tony69

My latest piece. I was asked to write a Jazz Fanfare, and I was like "WTF is a jazz fanfare? Having no clue, i used a classical approach but utlized jazz voicings, jazz harmonies, jazz scales (esp blues notes) and swing. I rather like the jazz fugue i have near the end. Also, note that there is the classical idea of motifs used in the piece, where everything is based on 2 motifs. This was commissioned for Toronto FANFARES project, and SOUNDaxis. http://www.acidplanet.com/artist.asp?PID=809919&t=3471

from a composer's point of view, this is a ridiculous case. as a composer, what we write comes from what we hear. our stylistic tendencies represent an unbroken chain of influence from way back. the point is, it is not uncommon for a composer to sound like another composer. sometimes the similarity is completely intentional, say the piece is based on a previous work, or a tribute. ex. haydn in brahm's variations. in other cases, it's just an influence that is there. I think it is impossible for a composer to be completely original; everything originated from something. Thus, the Holst Foundation suing Zimmer is a ridiculous thing. It's like beethoven's descendents saying i'm gonna sue you because you used something that sounds like my 5th sympony (tho he doesnt have any descendents). Though, what i think the main point behind the case is not a case of plagiarism. it is more a case on not enough acknowledgement. I think holst foundation wants zimmer to acknowledge this influence.

i do not hear gotterdammerung, and i know that piece extremely well having conducted parts of it. where? if you're referring to siegfrieds' funeral dance which might 'kind of' be possible, i very highly doubt there's an intentional copying. that technique have been overused by many other composers, classical and romantic. and where's the holst? can someone point to timings in the barbarian horde or the battle.

HEARTBEEPS!

actually, that's not right. its: FEFDECCD.

ur joking. i've heard that one for sure. its in troy. over and over and over. in muted tpts.

how about missouri breaks?

No it isn't. There is one thing you study called orchestration, you know? And from my own perpective, as an artist (not a musician, but a painter), there isn't such a thing as a natural born gift from above... You work things out with a lot of work and swet put into it. Inspiration just don't it you, like a gift from the gods. Even if it seems that way, you just keep working things out on your mind, or at the keybord, or at a drawing board, whatever, untill the right ciombination eventually appears, but always a number of trial and error aproaches. Any otehr thing is leaving things to chance, and if you hit gold, well, you just got lucky. And usually, and from my own experience as an artist, that kind of luck don't come buy all that often. i have to agree with miguel. i think people are confusing talent with skill. talent is innate genius that is like a seed. but you need the water, the air the right soil to allow it to grow. similarly, skill is those requirements. if one is not properly trained, then he will not be able to develop; that's the whole reason we have conservatories, etc. to teach you about different conditions and skills so that one can have a better music education. for instance, orchestrating 10 voices now seems really easy on my part. but i do remember a time 4 years ago where i could only hear 3 at a time, rather than 10. it takes lots of study of strauss, mahler, and bach to develop multi-voice hearing and eventually 10 voice orchestration. the reason john williams is so good is because he had so many years of study. composing good music is not an inherent talent. look at mozart's early works. they were quite bad, and very simple with very little depth. but he studied over the years of the jc bach, js bach, mannheim, and the capabilities sonata form to finally achieve the jupiter. contrary to what many people may think, composing music is not that mysterious a process. it is 99% perspiration and 1% talent, imo. it takes alot of background learning to be able to get great voice leadings, delicious harmonies, or orchestrations that sound good and are also playable.

the movie comes first. the score is subservient to the movie. its the golden rule of film scoring. all the composers will say the score must serve the movie, but if it achieves a life beyond the movie, that's an awesome thing, but that's not the goal. the score must heighten the movie or express what is not there or in some cases, to decieve the audience.

the list isnt rubbish. its quite telling actually. Notice it says PEOPLE VOTED. as in this is what the common people think. it may be rubbish in that the more elite soundtrack listeners disagree, but the common people think this. which i actually agree that if i had no background in music watsoever, i could agree with.

he is right. there is a winter olympics in the John WIlliams piano anthology.

i'd be rich. dude horner sells alot of cds. think of the money i'd get.

yes. i get sick of his postromantic style after listening to it for 2 hours. it's not full of enough emotion to me. its not intense enough, not enough development. not like mahler or tchaikovsky. williams is often too pretty. also half the time i think why listen to williams when i can listen to beethoven, mozart or bach? i can learn so much more from them. not that williams is a terrible composer, but he's not as talented as beethoven to me.

