagreement is a good source of this kind of change, but more often than not, it's posed in condescending or outright offensive language, and that serves as a roadblock to further discussion. Even if one fundamentally disagrees with a certain point of view and a discussion doesn't end up changing that, with enough depth to the discussion, it is possible to come away understanding better what the opposing views are, and hence further refine one's own views. So even the most polarized debate can be a valuable source of understanding, so long as those involved are willing to allow discussions to open up and resist the urge to shut them down with caustic remarks.

Good to hear. What kind of things were discussed? The contents of my book and Return of the Jedi's music. I talked about the score's main themes (Jabba, Emperor, Ewoks...) I know you don't want to divulge too much that's in your book, but what sorts of things about those themes do you discuss? Harmony, melody, form, instrumentation, etc?

Good to hear. What kind of things were discussed?

Well, the discussion started off civilly enough, but has devolved into stone throwing, as usual with Zimmer threads. Our community here is tiny enough as it is. Why must we cause giant rifts with the same old Zimmer debate? Save the venom for FSM, where the Zimmer debates are monumental.

In this case, my comment was more about the modern pop usage of the term. I'd say a duet (for voices) is a special type of song, but I usually wouldn't refer to it as a song. But to complicate the whole matter, there are also things like choral songs... Agreed on both counts.

Rather, one (or a limited number) of solo voices. A duet is still a song, and background singers also don't change that. Sure, but I think generally we call songs sung by more than one solo performer by its more technical name, so duet, trio, quartet, etc. The sextet in the opera Lucia di Lammermoor is technically a song, but we all refer to it as the sextet. And with background singers, their name says it all - since they're in the background, our focus is on the (usually) solo singer in the foreground. Of course you're right about these cases, but the solo voice is probably more frequently attached to people's usage of the term "song".

If revolutionary means influential, then there's no question the answer's yes. But if we mean something more akin to the origin of certain trends, I'm not so sure about that. I would guess that Zimmer wasn't "the first" to do anything in particular, even though his sound has become hugely influential. So I suppose it comes down to definitions.