Madmartigan JC

I'll put in online for free after FSM has reached its subscribers. Short version: 
 
-It's a lot to digest
-It's great
-Williams and Mutter are without equals
-It's gonna be hard to get this behemoth into the standard rep 

Not necessarily. There are certain types of sound that fit certain types of music. I don't subscribe to the notion that everything "old" needs to be run through contemporary tweaking techniques to sound as clean and modern as possible. The baroque jazz melancholy on display in EIGER befits a slightly muffled or high treble sound.

RIP.
 
 
His books were the very golden standard of how you handle making of publications. Stunning attention to detail and giving you an almost fly on the wall type of an experience. I did enjoy his later books too. Still need to finish the Aliens one. 
 
I do hope his making of The Shining book will see the light of the day. It has been announced a couple of years ago and is supposed to be his most throughly researched work yet. 
 
And I do look forward to his biography of Howard Kazanijan that's coming out in September. 
 
Karol

Star Wars, Indiana Jones Author JW Rinzler Dies at Age 58 (gizmodo.com)

Agreed! I think you're right on.
 
Also, I really enjoyed that book. Ross is one of the very few music writers on classical music savvy about popular genres and willing to judge each music on its own terms. I think it's not a coincidence his interview with John Williams from last year was one of the most interesting ones, going beyond the tired usual questions.

Anyway, I decided to collect all cues from Battle of Naboo sequence in one video. In fact, there is nothing new here, just wondering how it looks and sounds all together. All unrecorded/unreleased fragments are my mockups. Many thanks to @Permanent Waves for the restore videos (especially for Take To Your Ships, I wouldn't have guessed how to sync it).
Important notes:
The most unclear sync of the second half of the 6M4 The Big Army cue (the appearance of Darth Maul), this scene has clearly been heavily reworked. I had to skip the beginning of the duel, because it's not clear what should be between the 6M4 and 6M5 cues.
I also used 6M11 End Of Darth Maul cue, which is a new ending for the 6M10 cue, and was already written for the final cut. The earlier version lacked a short scene with the gungans, and the Maul's death underscores in much more optimistic way.
 
6M1 The Armies Face-Off (-2:06) 6M1X Randy's Forest Mist (0:29-0:50) 6M2 Lazer Fight (2:08-3:15) 6M3 Take To Your Ships (3:15-4:46) 6M4 The Big Army (4:46-7:06) 6M5 Droid Battle (7:11-9:42) 6M6 Up The Wire (9:42-10:21) 6M7 The Great Dual (10:21-13:14) 6M8-9 Qui-Gon's Noble End (13:14-15:34) 6M10 Blowups And The Death Of Darth Maul (15:40-17:10, w/o original ending) 6M11N End Of Darth Maul (17:09-end)
 
Btw, I just realized that the 6M1 insert (Randy's Forest Mist) appears to have been written for a different version of the cue (which sounds in the movie), but I don't know the truth.

One thing that seems quite likely with fans who dismiss JW etc. is that they probably don't actually know his music beyond the well known concert arrangements and famous themes, but have no appreciation of the rest of each score. The ability to write such complex, musically satisfying, thematically engaging music which both satisfies/reflects/emphasises/whatever the emotional thrust of the scene while also matching the picture is quite an achievement in itself. It would be churlish to watch a sequence such as the Asteroid Field from Empire and not conclude that it's a terrific orchestral scherzo in its own right, but manages to follow the drama of the sequence with breathtaking deftness but without sacrificing musicality. But I bet most of the classical snobs just think of the Star Wars main theme and just conclude it's all brassy fanfares and Korngold derived themes, plus pick out all the odds and ends that owe a debt to Stravinsky, Holst, Shostakovich etc.
 
I'm currently reading The Rest is Noise by Alex Ross (NYT music critic) and it's a very interesting canter through 20th century classical music, but you do get the impression that anything that isn't breaking new ground isn't all that worthy of consideration. Everything has to have an exciting new musical language else it's just derivative, but then that's how you end up with serialism, atonality and other experimental music etc. in an attempt to find ever new areas of compositional, which, let's face it, few people actually enjoy. But then there are plenty of accomplished classical composers who didn't really write anything especially groundbreaking that classical fans lap up.
 
On that note, I'm going to listen to Carmina Burana, that should piss somebody off.

I remember being vaguely insulted when I first read the liner notes in the Star Wars Soundtrack anthology, there was a line in there saying something like "hopefully the music of Star Wars will lead listeners to seek out more sophisticated fare". 

