Humpty Dumpty
-
Posts
36 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Humpty Dumpty
-
-
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.
I never suggested you are "okay" with anti-Semitism. You justify plagiarism thusly: "The great composers plagiarize. Therefore, John Williams should be allowed to plagiarize." Such a logical statement can be generalized to this: "If a great composer does something, other composers can do it too." I adjusted your argument to "prove" anti-Semitism is okay, thereby invalidating the argument since you and I both agree that anti-Semitism is bad. Plagiarism is not even really a musical issue; it's a matter of honesty. Rachmaninoff technically lifted from Paganini for a famous, wonderful piece of his, but here's the difference in his case: He called the piece "Rhapsody on a Theme by Paganini." Just because a piece is predicated on something originally written by someone else doesn't mean such a piece doesn't have value (as many a piece in theme-and-variations form will attest); just give credit where credit is due.
-
some of the FOOLS here must honestly believe that John listens to classical music just so he can steal from it. He doesn't, mostly its just similarities that anal little twerps jump on and conclude that John is a plagerist.
You've probably never even heard Death and Transfiguration.
First, let me start by apologizing for the length of this reply. But, as a thoroughly educated professional musician and John Williams enthusiast, this topic gets me quite agitated.
I've heard Death and Transfiguration. In fact, I've PERFORMED all of the greatest classical works you can ever possibly name; I've received some of the finest music education money can buy in that I have two degrees in Music Performance. One is from The Juilliard School, the other is from the Indiana University School of Music. I've been a professional timpanist/percussionist for nearly 15 years...and during my time at Indiana University, I studied Music Theory and Music History in every possible way, shape, and form. We studied every single minute detail of music you could ever think of and from every conceivable angle, viewpoint, and stance.
If you think, for one second, that John Williams is the first and only composer who has ever "borrowed" or "plagiarized" ideas, motifs, arrangements, orchestration, or any other possible musical term/idea from another composer "for profit", as you say...then, you SERIOUSLY need to go back and study your music history and theory a little more closely.
Nearly every single great composer/musician in music history owes a part of their greatness, no matter how big or small, to those who have come before them. The great classical composers of the true "classical" era (Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn) influenced each other to a great degree; some theorists even postulate that these greats even went so far as to “borrow” from each other as well. In fact, if you closely dissected much of classical music (which you seem to hold in such high regard) with the intent of doing so, you could find many instances of “plagiarism”...if you look hard enough.
And it’s not just the realm of classical music that gives us the chance to point our fingers and shout “UNORIGINAL” at the top of our lungs. The Beatles, whom many people (including myself) believe to be one of the greatest “pop” bands ever, were GREATLY influenced by The Beach Boys. In fact, many people would claim that The Beatles’ greatest album, “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band”, owes much of its success to the Beach Boys’ “Pet Sounds” album.
Lastly, and also in the realm of “pop” music; one of the songs that Frank Sinatra was most famous for performing, “I Did It My Way”, sounds nearly identical in many sections to the Second Movement of Beethoven’s Piano Sonata No. 8 in c-minor, Op 33., “The Pathetique”.
As I said before, I studied at two of the finest music education institutions in the country...and I’ve encountered your “argument” and people who think as you do many, many times over. You certainly are entitled to your opinion, and, truth be told, there is some validity to your “claim”. Examples...certain sections of the score to “Star Wars: A New Hope” are so similar to Holst’s “The Planets” that it’s quite shocking. The scores to the first two “Home Alone” bear strikingly obvious similarity to Tchaikovsky’s “The Nutcracker”. The first six notes of Han Solo and Princess Leia’s Love Theme sound almost identical to the theme of the First Movement of Tchaikovsky’s Violin Concerto. And, finally, the melody of one of Williams’ newest themes (Irina Spalko’s theme) sounds like a direct tribute to one of Brahms’ most famous themes, from the Third Movement of his Third Symphony. Hell, even my favorite Williams theme of all time, "Indiana Jones' Theme", could be looked at as "borrowing" some of its ideas from Strauss' "Don Juan"; if I wanted to make that much of a stretch, I could. Also, I could go on all day citing examples, spouting facts, and referencing my wealth of musical education and knowledge of classical music like a snob...but, I won’t bore anyone any further with such patronizing nonsense.
