karelm

For those interested, the program notes to this concert are posted online here: http://www.pacificsymphony.org/res/Program_Notes/140508_ACF_ProgramNotes.pdf and one important point, the concert is being recorded for broadcast on the radio (and internet) on Sunday, July 27, 2014, at 7pm on KUSC (streaming on itunes and kusc.com).

Yes, but with Williams you can be sure it was still concisely written for twelve horns. With others, it just seems like they are playing the same line. Would 8 horns have sounded so different for Powell? And by the way, he's a great writer who really knows his stuff so I wouldn't lump him in to the other side of the industry who would use 12 horns in the same way that Spinal Tap wants an amplifier that goes up to 11. Regarding JW, I recall reading in "On the Track" that Close Encounters used 3 tubas. So when he wants the other worldly sound, he'll do some pretty extreme stuff.

To summarize the Duke University article: "Perhaps even more responsible is the American school system, which has placed little importance on music education. Nationwide, music programs have been faced with budget cuts; Fowler explains, “Although there are funds to support other subjects, music education is simply not sufficiently valued…in regard to budgets, curricular considerations, staffing, and scheduling, music doesn’t command much priority." The result being: "Classical music’s lack or representation in popular culture has created a generation of young people who do not appreciate or understand classical music." So yes, I agree that without music being valued and taught in schools, young people grow up without valuing it hence the average age of audiences goes up. But what is the cause and the effect? Otherwise, the article is extremely simplistic and since it was written in 2010, it was written during the height of the Recession. It even equates classical music to soundtracks: "Classical music remains in wide use as background music for movies, television, and advertising". I have trouble with the position that because concert orchestras are not profitable, they are not viable. Many orchestras went bankrupt because there was across the board drop in donations which makes up 41% of orchestra revenues. NEA & Grants from government are only 10% so anything depending on public funding was in a dire situation in 2010. Add to that, most of the donations come from a handful of philanthropic people who are quite old. For instance about 90% of the donations going to the Philadelphia Orchestra came from seven billionaires. When one dies, that is a big hit on orchestra finances. That is what happened in 2010 to Philadelphia Orchestra. Also, note that Los Angeles Philharmonics budget has skyrocketed. In 2000, they were losing 10-15% per year and now they are the most profitable orchestra. Gustavo Dudamel and various programming changes (casual concerts, etc.) have brought it a new wave of youthful audiences resulting in balanced sheets and 125,000,000 annual budget. Do note these are non-profit organizations and the article you linked basically says that art for profit is dying. This I will agree with because it is very hard to quantify a profit margin for something that few people need. That is really what the Joshua Bell/Washington DC experiment showed. So what are your thoughts on my article and the chart? Do spend the time to read them as I have done with your linked articles.

And a counter view:http://properdiscord.com/2014/01/24/mark-vanhoenacker-i-have-a-bone-to-pick-with-you/ Your Slate article Requiem: Classical music in America is dead is poorly-researched, badly argued, and, well, wrong. Theres so much crap in it, the only way I can think to deal with it is line-by-line, so here we go: Also read this chart: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/killing-classical-music-large.jpg

I liked it. Nice writing but the mockup quality could be improved with more expression/mod wheel. It captures the "adventure on the high seas" mood.

He will be mostly remembered for the Star Wars saga and occasionally some enterprising person will investigate his other works too but it won't reach the consciousness like SW. I think he'll be seen somewhat like Holst. Extremely popular for one major work (granted in JW's case a series) but when was the last time anyone heard one of holst's eight operas? Or perhaps he will be overshadowed by a successor who uses him as a springboard to even greater things. That is slightly unlikely as JW might very well be the last in a long line. So in that case it might be that he will forever be known as the guy who inspired that great tbd composer. I would not equate JW with Beethoven, who some will argue was the pinnacle of western art music. I think JW is more like the successor of herrmann than the equal to Beethoven.

Tacet means the instrument does not play. The number probably indicates exactly which instrument. For example, there might be a trumpet 1 for a cue but trumpet 2 is tacet. This is important so the copyist prepares a part that shows the player does not play otherwise they might look for the part or play the wrong part if the parts are in order. Tie with no note after just means to let the note ring out (so don't dampen it at the end of the note duration).

