drwynn

I'd like to think the Internet Petitions and the letter-writing campaign I created had SOMETHING to do with this...hopefully! Wa-hooo!

And we all know who they are, ahem... Ahh...you must be referring to "Doc" Emmett L. Brown and Marty McFly; yes, they have done their share of living in the past. 1885 was the year, I believe. LOL! Sorry...just trying to inject a little humor to relieve some of this tension. Also, trying to make sure that not all of my posts are too wordy or haughty!

Wow...I thought some of the posts here were harsh...check out this opinion from one of the members at "The Raven Forums"; "It's very very very weak and unoriginal. Nothing memorable at all. Could be William's worst score, I'm serious. Nothing stands out. I didn't find myself humming anything afterwards, except the raider's march obviously. I can listen to the entire ROTLA score from start to finish, but this one, no. Maybe the first and last tracks, and they're just variations of themes we've heard before. Howard Shore would have done a better job with this, yet I was rooting for williams to come up with something amazing. A real disappointment. Sorry, but I have to be honest, even as a fanboy. " Oucha, ma-goucha!

I hate to continue this discussion...and I apologize to all of you who are growing tired of this discussion...but, I feel like I have to address two issues; First, you may not see the similarity between Don Juan and Indy's Theme...but, it's there...if you CHOOSE to look for it. In the opening bars of the piece (bars 3 and 4, I believe)...there's a motif/melody that is written as follows; E-F#-G#-B natural...E-F#-G# (I think those are the notes...I'm going on music memory). The structure of that snippet of melody, along with the rhythmic pattern is VERY similar to the opening statement of Indy's theme. Now, the reason I wrote "if you choose to look for it" is because that basically addresses one of the issues I was trying to stress to you; you can find ANYTHING you want to in something...if you're LOOKING for it. Meaning; I could basically accuse any composer of "plagiarism" in some way, shape, or form if I wanted to because if I dissected their works...I'm sure I could make a case for the assertion...no matter how weak that case may be. If I wanted to be so nit-picky and anal about the issue, I could make the ridiculous allegation that any piece of music is "plagiarized" in some manner or another...but, I choose not to view music that way. You made an assertion earlier that part of the Superman score was basically Williams artistically profiting from lifting 5 notes from Death and Transfiguration (perhaps you didn't say 5 notes...maybe it was 7...I can't remember). But, if you're going to go over every piece of music like that, then you have to see the "plagiarism" in Indy's theme. If I wanted to see things the way you do, I would say, "Williams clearly stole the entire structure of the melody and rhythm of 'Indy's Theme' from Don Juan! The entire 'Raiders March' is similar in it's basic rhythmic patterns and melody construction to bars 3 and 4 of Don Juan...therefore, Williams' work in this example is unoriginal and plagiarized!" I COULD contend that every piece of music I ever hear is uncreative because I could surely find SOME similarity between it and a pre-existing piece...but, like I said, I don't like to view music in that light. You keep repeating the idea that Williams' "plagiarism" is worse than other composers before him because his "plagiarisms" are more obvious...but, whether it's obvious or not...it's still "plagiarism" as defined by your seeming standards. And, like I said, I could come up with facts, examples, and comparisons to render ALL music creatively impotent and empty...but, why live life in that manner? Like I said...I'm not going to change your mind...so, why do I keep arguing this point with you? Second, I never accused you of implying that Williams was a bad composer or that you were "lowering your standards"; again, you're either misrespresnting my words and twisting the truth of what I wrote, or you're misunderstanding what I wrote. My exact words were, "I'm talking about people who couldn't even IMAGINE themselves listening to John Williams and would never 'lower themselves' to that sort of degrading standard"...and if you read that post more closely, you'll see I was referring to people I've encountered during my days at music school. Perhaps you weren't talking about me when you mentioned "people here"...but the words you chose were very similar to what I wrote...and since we've basically been directly debating each other, I assumed you were implying me when you wrote "people here". Lastly...did you even READ Marcus' extremely well-written post on this topic? Because it doesn't seem like you did...and I highly recommend you do.

Ugh. Shia LaBeouf as the lead and Indy as HIS sidekick? I knew I should've seen that idea as an eventual possibility, especially given the marketing trend for the new film; Shia's/Mutt's image seemingly everywhere that Indy's is. Do we really need to see Mutt's face right next to Indy's on the majority of marketing stuff? My wife made a great observation yesterday while we were shopping for Indy-themed party supplies. She was sifting through the Indy plates, cups, napkins, and tablecloths...stacking them up in the cart, when she turned to me and asked; "Isn't the new movie called 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull'?" I replied, "Yeah, why?" She answered, "Because...the way they're promoting the film makes me feel like it should be called, 'Mutt Williams and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull'."