Bottom line is this; all great (and often non-great) music is derivative in some way, shape, or form. It’s nearly impossible for any one composer to be so completely and entirely creative as you would like to have people believe. Perhaps the only two composers I can think of who could come close to being heralded as “entirely original” are Bach and Bartok. But, even they were derivative in some way, no matter how "small". If I had to name someone who as almost completely original in all of his works...I would have to name John Cage; but, I don't want to make anyone "in the know" roll their eyes and start scoffing.
Again, there is some merit in your argument...but, your “judgment” against Williams reminds me of the people I’ve encountered before who have made the same accusation. They haughtily (and sometimes vociferously) cry out about Williams’ “unoriginality”...and usually because he is successful and probably the closest thing we have to a modern-day classical composer who is well known in his time (much in the same way that Beethoven was in his; when Beethoven was alive...classical music was the “pop” music of its culture in many ways). But, to make this accusation against Williams and somehow make it seem like he owes all of his success to his “unoriginality” is completely ridiculous. If anything, it shows that he, like the great composers before him, is steeped in knowledge of music history and theory. He shows a profound and complete grasp of what, and more importantly, WHO has come before him. Like Beethoven, Mozart, and other great classical composers, he pays tribute to the people who have made his art and craft possible. He derives from the incredible works that have come before him because that is what nearly all great composers have done. If you think that it's "just a basic part of human morality to find fault in someone artistically profiting off of the work of others"...then, you should find fault in the majority of musicians who have been financially or artistically successful in the past; and this includes whatever classical composers you hold as "sacred" or "untouchable". Why? Because, as I said before, you can make the same claim against them. Perhaps their "borrowings" aren't as "obvious" as Williams...but, believe me, they're there; sometimes you have to look closely to find what you're looking for, and sometimes you don't. (Besides, what constitutes "plagiarism" to you appears to be "tributes" to others who are perhaps a little less critical or judgmental.)
If nothing else...think of Williams' "plagiarism" as a way of keeping the spirit and music of other great composers who came before him alive.
And if you think Williams is a “plagiarist”...try listening to some James Horner. Then you’ll know what “unoriginality” really sounds like. (I should clarify that this isn’t how I feel about Horner...but, it’s a great way to throw the wolves off of Williams.)
Also, Humpty Dumpty, please...don't take this as an open invitation to get into a "who knows more about music" debate...because I won't even respond if you try such a thing. I wasn't trying to "one up" you with this post...I was merely trying to demonstrate that it IS posible for a "real" musician who is educated in music to hear the same music you hear and take an entirely different stance on the matter. Thanks.
It is true there are many examples of plagiarism even amongst the “great” composers. One such example would be Mozart using material from Handel in the Kyrie of his Requiem. However, I haven’t uncovered a consistent enough trend of plagiarism in his work to call it a problem. The finale of Beethoven’s “Tempest” Sonata sounds like a figure in Mozart’s “Prague” Symphony. Handel himself once responded to a critic accusing him of plagiarism by saying that “[he] knew how to use it better.” Brahms was similarly accused of copying Ode to Joy in his Symphony no. 1. Brahms replied, “Any idiot can see that!” From that comment, you can see that Brahms, who was notoriously fastidious, must have felt a bit guilty about this similarity, although the similarity here, in my opinion, is probably too subtle to have been intentional. However, even though there are passages in the work of the big composers that can be construed as having been plagiarized, does that mean plagiarism is okay? Wagner was a great composer who was anti-Semitic; do you think that makes anti-Semitism okay? You also seem to be conflating, to a degree, the concept of plagiarism and stylistic influence. This is not about style; this is about specific content. If you read my comments from before, you would also see I don’t consider John Williams a bad composer on account of his plagiarism and am actually concerned about his plagiarism mostly because I know he’s talented enough not to have to resort to it to write good music.