The Pacific Symphony has updated their website to say the piece by Goldenthal is a premiere of Symphony in G # minor. Does anyone know if this is the same as the Othello Symphony that was recorded last year or might we have a Symphony No. 2 from Goldenthal? JOHN WILLIAMSTributes! For Seiji HOWARD SHOREMythic Gardens, Concerto for Cello and Orchestra (West Coast Premiere) JAMES HORNERFlight (Concert Premiere) ELLIOT GOLDENTHALSymphony in G# Minor (World Premiere) https://www.pacificsymphony.org/tickets/concert/FromScoretoScreen/10207

What's the difference in sound? Does this mean what Williams does with the string sizes is redundant? What would do if you had 28 violins (14:14 or 16:12) and had two three note chromatic clusters separated just over two octaves apart, one for the first violins and the other for the seconds. Each is marked 'Div a3.' Well, for one thing - it is an aesthetic choice. Like the beer commercial about tastes great/less filling. To my ears, I prefer a balanced classical sound. To others who might not have grown up with classical music, they might prefer more of a studio/spot mic sound. Even though JW's music is generally composed and orchestrated to sound great in a hall, there are still spot mics all over the place. This is because what sounds great to our ears is very hard to replicate in a controlled environment. Strings have a warmth so you'll use a vintage large diaphragm Neumann. meanwhile, you don't want a harsh wind to come in the string mic. So you'll either mix out the EQ or select a microphone pattern that is more selective. Loud brass, will rarely use Neumann's on a pro studio. They'll use something more attuned to either a ribbon mic or powerful overtones. These will most likely have a very limited directionality. The end result is these all get mixed and blended to produce a balance in the final mix. OR - JW approach would be most of the signal is already in the room from the decca tree and very sparingly use the spot mics (to bring out an important texture or raspy quality for instance). In the past, the sound that was favored was for a room/concert hall sound. Now, it is mostly close mic but with artificial reverb added and a taste of room ambience. I was shocked at hearing the new Esa Pekka Solonen/Philharmonia orchestra recording of The Planets. It sounded like it was all close mic so exaggerates clarity which to me doesn't feel particularly realistic. It fits well into Solonen's precision approach, but not so much a Leonard Bernstein grand sweeping gesture approach. Overall, the point is both are valid, but different philosophies. I was taught that a self balancing string section has a ratio of roughly 5:4:3:2:1 give or take. So this would mean something like Violin 1 could be 16, violin 2 would be 14. viola would be 12, cello would be 10, double bass would be 8. This is roughly the string ratio for a modern professional symphony orchestra. There are obvious allowances for repertoire/era flexibilities, but think of this as a general guideline rather than hard fast rule. This is also supports the traditional Rimsky Korsakov orchestration model which would say the first violin is the melody, second violin is counter melody, viola is the accompaniment, and celli, bass are harmony. In general adding more violins does not make the section louder, but smoother. So then you get some orchestrators thinking - if I have limited budget and want to get more sound, does it really make sense for me to add a 15th and 16th violin or 4th and 5th trumpet? For the same cost you can get more sound depending on the genre and dramaturgy. So suddenly you have shifts in orchestration that are more practical reasons than musical reasons. The thought being no one will notice the omission of the last stand of violins but you will notice the addition of two trumpets if its a brassy score. This is now pretty close to the point where someone wants to add emphasis to a warmth found in violas rather than having a traditional orchestral setup. My recollection was that for Troy, James Horner wanted a more rustic sound so brought in more violas than violins because the change in the ratio brought out more emphasis the mid tones in the orchestral blend. It was an aesthetic/dramatic choice like when Bernard Herrmann removed all strings for an other worldly sound but added four tubas, 8 horns, 2 organs, etc. Sorry for being so verbose but I love this topic. Brilliant reply. Thank you. For the example I gave, I was referring to a moment in a cue (mm. 109-110, p. 20 from 7m1 That's Gotta Hurt) from THE MATRIX. Both when orchestrating his and own scores and others, I've noticed Don Davis is incredibly precise about string divisis and numbers. Sometimes even writing how many players on each note. You rarely see this with Williams. I'll send you the cue. Looking forward to seeing it. Also note, that the higher the violin, the thinner the sound so you typically want more players on higher notes (unless it is just a texture). JW does not like to have violin 1 melodies divisi. Conrad Pope mention his receiving that feedback early on in their partnership. So in a way, that does mean he is deciding how the divis are happening. Yes, when has a three-part divisi he has it 10,10,8. I guess one stand less doesn't make that much of a difference. One other point that is worth making - we are really taking here about the cream of the crop players. In LA, JW will get the best players block off a month if they hear they might be needed for one of his scores. One thing about the best players is they are phenomenally good and hearing each other and self balancing. They are very active listeners. It is almost like having an orchestra that plays together 52 weeks a year for decades where they know each others sound extremely intimately. I just bet a JW studio orchestra is all made up of first call players and does not need to be told exactly how and where to blend plus he will have as much freedom and flexibility as he wants to get it right (no one will tell him "sorry, but you have enough time for one more take only.") If we didn't know exactly who was playing, we'll be more deliberate to get the goal quicker. That might explain why you won't see it in his works as much as you do in others. This is really quite a big topic. I do see in Star Wars sheet music that he will give a melody line to horn 2 and not horn 1 at some places. I find myself asking why would he do that - that doesn't make any sense. But you see that horn 1 has a very hard line coming up and is giving a moment to prep. So you want to be as concise yet specific as possible while maintaining room for flexibility.

