Score

I have listened again to several cues from Poltergeist and I definitely see what you mean about that. Indeed, there are relevant points of contact with JW, although the Carol-Anne theme (saccharine, indeed) has some features that correspond to what JW seems to consciously avoid as being too unimaginative. I am referring to certain choices of chords in the very simple harmonic sequence - JW always tries to put some spices like at least some major-seventh chords, even in simple childlike pieces like "Somewhere in my memory". But in general, I agree on Poltergeist. However, I don't th

Well, there are several similarities with some techniques that JW used frequently in action movies of the 70s and 80s. A striking one, for me, is the theme for Imhotep, at 0:31 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWly0yvaY5M The beginning of the theme is based harmonically on the alternation of two chords. The first is C# minor. The second one is a bit ambiguous, it can be interpreted either as A major or A minor, because the major third (the note C sharp) is held in several instruments from the C# minor chord, but the horns playing the melody go to the notes C natur

"The Mummy" by Goldsmith sounds very Williams-y to me.

Expansions that I have enjoyed the most: A. I. (a true eye-opener on a masterpiece) and Azkaban. Most desired: it would be Memoirs, if it were possible, but since it isn't, definitely ROTS and then AOTC. I do not expect CMIYC and The Terminal to contain much more great material than what is already included in the OSTs, so I would give them a lower priority. I would surely buy them as well, however.

In my copy of the Signature Edition full score, the 4th horn has F natural, so Bb in real sounds, as played here. Of course, it is a huge error (one of the many affecting the Signature Edition scores), it should be F# as you say, but this explains how the mistake happened (if your copy has the correct note F#, maybe it is a later reprint). What it doesn't explain is how nobody noticed and corrected the wrong note at the rehearsals. It is not the first time that mistakes in the Signature Edition scores make their way to the performance.

I haven't seen the Mandalorian yet (being not too eager to see baby Yoda, nor anything else from Star Wars after the awful sequels), but seeing the enthusiasm here I think I will give it a chance at some point! The movies: 1) Rogue One: I found the story reasonably good and well-paced, which is more than I can say about the other movies in this list. Re-watchable. 7/10 2) The Force Awakens: the story has its good share of nonsense, but the actors (especially the new ones) gave good performances, the tension between Rey and Kylo could have led to some interesting d

In the case of Escapades, the reworking is substantial. The first movement is nearly identical to the Main Titles, ok, but the second and third movements are significantly different from their counterparts in the film score.

I think the most coherent way would be to give suites the same number as the corresponding film score, plus a letter. For example, if the film score to TFA has catalogue number 206, then the Suite would be 206a and the Adagio would be 206b (independently of the year of composition). Composers who gave opus number to their works were not always coherent about this issue. For example, Prokofiev gave op. 64 to the ballet "Romeo and Juliet", then he gave opus numbers 64bis, 64ter and 101 to the three orchestral suites extracted (and re-arranged) from it! Also, consider that basically a

Dream Country, from the BFG

Fantastic news. I only wish he had started to do these things earlier...

Unfortunately, I do. My suggestion is, just enjoy Gabriel's Oboe in its original form (if you like it) and do not investigate further

Not exactly; it is enough to assume that Morricone is not zero (but this is obviously true!), but he does need to be real (he can be complex - and indeed, some of his music is really complex).

I know, it was a pleasure to share with you this major breakthrough in musicology!

Well, instead of comparing Williams to Bach, I would compare him to Tchaikovsky. However, Tchaikovsky : Brahms = Williams : Morricone and therefore, Tchaikovsky = Williams x Brahms / Morricone . So, we cannot really say that Tchaikovsky was the John Williams of his time. I would rather say, Tchaikovsky was the John Williams times Brahms divided by Morricone, of his time. I hope this makes sense.

It was the interview with Alex Ross: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/persons-of-interest/the-force-is-still-strong-with-john-williams also quoted here at the Legacy of John Williams: https://thelegacyofjohnwilliams.com/2020/09/07/john-williams-in-vienna/