As far as which composers were the most “original,” I’m surprised by your citing Bach as being amongst that group. Bach was very conservative in his musical language to the extent that many of his contemporaries thought of him as a reactionary. What makes him great is not that he was original but that he took all of the existing technical materials and used them better and more fully than any composer before him. He has a very personal voice easily identifiable by the listener, but I wouldn’t call him the most forward-thinking of composers. I’d certainly put, say, Stravinsky before Bach in that regard.
And no, I wasn’t attempting to imply by my comment that anyone who disagreed with me had necessarily to be ignorant about music. I only assumed Joey knew nothing because he debates with abusive remarks instead of reasoned arguments, and my assumption appears to be correct, at least in the case of his not having heard Death and Transfiguration.
-
I am ignorant of the music, no doubt, like that matters one bit, but you're the one being an asshole here attacking John's integrity, why don't you go fall off the wall now, its obvious that all the King(Mark)'s horses and all the King's men, wont even try to put you back together again.
You really do come across as an elitist snob who thinks he knows the mind and soul of JW, but doesnt.
Raising issues of plagiarism is a legitimate form of critique. There's nothing "elitist" or "snobbish" about it, and there is no knowledge of John Williams' "soul" required to make these criticisms. If you can't tolerate that John Williams isn't perfect, then that's your problem.
I too am musically uneducated, and I agree there some melodic similarities with Death and Transfiguration, but afther those 4 or 5 notes, Williams piece simply takes off and is absolutely glorious. I don't think you dismiss that piece so easily. He did things from that startpoint with 4 or 5 notes and reached levels that Strauss, IMVHO, did not.The chord progression is the same on those five notes (C major to D major seventh; it can also be defined as C major to D major with a C pedal). There is a slight difference in the five notes in that Williams just forms the beginning of the melody out of an arpeggiation, whereas Strauss uses a passing tone to connect the tonic and the third degree (and the third and fifth in the accompanying line below the main melody), but the basic shape is clearly derived from Strauss. That's definitely plagiarism. I don't think Donner requested this as Death and Transfiguration has nothing to do with flying around New York/Metropolis.The shape of the first 5 notes are, to my ears, clearly derived from Strauss at some level. But writing the entire effort off as plagarism is, in my eyes, quite unfair. How Williams uses those five notes, and expands upon them, to create something that is his own. In context, the five notes do not sound nearly as similar as they do when taken alone. Yes, Williams uses them as a starting point. But he expands upon it, adds phrases, orchestrates them in his own manner...I'm not saying it's not dissappointing, at some level, that JW uses something someone else wrote in a score. It is. But what he does with it is so much more than 'a Strauss rip' gives it credit for.
John is absolutely a talented guy and can take the D&T theme in new directions, but that's exactly why I'm so upset he steals in the first place: He's good enough to write great music on his own without having to take from others. It's not exactly accurate, however, to say he took only 5 notes because the whole cue uses those notes as its main theme and has those notes interwoven around all the other material.
-
Death and Transfiguration resolves differently from the love thme though, and has a different progression. The only thing similat are those five notes (which if I remember correctly, the leap to the 5th note is a different interval than Williams').
Aside from that, The Planet Krypton was an intentional take on Also Sprach Zarathustra, at the request of the director. I think it's entirely possible that Donner may have wanted the Transfiguration theme in there somehow too.
Although I can see how it bothers you, I can hardly listen to one theme and not think of the other. It can be quite distracting.
The chord progression is the same on those five notes (C major to D major seventh; it can also be defined as C major to D major with a C pedal). There is a slight difference in the five notes in that Williams just forms the beginning of the melody out of an arpeggiation, whereas Strauss uses a passing tone to connect the tonic and the third degree (and the third and fifth in the accompanying line below the main melody), but the basic shape is clearly derived from Strauss. That's definitely plagiarism. I don't think Donner requested this as Death and Transfiguration has nothing to do with flying around New York/Metropolis.
On the other hand, I always saw Krypton more as an homage to Zarathustra than as a steal, so I'm okay with that. However, there is a passage in the music in the Phantom Zone scene that was quite obviously lifted from the initial buildup in Alpine Symphony.
some of the FOOLS here must honestly believe that John listens to classical music just so he can steal from it. He doesn't, mostly its just similarities that anal little twerps jump on and conclude that John is a plagerist.You've probably never even heard Death and Transfiguration.
whether I heard it or not isn't the point, you newbies who come here then spout your crap about John being a thief certainly don't ingratiate yourself very well. It might be similar it might be inspired by, hell do you even know if John has ever listened to it? Fact is you don't.