What's the difference in sound? Does this mean what Williams does with the string sizes is redundant? What would do if you had 28 violins (14:14 or 16:12) and had two three note chromatic clusters separated just over two octaves apart, one for the first violins and the other for the seconds. Each is marked 'Div a3.' Well, for one thing - it is an aesthetic choice. Like the beer commercial about tastes great/less filling. To my ears, I prefer a balanced classical sound. To others who might not have grown up with classical music, they might prefer more of a studio/spot mic sound. Even though JW's music is generally composed and orchestrated to sound great in a hall, there are still spot mics all over the place. This is because what sounds great to our ears is very hard to replicate in a controlled environment. Strings have a warmth so you'll use a vintage large diaphragm Neumann. meanwhile, you don't want a harsh wind to come in the string mic. So you'll either mix out the EQ or select a microphone pattern that is more selective. Loud brass, will rarely use Neumann's on a pro studio. They'll use something more attuned to either a ribbon mic or powerful overtones. These will most likely have a very limited directionality. The end result is these all get mixed and blended to produce a balance in the final mix. OR - JW approach would be most of the signal is already in the room from the decca tree and very sparingly use the spot mics (to bring out an important texture or raspy quality for instance). In the past, the sound that was favored was for a room/concert hall sound. Now, it is mostly close mic but with artificial reverb added and a taste of room ambience. I was shocked at hearing the new Esa Pekka Solonen/Philharmonia orchestra recording of The Planets. It sounded like it was all close mic so exaggerates clarity which to me doesn't feel particularly realistic. It fits well into Solonen's precision approach, but not so much a Leonard Bernstein grand sweeping gesture approach. Overall, the point is both are valid, but different philosophies. I was taught that a self balancing string section has a ratio of roughly 5:4:3:2:1 give or take. So this would mean something like Violin 1 could be 16, violin 2 would be 14. viola would be 12, cello would be 10, double bass would be 8. This is roughly the string ratio for a modern professional symphony orchestra. There are obvious allowances for repertoire/era flexibilities, but think of this as a general guideline rather than hard fast rule. This is also supports the traditional Rimsky Korsakov orchestration model which would say the first violin is the melody, second violin is counter melody, viola is the accompaniment, and celli, bass are harmony. In general adding more violins does not make the section louder, but smoother. So then you get some orchestrators thinking - if I have limited budget and want to get more sound, does it really make sense for me to add a 15th and 16th violin or 4th and 5th trumpet? For the same cost you can get more sound depending on the genre and dramaturgy. So suddenly you have shifts in orchestration that are more practical reasons than musical reasons. The thought being no one will notice the omission of the last stand of violins but you will notice the addition of two trumpets if its a brassy score. This is now pretty close to the point where someone wants to add emphasis to a warmth found in violas rather than having a traditional orchestral setup. My recollection was that for Troy, James Horner wanted a more rustic sound so brought in more violas than violins because the change in the ratio brought out more emphasis the mid tones in the orchestral blend. It was an aesthetic/dramatic choice like when Bernard Herrmann removed all strings for an other worldly sound but added four tubas, 8 horns, 2 organs, etc. Sorry for being so verbose but I love this topic. Brilliant reply. Thank you. For the example I gave, I was referring to a moment in a cue (mm. 109-110, p. 20 from 7m1 That's Gotta Hurt) from THE MATRIX. Both when orchestrating his and own scores and others, I've noticed Don Davis is incredibly precise about string divisis and numbers. Sometimes even writing how many players on each note. You rarely see this with Williams. I'll send you the cue. Looking forward to seeing it. Also note, that the higher the violin, the thinner the sound so you typically want more players on higher notes (unless it is just a texture). JW does not like to have violin 1 melodies divisi. Conrad Pope mention his receiving that feedback early on in their partnership. So in a way, that does mean he is deciding how the divis are happening.