When considering these dogmatic views of film music I thinks it's relevant to consider film itself as a medium has suffered this. Not only is it relatively recent (barely over 100 years old), but film as an art form didn't have a proper critical theory that could analize it as an artistic unit Auteur Theory came up in the early 50's.
 
Therefore it is still rarely regarded as highly as the traditional arts (literature, painting, sculpture, music, theater, etc.). Not that I agree with this, at all. But I have repeadtly noticed that films critically considered more 'artistic' often have some form of validation through a one of the traditional arts beign directly referenced. Be it a nod to a classic painting/work of literature, the use of classical music, etc. As if the cinematographic art wasn't enough to substantiate the film's own artistic merit. 
 
If views on the artistic merits of Cinema are so biased, what chance does music composed specifically for this medium have of beign considered 'artistic' by these people? Add on top of that, that music often requires little more that simple craftmanship to fit the basic standards required to accompany the film; and (at least in the case of Hollywood) is produced within an industry with technical restrictions and very palpable economic goals.
 
On top of it all, Williams is directly referenced with some of the most popular and highest grossing franchises in Hollywood history.
Morricone, coming from the more 'artistic' european cinema, has often been more kindly regarded in that respect. And the discussions on the recent release of JW's Images, also reflect how his most un-Hollywoodesque work has often received praise from the same critics who defaced his more accesible scores.
 
I don't endorse or agree with any of this, but it's the current reality. It doesn't really bother me, since I can enjoy all works for what they are, regardless of classification.

I think I've finally reached a place of contentment (a "who gives a fuck?" type place) about what other people think about music I like (or don't like). However, I do find the those snarky classical music fans who turn their noses up at film music are kinda tedious and generally rave about music that almost nobody outside their niche enjoys. OK, so hard core film music fans are a relatively minority, but I have colleagues who have film music ring tones... OK, it's Hans Zimmer, but hey, nobody's perfect ;-)
 
I actually love a huge range of classical music (over 2,000 albums worth according to my iTunes library)... mostly Beethoven onwards, but with a heavy emphasis on 20th century Russians and Scandinavians, including both the super famous ones (I have 9 Rite of Springs... Rites of Spring?) and plenty that even some very well versed classical fan friends have never heard of, but who write marvellous music which is neither trite nor excessively demanding. What's most annoying is that they often have interesting things to say and recommendations about music that might be of interest but the close mindedness is kinda annoying enough to put me off bothering.

Film music by itself is not necessarily classical music, just as a song is not necessarily a lieder.  It depends on composer and intent.  Who is the composer?  Did he or she have formal or informal training in the classical tradition?  If yes, in writing the score, did he or she have a kind of artistic intent that transcends the film? 
Sometimes the distinction is obvious.  Folks like Vangelis and Zimmer have artistic intentions in their scores, but their work is rooted more in popular music than classical.  Korngold and Rozsa and Herrmann were classical composers, and all their scores are clear compositions.  Sometimes the distinction can be a bit more subjective.  Steiner had classical training, but his scoring style was bit more in the direction of light music.  But, then, someone could dismiss Vivaldi as light music and I'd find that very wrong.  
 