Of course John Williams knows Death and Transfiguration. That's sort of like asking if a painter knows the Mona Lisa. Please stop being so insulting. You are only revealing your own ignorance.
-
some of the FOOLS here must honestly believe that John listens to classical music just so he can steal from it. He doesn't, mostly its just similarities that anal little twerps jump on and conclude that John is a plagerist.
You've probably never even heard Death and Transfiguration.
-
What does bother me, however, is his penchant for copying others. Take, for example, the disturbing similarity between the Superman love theme and one of the main themes in Richard Strauss' Death and Transfiguration. He really needs to refrain from doing stuff like that; it's absolutely unnecessary and makes me and others feel a bit ashamed of him.
you know,we don't care. It only bothers snotty classical elitist
So believing plagiarism to be bad is "elitist"? I've never heard that defense before. I would think it's just a basic part of human morality to find fault in someone artistically profiting off of the work of others. What makes me most upset about these instances of plagiarism is that they are completely uncalled for; John is clearly a skilled-enough composer to do without them.
-
I just finished listening to the entire thing. I loved it! I absolutely loved it! Admittedly, I enjoyed some parts more than others, though. Ironically, and to my surprise, my favorite cue is "Call of the Crsytal". It was my favorite cue in the previews, and now is my favorite on the album.
Heres the thing, though. I would like some input from those who have the soundtrack and have listened to it. Does it seem like JW has pulled a James Horner in that he has borrowed from himself quite a bit? We've had reports of War of the Worlds (Intersection Scene, which is not complete JW anyway...its Stravinsky) being used, I've heard some Minority Report, some Jurassic Park, a whole lotta Memoirs of a Geisha, and some of his work for the Olympics. I'm not really complaining (as I probably would if it were done by Horner---further explanation below), but it seems to happen a lot.
Overall, I loved it. I have only listened to it in full once, and will porbably listen to it again (a few times) tomorrow!
About John Williams and James Horner: It does not annoy me that John Williams has utilized self-ripoffs because he does not do it often. Hell, if this is the first time that he has done to this extent in his career of nearly 50 years, thats great! James Horner seems to be building and keeping his career going by doing this, which is why I find that I get annoyed by it.
OK, off to bed now. I am tired, and have to get up early. Enjoy listening to the score, all.
It doesn't bother me Williams might copy himself from time to time. What does bother me, however, is his penchant for copying others. Take, for example, the disturbing similarity between the Superman love theme and one of the main themes in Richard Strauss' Death and Transfiguration. He really needs to refrain from doing stuff like that; it's absolutely unnecessary and makes me and others feel a bit ashamed of him.
-
The mariachi music made me laugh out loud. Not sure that's a good thing. Hating Mexican music doesn't make me a racist, does it?
It just sounds so...carnival-y.Is this in reaction to the mariachi music as it appears for a fraction of a moment at the end of the second Alkator clip?
-
Hayden Christensen should be grateful the most significant burden in his life is entertaining requests from fans that he sign memorabilia for them. If he doesn’t understand this, he should consider taking a trip to a third-world country or visiting a pediatric ward in a hospital.
-
I met Ian McDiarmid once. He's a complete a-hole, almost as mean as how he is in Star Wars.
Ian McDiarmid stalked for autographs
I don't blame any Star Wars actor for being an a-hole given what they sometimes go through. As Carrie Fisher once said, Star Wars has provided them with "a small merry band of stalkers." I was at a screening of Shattered Glass at the Chicago Film Festival a few years ago and some of the SW fans were pretty obnoxious and angry with Hayden Christensen when he didn't take 6 hours to sign every toy, poster, book etc. for everyone lined up outside of the theater.