What's the difference in sound? Does this mean what Williams does with the string sizes is redundant? What would do if you had 28 violins (14:14 or 16:12) and had two three note chromatic clusters separated just over two octaves apart, one for the first violins and the other for the seconds. Each is marked 'Div a3.' Well, for one thing - it is an aesthetic choice. Like the beer commercial about tastes great/less filling. To my ears, I prefer a balanced and classical sound. To others who might not have grown up with live classical music, they might prefer more of a studio/spot mic sound. Even though JW's music is generally composed and orchestrated to sound great in a hall, there are still spot mics all over the place. This is because what sounds great to our ears is very hard to replicate in a controlled environment. Strings have a warmth so you'll use a vintage large diaphragm Neumann. Meanwhile, you don't want a harsh and piercing woodwind to come in to the string's sensitive mic. So you'll either mix out those EQ's or select a microphone pattern that is more restrictive. Loud brass, will rarely use Neumann's on a pro studio. They'll use something more attuned to either a ribbon mic or powerful overtones. These will most likely have a very limited directionality and as a result suffer from excluding too many wonderful overtone frequencies - so will need to also blend in the room sound further. The end result is these all get mixed and blended to produce a semblance of balance in the final mix we hear. OR - JW approach would be most of the signal is already in the room from the decca tree and very sparingly use the spot mics (to bring out an important texture or raspy quality for instance). In the past, the sound that was favored was for a room/concert hall sound. Now, it is mostly close mic but with artificial reverb added and a taste of room ambience. I was shocked at hearing the new Esa Pekka Solonen/Philharmonia orchestra recording of The Planets. It sounded like it was all close mic so exaggerates clarity which to me doesn't feel particularly realistic. It fits well into Solonen's precision approach, but not so much a Leonard Bernstein grand sweeping gesture approach. Overall, the point is both are valid, but different philosophies. I was taught that a self balancing string section has a ratio of roughly 5:4:3:2:1 give or take. So this would mean something like Violin 1 could be 16, violin 2 would be 14. viola would be 12, cello would be 10, double bass would be 8. This is roughly the string ratio for a modern professional symphony orchestra. There are obvious allowances for repertoire/era flexibilities, but think of this as a general guideline rather than hard fast rule. This also supports the traditional Rimsky Korsakov orchestration model which would say the first violin is the melody, second violin is counter melody, viola is the accompaniment, and celli, bass are harmony. In general adding more violins does not make the section louder, but smoother. So then you get some orchestrators thinking - if I have limited budget and want to get more sound, does it really make sense for me to add a 15th and 16th violin or 4th and 5th trumpet? For the same cost you can get more sound depending on the genre and dramaturgy. So suddenly you have shifts in orchestration that are more for practical reasons than musical reasons. The thought being no one will notice the omission of the last stand of violins but you will notice the addition of two trumpets if its a brassy score. This is now pretty close to the point where someone wants to add emphasis to a warmth found in violas rather than having a traditional orchestral setup. My recollection was that for Troy, James Horner wanted a more rustic sound so brought in more violas than violins because the change in the ratio brought out more emphasis the mid tones in the orchestral blend. It was an aesthetic/dramatic choice like when Bernard Herrmann removed all strings for an other worldly sound but added four tubas, 8 horns, 2 organs, etc. Sorry for being so verbose but I love this topic.

I know Tim and he's a pro and very experienced. I think JW is coming from the balance of romantic orchestras that are tuned to a hall and Tim might be coming from a studio microphone balance. For instance a forte in a studio is played for a mic five feet from the trumpet but a forte in a concert hall is for a huge auditorium. The sound is quite different and a pro will approach each uniquely. A lot of films will have an unusual string balance. I forget what film but I think it was Troy that had more violas than violins.

It seems unnecessarily ominous whereas the film version of binary sunset could be thought of as Luke's nostalgia for the past/his dad who at this point in the story he only knew as a great jedi. Great music though, just too heavy handed for the scene. I'm glad we have it released. I wonder if GL requested a new binary sunset during the recording sessions or if JW went to London with two versions since GL would decide what to use later.

I consider ESB to JW's pinnacle achievement. I also believe Star Wars and ROTJ are exceptional but a step below ESB. All cylinders were firing with that one. Asteroid belt, Hoth, Yoda, Han and Leia, Clash of the Sabers, etc., every second is just so damn good. Plus how each cue builds progressively to the next makes it a tremendous listening experience that hasn't been surpassed in my humble experience. It is more than great music (which the others are)...it is transcendent.

It was a good show and I believe the music used on the original Star Wars teaser was actually Vivaldi's Four Seasons Winter but slowed down.Here is the Vivaldi with the lovely Julia Fischer. and the lame Star Wars teaser before the music had been recorded:

Nice video, thanks for the link.

