Tydirium

Huh? Genuinely puzzled by this. The award isn’t for the composer who reaches/tops their previous work; it’s for the best score of a given year… It’s entirely possible for JW to write a score that “doesn’t reach the heights of his most classic works,” and for that score to still happen to be better than the other contenders...

Huh? Genuinely puzzled by this. The award isn’t for the composer who reaches/tops their previous work; it’s for the best score of a given year… It’s entirely possible for JW to write a score that “doesn’t reach the heights of his most classic works,” and for that score to still happen to be better than the other contenders...

Huh? Genuinely puzzled by this. The award isn’t for the composer who reaches/tops their previous work; it’s for the best score of a given year… It’s entirely possible for JW to write a score that “doesn’t reach the heights of his most classic works,” and for that score to still happen to be better than the other contenders...

A 2023 JW score shouldn't have to compare against JW's best work to earn a nomination. It should only have to compare against other 2023 scores. I love the DoD score but I think even its strongest defenders will acknowledge it cannot match his 1981 - 1989 output or even perhaps KOTCS. But that's not the point of the Oscars. It should only be nominated for its merits as a 2023 score and not as a score when benchmarked against the composer's greatest works. 

So what you're saying is that Williams only got nominated because... he's Williams. There's no merit whatsoever in his score for DoD. Probably the music branch didn't even hear his music, they just saw his name on the credits and went like "oh, this movie was scored by John Williams? Let's give him a nom quickly!". And because of that he has stolen the place of people who worked harder and actually deserved being there, such as Pemberton or Ronson for Barbie, or maybe Anthony Willis for Saltburn or whatever.
 
If Williams only gets nominations on the basis of his name, why was he excluded in 2008 for Indy 4? It's a John Williams score, so it MUST be nominated, regardless of it being good or not (judging by your arguments, Williams could literally just whistle for one hour and he'd be nominated all the same). Or why was he excluded in 1992, the year where he wrote not one but two scores? Shouldn't he get two noms that year then?
 
Nevermind that after years of controversies the Academy voters are much younger and more diverse now than in 92 or 2008. Theoretically they should've given noms to Pemberton and Ronson. So if they chose JW over these guys is because they think that the DOD score is not actually that unworthy.

those redditors absolutely call cues 'songs'.

These are the same people who thought the TFA score was "not memorable" when it came out, but now they praise it.

He could've just said they're being held back by this legal crap instead of all this metaphor about chocolate cookies or whatever.

I appreciate that he acknowledged it without trying to flat out say there was "nothing wrong". Even if it doesn't get fixed, I can appreciate a simple response of acknowledgement over one filled with rudeness and denial. 
 
It is a shame this kind of stuff happens but letting them know is the best thing we can do, to hopefully prevent future issues. I know the pressing situation would affect future releases that will involve gapless playback, if they at least figure out why there's that gap in their releases and ommit it going forward, this will save them lots of money and trouble having to potentially shell out replacement discs. 
 
 
I noticed this too! I chalked it up to Horner's personal edit when he was making the OST which is why it isn't present there, but if that's not how it originally sounds from the sessions then that makes yet another issue with this releases 😅
 
 
Yes! As a composer myself, and someone who hates even the most miniscule skip during a track, this sort of thing bothers me greatly. 

I haven’t listened to disc 3 yet, but I should mention that multiple people over at FSM noticed an issue on disc 1, track 20 at around 7:33. I hear it too. Apparently the same spot in the original RCA album didn’t have this issue, so it could be due to damage/a defect in Intrada’s source material?

Just noticed that the Hunter Eberly recording of the Trumpet Concerto is finally available, FYI:
 
EDIT: Here is the press release from DSO:
 
https://www.dso.org/watch-listen-and-connect/newsroom-2/new-dso-recording-john-williamss-trumpet-concerto-with-principal-trumpet-hunter-eberly-on-naxos-label

Lol. Full disclaimer: I am not a sports guy, but am I the only one who finds it kind of tacky and laughable seeing football players (and college ones!) compared to NASA astronauts…? I’m a musician, but I would find it just as cringey seeing a video comparing musicians to astronauts. Anyways, love hearing the theme again, but sometimes I don’t mind forgetting what it was written for. 

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/editorial-images/entertainment/event/john-williams-building-dedication/776091980

Let's hope:
 

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/editorial-images/entertainment/event/john-williams-building-dedication/776091980

Saw this video posted by Tim B. and The Legacy podcast on Facebook. Silvestri & wife in the foreground.
 
https://www.facebook.com/timburdenvoiceovers/posts/pfbid02iChTmwHjXEDLnAdGf4oCChhAitjunA1Cfg6pXyjBmhVrF8Yk2Fig8NxPjetvyw1Sl

Did Yoda take the picture?  