I met him because he happened to be in the audience at a classical concert I was attending. We weren't at a fan-filled event. He was not being mobbed or harassed. I approached him politely in intermission, telling him I enjoyed his work as an actor; he half-heartedly said "thank you" and then rolled his eyes at me and turned away with the clear intent of trying to ignore me. He's an a-hole. I've met Martin Sheen, who is a much bigger star than McDiarmid is and also presumably much more sought after by fans, and he's one of the friendliest people across whom you could ever come.
-
DARTH VADER: Master, is Revenge of the Sith a film?
EMPEROR: No, it's just a movie.
DARTH VADER: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I met Ian McDiarmid once. He's a complete a-hole, almost as mean as how he is in Star Wars.
-
Is Spielberg into all of the alien conspiracy theories or something? It makes you wonder when the theme of extraterrestrial encounter recurs over and over again throughout his body of work. Supposedly, his earliest home-camera movies as a child were also about aliens, and his dad, who was an engineer, helped him to make a rudimentary special effect that looked like a UFO for them. With such an interest in alien movies so early on, it appears this fascination is something more than a mere calculation that a movie, if aliens are put into it, will automatically improve its chances for commercial success.
-
Here’s another one: Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story. First of all, I didn’t so much as snicker once throughout the entire duration of the film, very bad considering I was supposed to have been watching a comedy. Secondly, the whole movie was so convoluted that when it was over, I still felt as if I had never seen it.
-
All the critics lauded the plot of Donnie Darko for its supposed brilliance, but I was thoroughly disappointed by it. Richard Kelly poses to the audience mystery after mystery to be disentangled, but rather than trying to resolve them meaningfully, he explains them away by making up a bunch of pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo, which, on top of it, can be barely understood from watching the movie alone and is only clarified by reading his nonsensical theories in their entirety on the film’s website. Additionally, when Donnie resets time at the end, it is presumable Patrick Swayze's character will have never been discovered as a child pornographer, which is very dissatisfying, especially since Donnie goes back in time to "take all those hours of pain and darkness and replace them with something better." Kelly further tries to wriggle out of this dilemma by saying on the website Patrick Swayze's character had phantom memories of getting caught in the alternate timeline which drove him to shoot himself. The plain truth is that Kelly made a script too complex for his storytelling abilities to handle, so he came up with a series of ridiculous cop-outs to fix what his mangled plot couldn't.
I agree with the critics. The movie is fascinating and one of my personal favorites of this decade. I'm glad that the film wasn't explanatory because film is not about resolving. The answers are not important.
Why, because Kelly is a bad screenwriter?
-
All the critics lauded the plot of Donnie Darko for its supposed brilliance, but I was thoroughly disappointed by it. Richard Kelly poses to the audience mystery after mystery to be disentangled, but rather than trying to resolve them meaningfully, he explains them away by making up a bunch of pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo, which, on top of it, can be barely understood from watching the movie alone and is only clarified by reading his nonsensical theories in their entirety on the film’s website. Additionally, when Donnie resets time at the end, it is presumable Patrick Swayze's character will have never been discovered as a child pornographer, which is very dissatisfying, especially since Donnie goes back in time to "take all those hours of pain and darkness and replace them with something better." Kelly further tries to wriggle out of this dilemma by saying on the website Patrick Swayze's character had phantom memories of getting caught in the alternate timeline which drove him to shoot himself. The plain truth is that Kelly made a script too complex for his storytelling abilities to handle, so he came up with a series of ridiculous cop-outs to fix what his mangled plot couldn't.
-
I have been wondering about styles composers have for instrumentation: what instruments does Williams (or any composer) use more and what less? Do you hear an oboe in Goldsmith's scores often and so on. One might say that it depends on the film he is composing not having preferences and that could be true.
But still do you honorable film music fans think that there are certain styles visible concerning instruments?
John Williams likes French horns—a lot.
-
Erich Wolfgang Korngold scored The Sea Hawk, which featured Claude Rains, who appeared in Lawrence of Arabia with Peter O'Toole, who appeared in Goodbye Mr. Chips which featured music adapted and conducted by John Williams.
Next: Mako
(edit: I just realised that there's a blindingly obvious answer to this one.)
(edit no.2: Actually, two blindingly obvious answers.)