I thought the point of episode 1 was to explain both the scale of the universe (spoiler: we are small) and the importance of being open to explore. Part 1 was by showing the solar system, then galaxy. Part 2 was by showing the theory of the infinite by Bruno who was decried as a heretic by the population though was proven correct only a few years after his death (plus his willingness to die for a new concept) and part 3 was the calendar that showed everything we have known happened in the last minute of the last day of the universal calendar. That's a very powerful message. The lecture I heard from Sagan was "Is there Intelligent Life on Earth?" (it can also be read in his book, "Blue Dot") but it had a similar point that we are a minor anomaly in the history of our planet in the history of the galaxy/universe/infinite. It's really a powerful theme.

It also raises the point, who is the true religious figure? Bruno or the church since Bruno claimed god being infinite, the creation must be as well? Very valid point raised because a lot of pro-religious people are anti-science/knowledge. I'm referring to people like Palin/Bachmann/the Bill Nye debate audience, etc. I thought the point was well made and an important one. That made me tear up a bit. Me too. It's not often you find a truly giving person who is so generous to strangers and seeks nothing in return as Mr. Sagan.

Religion and the oppression of the Catholic church figured prominently in the original Cosmos where necessary, and it has to be an important element in the new one. After all, a major part of the old series has been the essence of science: Freedom of critical thought. The series was about the history of science as much as it was about the universe, and for a relevant part of it the church has been a negative influence (and partly continues to be). As a side note, I thought the animated sequence worked better than I expected. I was a bit afraid that it would look more goofy than the live action reenactment scenes they wanted to avoid. Like what? Don't forget that religious dogma has grown seriously since the original show. I personally recall Sagan as being extremely open minded. He was at my school in the early 1990's and there was a QA. A scientifically minded person asked if he would reprimand a religious zealot in the audience and Sagan reprimanded the scientist for not allowing dissent. It was a shocking moment in the audience because Sagan defended the right of the religious person to have a dissenting voice as long as they had evidence. This doesn't mean that he was a non believer but that he applied the scientific method to faith. I feel the same is true with Neil deGrass Tyson and that is what I appreciate most about him...along with the fact that he can articulate and advocate for his position to lay people.

I enjoyed the show. I kind of like the idea of it not being on PBS. Too many want it defunded and wouldn't watch it and unless on a dumber channel. It is kind of crazy to think about the one year cosmic calendar that all recorded history comes down to the last few seconds on December 31. Really thought provoking.

Elliot Goldenthal's version of 20th century fox of course: Love the denied resolution.

I can't help but feel that if Ticheli was pushed, he would acknowledge that JW is a substantial contribution to American musical legacy. I can say I know firsthand from Pulitzer prize winning composer, Kevin Puts, that he greatly admires JW and is influenced by him. I very much enjoy Ticheli as a composer but find JW to be a genius and would happily debate Ticheli on this topic. I think Ticheli is falling prey to the dogma that if it is popular, it is not art. I am a fan of Ticheli, but he is wrong here.

I really like Niel deGrass Tyson too and think he is a worthy successor to Carl Sagan - so I'm sure it will be good especially with Ann Dryden to serve as a bridge. I'm very much looking forward to it.

Awful analogy. No one in their right mind equates a McDonald's patty to a fine steak. You know why they sell billions of burgers and the highly trained chef doesn't? Because the burgers are $1 versus $40 for the steak. The economics of the food industry are entirely different to that of the film industry. Right. I agree with you. A more accurate analogy is if the McDonalds is sold for $100 as if it were quality steak though it is a $1 phony. People who know the difference know its a fake but most don't know or don't care because it takes less effort.

HZ is a shrewd businessman and has given a short term boost to a lot of talented people. But his impact on the industry is bad overall. He is terribly overrated in the music department because since he views music as a widget/commodity (more so now than in the past) and since he's a businessman, he will excel in this area and inundate the market over others who are less savvy with this. Some of those who are less savvy are superior composers. HZ then becomes more dependent on their talent to continue the mass production of his business model. This ultimately results in a weaker power for the talented musicians/composers and opportunities for them drying up. My problem with HZ isn't his music - it is how pervasive it is because of his business skills and how this becomes equated with quality. It is now the "sound" of what other talented people are asked to sound like because film makers don't understand the difference between quality and quantity. To me, HZ is the equivalent of people thinking McDonalds is what beef tastes like because it is everywhere. When someone has a real filet steak cooked perfectly, they say - "it's not good because beef tastes like McD". Yes, yes, McD makes billions more than just about anyone else because of their business model. If you are a highly skilled and trained chef who works in an organic, sustainable environment but the winner of cooking contests is McDonalds...