Well, I didn't necessarily think he was directing his comments at me...but, I just wanted to be sure and apologize "in advance". I didn't really want to tick anyone off on what was basically my first day of posting...aside from the guy I was arguing against, that is! Before I go on wasting anymore bandwidth by continuing THIS particular discussion (my self-defense; which now comes off to me as sort of insecure and self-absorbed on my part)...let me try to redirect the conversation to Indy IV... I think "The Great Eye" made a good point when he said to "give the score time to settle in". Initial reactions are great no matter what they are...and, obviously, your first impression won't change. But, there's also something to the idea of "letting the dust settle". I've often found that my attitude toward or opinion of certain scores has improved or worsened upon multiple listenings (is that even a real word?).

Sorry about writing so many posts regarding the whole plagiarism issue (I was defending Williams); actually, this is pretty much the first time I've ever posted on this forum...sorry if my posts left a bad taste in your mouth. But, I feel very strongly about the issue and I just couldn't sit back, simply observe, and NOT contribute...especially given some of the things people were writing in accusation of Williams. Also, in defense of one of the plagiarism issue posts; Marcus wrote a pretty amazing post regarding the topic. Definitely worth a read by anyone...no matter what their attitude is regarding that whole discussion. Cheers!

Marcus...what an excellent, articulate, verbose post! You managed to explain notions in a way I couldn't even fathom; everything you wrote I found to be true, clear, and concise. Also, I hope you don't think I was "knocking" classically trained musicians...especially because I happen to be one of them (I mentioned in an earlier post the degrees I received from Juilliard and the Indiana University School of Music). I only used the terms "snob" and "elitist" because that was the mindset the people I encountered had during my days at Juilliard and IU. It was the way they perceived themselves and others that made them seem like "snobs" and "elitists"; they had the same education as I did, they knew the same information I did...yet, they thought of themselves as being "better" than me because they would rather listen to Penderecki or Stravinsky than John Williams...whereas I was the exact opposite. I mean, I'm talking about people who couldn't even IMAGINE themselves listening to John Williams and would never "lower themselves" to that sort of degrading standard. It was their attitude that made them snobs in my eyes. So, please don't think I'm generalizing and asserting that anyone with a music education is what I consider to be a snob. Also, in my defense...I never really meant to truly claim that all great composers ACTUALLY plagiarize. That's why whenever I presented that idea, I tried to put the words in quotes...because I don't really see it that way. Yes, I realize that in my last post I actually wrote that "nearly ALL great composers have plagiarized in one way or another, like it or not"; but, I also went on to say that I didn't really see it as "plagiarism" per se. The reason I referred to the acts in question as plagiarism in that sentence was because I was framing the allegation in the "words" of the person I was responding to; I was trying to frame it in their viewpoint. But, on the contrary, I see it in the light that you so clearly explained...and that was the point I was trying to make. Perhaps I did a poor job of doing so...but, it definitely seems that you and I see things in the same way and I was trying to convey the same points you so excellently wrote about. I loved your metaphor of writers using the same language but never making up new words...man, I don't think I could ever come up with something as clear and accessible to everyone I'm trying to communicate to. Finally, let the record show that I never once directly called Williams a "plagiarist"...because I simply don't believe that he, or other great composers, are. But, I have you to thank for making my thoughts clear...whether intentional or not! Kudos and cheers!

Perhaps you're twisting my words around slightly or misinterpreting them just as I "misinterpreted" your anti-Semitism remark... I wasn't attempting to "justify" "plagiarism" per se...I was trying to say that nearly ALL great composers have plagiarized in one way or another, like it or not. It sounds like you, like many classical elitists and "snobs" I've encountered, are singling out Williams for doing something that nearly all composers do. Why people feel the need to single out Williams is beyond me...but, a lot of people do. (Also, bear in mind...I'm not calling you a "snob" or "elitist"...I'm merely saying that those I've encountered in the past who also take the same stance as you have been those kinds of people...like it or not). I don't find "plagiarism" in music to necessarily be the worst thing in the world because, as I said quite clearly several times (although you don't seem to be able to comprehend what I've written, for some reason)...I don't view it as plagiarism. I view it as a tribute, a reference, or a single highlight that is "borrowed" and interpreted in a new way. And, as I said...if you were to view Williams in this light...you would also have to "indict" most of the "great" classical composers that I suspect you hold so dearly to your heart. You say Williams should "give credit where credit is due". What do you expect Williams to do when he does such a thing? Call the work, "The Raiders March; a Hero's Theme That's a Variation on Richard Strauss' 'Don Juan'"? If you asked Williams about how similar certain beginning of themes are to other great classical works, he would probably readily admit he was greatly influenced by said composer rather than deny it until he turned blue. You seem to stand at the ready to accuse him of "plagiarism" and also convict him of not admitting to such an act and also covering up his "sin". Have you personally interviewed him to have such intimate knowledge of his soul and inner thoughts? Again, I don't wish to continue having to say the same things over and over again. You have your way of viewing things...I have my way of viewing mine. I just wish you would accept that and walk away as I asked you to earlier. But, alas...it doesn't seem you're capable of doing so. Therefore, I'll stand by my beliefs and convictions...and leave this argument behind. And I'll take satisfaction in the knowledge that many great, revered musicians I've encountered in my lifetime would scoff, laugh, and chuckle at your accusation and say exactly what my father said; "That argument is so ridiculous...if you're going to call Williams a plagiarist...be prepared to do say the same thing about Brahms, Beethoven, Haydn, Mozart, etc." Good. Night.