George Korngold, Erich's son, was John Williams' record producer on a number of recordings. Was that one of the obvious answers? If so, what's the other one?
-
The Dark Knight appears to be getting the most hype out of any of the films being released this summer movie season. As with Cloverfield, much of the new Batman movie's promotion is being carried out through an ambitious viral-marketing campaign.
-
Korngold once said he couldn't write below his standard when scoring movies just because some people consider it a lesser musical art form. I think it's the same Williams. I believe he tries to write the best he can for each project, whether for film or for the concert hall. He clearly enjoys writing for the screen immensely, otherwite he would have stopped doing it a long time ago.
His film music is not a lesser manifestation of his true artistic indentity. I simply cannot believe that. And his film music is every bit as important as his concert music.
I would be devastated is Williams decided to stop writing for film, as much as I enjoy his concert music.
Music is music...
-Erich Wolfgang Korngold, 1946
That's all that needs to be said.
-
Btw there is a new re-recording of Sea Hawk complete:
http://www.musicweb-international.com/clas...d_chan10438.htm
Well it is not complete score recording but rather a condensing of the score into 76 minutes (in 6 suites) as the site informs us. Interesting addition to the Korngold re-recording canon. I might pick this one up just to hear another interpretation of the classic
Despite some portions of the score in this album being omitted, this is probably the best recording to get right now. I love what Stromberg and Morgan are doing, but they've got to find a way to get that tinny, dry sound out of their recordings.
-
Another composer I like is Einojuhani Rautavaara. Is anyone else here interested in his music?
-
There is nothing, either, in the recent Williams style that suggests an influence by John Adams' music. In any case, one track from Artificial Intelligence might resemble somehow that post-minimalist style.
There is a cue in War of the Worlds that was pretty much lifted from a passage in El Nino. I find many parts of John Williams' Soundings to be Adamsian. Certain portions of Catch Me If You Can show Williams' to have certainly been influenced by minimalism, if not John Adams specifically.
I also enjoy Corigliano, but he is more hit or miss with me, and I don't think I've ever felt fully satisfied with any piece of his I've heard. There is always something I find in his music which I feel to be lopsided and awkward. Adams' sense of unity and proportion is very remarkable, and in those qualities, he may stand by himself right now, even above Williams.
-
I'm sorry, but to suggest that Don Davis was 'inspired' by The Death of Klinghoffer: Chorus of Exiled Palestinians when he composed The Matrix is folly and just plain daft.
Then you disagree with Don Davis because he said in an interview he wanted The Matrix to sound like John Adams. Go to the 8 minute mark and listen.
I didn't intend for people to just listen for the resemblance. If you just start searching through the music to find the part that sounds like something else, of course you're not going to get it.
-
I'm curious to know what non-film, "concert music" composers who have been active in recent times people here find interesting. The parameters of the discussion can also encompass concert compositions by composers who are usually known for their film work.
I'll go first: John Adams. John Adams is a postminimalist composer probably best known for his political opera Nixon in China. Though he himself has never written a score for a high-profile film, composers such as Don Davis and, more recently, John Williams have been profoundly influenced by him. Here are some examples of his work:
The Death of Klinghoffer: Chorus of Exiled Palestinians (Listen to the end if you want to know from where the score to The Matrix came)
The 2nd OFFICIAL Indy IV Score Thread
in General Discussion
Posted
I, personally, don't see much of a similarity between Don Juan and Indiana Jones. An additional example of lifting which is more obvious to me would be the similarity between the Luke and Leia theme and Make Our Garden Grow from Candide. Sure, it would sound kind of ridiculous to cite your sources in a piece of music in the a way researcher would in a scholarly paper, but just because it sounds more profound not to disclose from where the material came doesn't mean it isn't dishonest to take material from others and pass it off as your own. Also, people here keep accusing me of implying myself to think John Williams is a bad composer and that I would be "lowering my standards" by listening to him. I have repeatedly said I believe, very much on the contrary, John Williams to be a highly talented composer; it's just that he has this funny little habit sometimes. Perhaps the habit is not even intentional; it can be very easy to mistake an idea floating around in your head as your own when your memory of where you first heard the idea is a little weaker than the memory of the idea itself.