What of John Williams?  
You can draw a clear line connecting late 19th century classical masters to him.  Mahler and Strauss to Korngold to Williams.  Rimsky-Korsakov to Glazunov to Tiomkin to Williams.   Add to that a healthy does of native influence from American Jazz.  He studied piano with Rosina Lhévinne, who encouraged him to be a composer  and then studied with Castelnuovo-Tedesco. This is what gives Williams's technique such a compelling quality and the ability to be almost endlessly studied or analyzed.
But, unlike a good deal of 20th century classical music, Williams's music is overt.  Which is to say  it's main point is often obvious and accessible.  This is a consequence of much of his music being written for films, which is to say, for patrons and an audience that often demands this.  This leads to critiques that Williams's music is thus shallow and subservient, that it represents not the true vision of the artist, but simply reflects the vision of others.  Never mind that obvious and accessible characterized much of the pre-20th century artform, this is declared to be backwards emphasis that further proves the essential point, which is that John Williams is not a classical composer, and nor is any of his music truly classical, concert or otherwise. 
But this is an unfair academic stance that ignores the essential nature of the art form.  For much of its existence, classical music was written for others.  Wealthy patrons, royalty, aristocrats, superstar performers, a demanding opera industry.  And yet, a great deal of this music is still considered artistic works of integrity and merit, the composers lauded as masters, even if they were partly doing the bidding of others.  Why?  Because the music is judged on its own merit, these factors included in the estimation, but the artistic intention snuck in by the composer also taken into account.  Why can't John Williams be accorded the same consideration?  Those who do judge him by this older standard rather than the narrower academic art cannot be for all crowd often deem him worthy.  There can be honest negative opinions about his work, how it might be too on the nose most of the time, maybe too bombastic, predictable, or how he may not have the greatest structural mastery.  But before you can have an honest opinion about John Williams's music, you need to acknowledge that it is classical, since it is rooted in that tradition, even if it is a branch of that tradition a certain school has declared anathema.  That might be changing, as I will address soon.   
First, take the example of Bach.  Bach is generally accepted to be one of the all time greats. For much of his lifetime, he was considered a throwback, out of date. For much of his lifetime, he was a hireling.  His greatest works were written for others, often on their instructions and with their interference.  That he was able to thrive in this environment and throw in the mastery and musical complexity that he did is amazing, and the greatest testament to his genius.  Towards the end of his life, he began to have a little more recognition, but still more as a politely respected curiosity than anything.  After his death, the establishment overlooked him.  Only the geniuses paid him full attention.  Finally, when he was dead long enough for him to no longer be passé, he was rediscovered and adored.  
Williams is not a 1-1 comparison here, he's not in Bach's tier.  But, we see similar patterns repeating themselves.
Which brings me to my next and final point.  Where exactly does John Williams fit into the classical tradition?  For some, the medium for which he most often writes and the style he uses marks him a member of a breakaway blasphemous sect that is not fit to be called classical, never mind that it has more in common in those respects to what was classical for 200 years than the modernist take.  But this is in fact the outdated view, rooted in a roughly 1920s-1960s modernist stance.  Since then, classical music went through a bit of a revolution.  Postmodernism.  For a point of reference, take postmodernism in architecture.  Roughly, you could divide it into three threads.  Overall a rejection of the formality and perceived coldness of various forms of modernism, Postmodern Architecture offered an alternative.  One thread went for an expressionistic flair, new shapes, unusual forms, shock value even.  This thread felt like a logical extension of modernism in a way.  The equivalent in music would be Ligeti and composers like him.  The second thread I like to call Pop-Postmodernism.  Color, vibrancy, familiar or vernacular forms with a twist.  Musical equivalents:  Glass, Adams, perhaps Morricone.  Finally, a certain neo-traditionalism.  Architects using traditional principles and ornamentation on newer forms, ranging from skyscrapers done in a pseudo- Flemish church style to buildings almost exactly 18th century on the outside, but completely modern internally.  Several post-modern composers have done similar things.  Rouse comes to mind.  So does Williams.  I see his approach as most definitely rooted in postmodernism, his voice one of the most important ones of the movement.  You may not like what is has to say, but would anyone try to call a traditionalist work by a noted architect not architecture?  Perhaps there are some folks who would, but it is rather absurd on its face. 
 
There, this should be pretty much the final word on the matter.  I would post it on TalkClassical, but I've forgotten my password and can't really be bothered.             

I understand your truthful interest in asking this question, but I believe it's apples & oranges territory and cannot be fruitful, beyond expressing personnal tastes.
The answers your sincere post got in that forum are ignorant garbage, but I truly wonder what's the interest in comparing Williams to Bach, Beethoven or Shostakovich? Such different worlds!
 
Some classical musicians often enjoy opening up to music outside the classical repertoire, and I'm sure Yo-Yo Ma or ASM are sincere in their praise of JW. But I doubt even they would compare Williams in that regard.
JW is a creative genius in his own right, but his film works were never meant as "classical" (for lack of a better term). While his language shares so many things with the classical world (it's history/techniques/grammar), its form and purpose are completely different. So to me the comparison is pointless.
 
To elitist snobs who won't even consider listening to something other than 'classical' and look down on more popular art forms because they're incapable of appreciating them in their own terms, I say it's their loss.

I understand your truthful interest in asking this question, but I believe it's apples & oranges territory and cannot be fruitful, beyond expressing personnal tastes.
The answers your sincere post got in that forum are ignorant garbage, but I truly wonder what's the interest in comparing Williams to Bach, Beethoven or Shostakovich? Such different worlds!
 
Some classical musicians often enjoy opening up to music outside the classical repertoire, and I'm sure Yo-Yo Ma or ASM are sincere in their praise of JW. But I doubt even they would compare Williams in that regard.
JW is a creative genius in his own right, but his film works were never meant as "classical" (for lack of a better term). While his language shares so many things with the classical world (it's history/techniques/grammar), its form and purpose are completely different. So to me the comparison is pointless.
 