Jedi: Survivor wasn’t the LSO; it was a contracted freelance orchestra.

lets hope this time they release the score WITH williams themes, not cutting them out...

Ok, well before I get into it, let me first say that you did a great job of including every major argument for why these scores need to be redone. So definite kudos for that!
 
 
Right off the bat, I'd drop "the people at" and just address it directly. I think this sounds more serious and professional.
 
 
I completely understand what you're going for here, but if you want normies to keep reading, you need to grab their attention immediately and keep it. You don't want them to skim and you don't them to click away. I'd have one sentence describing the importance of the Star Wars scores and then jump straight into a very quick description of the flaws in previous releases. Like 2 sentences quick.
 
 
Excellent points, but I'd save them for the end so they'll be the last thing readers think about.
 
 
A couple of things here. Your first mention of Mike in the petition immediately connects him to the 1997 Special Editions. If you want to build up Mike's resume, I would focus on more recent examples of his best work, especially on high profile non-Lucasfilm projects like Close Encounters, Harry Potter and The Sound of Music. I believe that if an executive were to actually read this paragraph as written, their very first thought would be "This guy has already done his best on this project, how much better would he really do today? And also why should I pay for Mike to work on these scores again when I can just reissue his previous work?"
 
Further, the phrase "If given another chance" reinforces the implication that the Special Editions were highly flawed, but I believe it would also lead an executive to directly associate Mike's name with shoddy workmanship. What the petition needs to do here instead is quickly and succinctly instill complete confidence in Mike's abilities. I think you realized this and that's why you pivoted to "His involvement guarantees that this music will sound as good as it sounded on the day it was recorded." Good idea here. That said, the promise you make is arguably hyperbolic. The music probably can't sound as good as it did "on the day it was recorded" because the recordings themselves aren't especially great. This is just my opinion of course, but I'd back away from such strong language and instead just emphasize how far restoration techniques have advanced and that new albums from Mike would have the best sound that modern mastering technologies can provide.
 
Your final sentence in this paragraph does a fabulous job of stating why we need Mike. I'd trim some of the fat preceding it and let that last sentence do more of the heavy lifting.
 
 
 
I see the first part of this paragraph as basically redundant. Also, the final promise is weakened by the phrase "could also potentially" and while the idea to entice executives with the possibility of profit is sound, I think they're well aware that soundtracks don't sell millions of units anymore, even Star Wars. I'd drop all of this entirely.
 
 
Great wording! The only reason I would change anything here is because it mostly appeals to the soundtrack fans and the die-hards who are already convinced new releases should happen. If we really want to get signatures from a large number of people, I feel what we really need to push are the arguments that promote buy-in from the normies and the executives. For that reason, I would end on a broader argument along the lines of "Let's preserve these beloved classics so that they can continue to be enjoyed for generations to come."
 
For reference/comparison, here's the complete argument I made in my Reddit and FSM posts. It doesn’t flow perfectly, my sentences are probably a little too dense and I may have listed too many of Mike's recent accomplishments, but I still think it benefits greatly from being more concise. That said, there’s probably a happy medium to be found between the stripped down appeal I wrote and the lengthier one you did.
 
 
Anyway I don't know if you'll find them helpful, but those are my thoughts. You're more than welcome to use any of my wording in your efforts going forward or to just completely ignore my advice if you prefer your own wording. Either way, I think it's great that you made the effort to organize this petition and I hope it at least continues to get more signatures and spark more conversations.

Like  I said before most other composers get expanded/deluxe editions RIGHT AWAY  because they let it happen or push for it. Even if it cost more money it's easier to get things done when the movie is just out and people are interested (strike the iron while it's hot).
Williams only want his 70 minute OST out , which means the "fees" come more into play  at a later date because there's no more motivation by anyone to get things done and it's an extra hurdle.

In theory they'd therefore cover just the fees once they'd sold around a fifth of those units. Of course if it's a Williams release they're probably going to have that go out the door within a week.
 
But if a particular label were putting out a handful of scores that required such payments, that's a lot of $34k they need to have available. Imagine having done literally all of the other mastering, legal, approvals stuff and it's ready to send to the pressing plant - but your cash flow doesn't allow you that sort of money to just send $34K to the AFM.
 
Even if the fee has to be that ridiculous amount, why can't it be paid in stages, like they pay for every so many units pressed? By demanding the entire sum up front they're basically putting the entire risk of the release onto the label, rather than accepting multiple smaller payments as stock sells.

9M6/10M1 Carbon Freeze 📯🎺