As I figured you would, it seems to me that you're attempting to turn this into a game of one-ups. I'm not going to be bated into that kind of debate; I left music school long ago and feel no need to participate in that kind of practice again. All I'll say in response is this; it seems that the basic problem here is your concept of "plagiarism" and how it differs from mine...and many of the extremely intelligent and well respected music scholars I've studied with. That's not to imply you're not intelligent or respected...it just means we have to agree to disagree, because I'm not going to get into a debate of "style" versus "plagiarism" with you. All I'll say about THAT topic is this; "plagiarism" doesn't only include "borrowing" or "referencing" melodies or "content", as you seem to imply. Plagiarism can be done with every single concept, construct, idea, motif, and structure within music. That means melodies, harmonies, orchestration, "style", rhythm, etc. Just because Williams might "reference" or "borrow" melody or orchestrations from other composers (which are more obvious when heard...even to the untrained ear)...that doesn't make him any worse than someone who "borrows" or "references" another composer's "style" as you seem to imply. Perhaps Stravinsky was more "original" in your eyes than Bach; by citing that example you truly do show you know your music. But, in my defense, I was using Bach as an example and I did point out that Bach also did "borrow" in his own ways. I just didn't want to have to write another dissertation explaining how or why. I could've gone on and on about how "forward thinking" Bartok or Cage was and why...but, as I said before, I've already written those papers whilst attending music school and have no desire to do so again. Also, I don't really appreciate you even suggesting that perhaps I'm "okay" with anti-Semitism; sort of out of left-field and waaay out of line, in my opinion. I can only hope and assume that you're not being serious, and you will no doubt defend yourself by saying that is indeed the case, but, regardless, I don't appreciate the fact that you wrote what you did. That's also the perfect example of why I've tried to stay away from contributing to message forums lately. Bottom line; I'm not going to argue with you. You've obviously made up your mind on this topic and nothing's going to change it...no matter how many examples I provide...or how many opinions from well-respected musician that I quote. You see things one way, I (and many others) see them another. The end. And with that, good night.

I think I'm definitely in the minority here with this opinion...but, here goes; I love the last four cues of this album. Yes, they might sound a bit "chopped" or edited...but, I think they're all great regardless. I can't get enough of "Ants!"; the percussion and the permutations/abbreviated snippets of what I think is the Russian Soldier theme are great. "Temple Ruins/The Secret Revealed" has some absolutely wonderful moments in it; I love the moment at 2:57...the tuba accompanied by the ascending string glissandi. Pure. Vintage. Williams. "The Departure" sent chills up my spine...especially at 1:00 in...and the remainder of that track is wonderful as well. Definitely some "Harry Potter-esque" moments in the final moments (the 6/8 rhythm, the woodwind flourishes)...and the Crystal Skull theme gets a wonderful, triumphant, and Major trumpet statement that absolutely made the hair on my arms stand up! I love the tender, emotional, sweeping opening of "Finale"...but, I somehow feel that the abrupt transition into Indy's theme HAS to be a soundtrack edit; it just seems too sudden, and the key change doesn't sit with me that well either. But, the version of Indy's theme that follows...well, I would definitely say it's more vibrant and energetic than what we heard on "The Last Crusade" album. Anyways...my judgment after my initial listening is...I think this is one of Williams' finest works of the last ten years. Perhaps not the "perfect" score some were expecting (I think some of that fault may lie with how the album has been edited), but a strong, memorable, and most importantly to me, energetic and fun collective work. Cheers, everyone!

Got it; my bad. I'm not sure exactly what theme that might/could be. I'll have to take a closer listen to the score again and "look" for it as I do. About the score; I absolutely LOVE the last 30 seconds or so of "Orellana's Cradle" and I think the "Ants!" track is brilliant!

Don't know if anyone's already said this yet...if they have, my most sincere apologies are due to everyone. But...the theme in the End Credits heard at 4:00 also appears in abbreviated/interrupted forms in other places in the score; most notably during the "Ants!" track. I'm guessing it's the Russian Soldiers' theme.

Thanks, J Dan. I'll try to throw in my two cents every now and then... Cheers!

I wish I could...I don't have the score yet; only been able to hear "samples" online.