To elitist snobs who won't even consider listening to something other than 'classical' and look down on more popular art forms because they're incapable of appreciating them in their own terms, I say it's their loss.

Looks good!
 
Fun fact: HOOK was the last Williams score to get an LP release back when LPs were still a normal thing (rather than a hipster thing). FAR & AWAY was not on LP (except for a few pressings in Germany), and disregarding some specialty things like the original collector's JURASSIC PARK LP, subsequent scores were only on CD (and a little bit cassette) untill the vinyl resurgence.

Personally I took this as confirmation of work on a CD, you guys.  Don’t panic.

I'm going to dodge the deep questions here ("What are aesthetics? What comprises good music? Can we reach a global consensus on these questions?") and go one level up: are you perhaps running into an issue with selection bias?
 
Seems like an example of a megathread panning JW as you describe might be found here. A general classical forum attracts fans of all kinds, and not all of them may be warm to JW; some of them might even resent him for "diluting" their favorite parts of classical music. But over here, membership is predicated on liking JW's music. We may enjoy heaping derision on...other composers, and this can happen for any number of reasons. Any answers you might find here are likely to be frostily received by people whose hearts are already set against JW.
 
Having strong opinions attracts eyes and sometimes builds kingdoms ("bah! You can tell me Williams is great once you've listened to Stockhausen and Boulez"). Especially if a community skews esoteric or "cultured," some measured snootiness can help accrue social credit.
 
 
To be cynical, I would bet JW typically sells better and attracts a more diverse audience than does an average "conventionally classical" program. I personally see no problem here, but I'm sure some people would turn up their noses at the thought.

There’s a lot of snobbery masquerading as informed opinion in many places where artistic preference is key. Imagine how a Hans Zimmer fan would feel reading some threads here, for example. Classical music seems to be more prone to this than a lot of other things, for all sorts of historical and sociological reasons we can debate another day.
 
I think what the OP has found (I haven’t checked, since life’s too short) is a group of people who enjoy some of the more obscure and challenging forms of classical music, in which world being popular is the greatest crime. JW is popular and successful, therefore he is Classical Music Enemy No. 1 for these people. His recent work with top-notch (and historically snobby) orchestras like the VPO will simply have compounded his crimes in their eyes. ASM will be considered a traitor to the cause.
 
In my experience, it’s a certain type of fan that is prone to this sort of thinking, whereas actual musicians are far more open-minded because they don’t predicate their whole existence on a certain set of artistic assumptions. Just look at the face of the VPO violinist as they play the Star Wars B-theme - he’s clearly having a whale of a time and snobbery be damned. Quite right too.
 
Mark

I still can post here, so I think the rules are fair, even if I was banned for the last 24 hours... Well, I deserved it, because I'm a Canadian, and I can't really talk about the advantages of being one!
 
IT IS POLITICAL!
 
So what's your diet, I'm still a vegetarian since 2 years now! But I eat fish from time to time.

They managed to reach their goal. I'm not surprised actually. I know a lot of film and Star Wars fans have tons of respect for his work and he seems like a genuinely nice person as well. I do hope this will help to take at least some of the burden off their shoulders. 
 
And while it isn't a priority now I do hope his book on The Shining will see the light of the day sometime. It was supposed to be his most exhaustive work. As a film enthusiast I've enjoyed every single one of his books very much. They are some of the very finest publications in the field. 
 
Karol

I share this sad news here since I guess there are many Star Wars, Indy and Aliens fans who are likely acquainted with the terrific making-of books that Mr. Rinzler's written throughout the years, and you may be able to help his family in these distressing times.
 
Source: http://www.theforce.net/story/front/Jonathan_Rinzlers_Family_Is_Asking_For_Help_188875.asp
 

Hero is a good movie with a great score. Tan Dun does better work in Hero than he did for Crouching Tiger. Memoirs is a bad movie with a great score. I think it is another example of JW being inspired by something other than the film itself, leading to an amazing score. In this case, I imagine it was his love of the book that inspired his score.

I'm not an expert on this Asian martial arts score, but I do think both Hero (2002) and House of the Flying Daggers are better scores than Crouching Tiger.

Saving Primate Ryan

Top Nun

I'd be willing to wager it came from one of the old Spectrasonics programs, which were used in pretty much everything in the late 90's / early 2000's (including a sample or two in Attack of the Clones). I remember they had at least one vocal program that had probably hundreds of samples that sounded just like this, I bet that's where it's from. They also had a lot of electronic beats/guitar samplers which probably makes up the rest of the track.