I totally disagree. Anyone who has seen Jerry conduct in concert (and I have several times) will put that comment to bed pretty fast. In fact, he's better at conducting than at composing. really. well then, someone bettter put a video up on youtube or something. i do want to see this.

Do you seriously want to know? depends. is it hot?

oh dear, i did mix them up...wow. this is bad, haha. i'm turning old.... entering the bloody number of the 2. oh the horror! wat will kurtz say about this scary number?

Well, it's not the easiest music to start with. At least not if he's talking about the full operas. Long after I knew the orchestral highlights, I still had to get used to the full deals (Die Walküre in particular took some time). Marian - currently re-listening to the cycle. haha i loved the full thing the first time i listened to it. i started with das rheingold which is the most tuneful of the operas. die walkure is powerful if you see it live except for the boring second half of the first act. i almost fell asleep in the opera house lol. however gotterdammerung, and 3rd act of siegfried. wow. unbelievably powerful. which conductor do you align urself with in terms of the cycle? solti? bohm? levine? karajan? neuhold? i am a solti lover.

haha thats SOOOOOOOO hilarious. its a very superficial resemblance i think. the song goes up in a sequence I IV ii V iii vi and i cant remember the rest off the top of my head. what is she saying btw?

i agree with stefancos. goldsmith is better by a small margin. williams is just lucky i think. goldsmith has alot of potential if he did the right stuff. He is definately the more creative composer and his orchestrations seem to be more sumptuous than williams. (less redundant doublings, more attention to detail - i'm comparing alien with ET) However, goldsmith is less of a conductor for sure.

I think the williamsesque thing is interesting. however u don't want to imitate williams. u want to be yourself, your own composer and not a williams-hack. As stravinsky told gershwin, "why be a second-rate stravinsky when you can be a first-rate gershwin?"

You werent' impressed with Der Ring des Nibelungens?! wow. wow. anyways back to your point, try out some Copland; Appalachian spring is particularly nice. very american, and if you like late 80s/90s hollywood, you will hear the influence of this work. mendelssohn fingal's cave is pretty powerful for a very classical piece. one of the most powerful pieces of music to me is Daphnis et Chloe, Ravel. you need the dutoit version however, because that is the definitive recordign.

not always:P. my composition teacher has this adage which i think is very important "too little of a good idea is bad. too much of a bad idea is horrendous."

I'm good at orchestrating. Is it easy? Yes. Is it easy to orchestrate well? No. See the thing is orchestration is to composition as colours are to painting. When i orchestrate i am painting with timbres to achieve what i want. The problem is orchestrating well. By that, I don't mean is it playable, which should be the first thing all beginning orchestrators learn. I mean whether it conveys what I want in the subtle ways without overdoing it. I'm a very refined orchestrator since I dont use sound masses, but rather, prefer a solo flute giving the melody over say flute, horn and violins. I prefer doing the most with less, which is what makes orchestration hard. You're looking for the perfect thing to give the perfect sound out of a palette of red, yellow and blue (suppose i continue my metaphor). i'm trying to reach the shade of green like that of the grass, and the trick is how do i mix them to get the grass sound? Orchestration never finishes for me. After hearing a piece performed, i will be like mr brahms and go back and make a change here or there. it's just like composition. the piece is never done. i will always go back and fix what i feel are errors. However you might have been asking how long it takes me to initially orchestrate, which for me is 2 weeks for one hour of material.

well, williams is a good conductor of his own pieces. when he does other works in the repertoire on the other hand, that's where he fails. his renditions of classical pieces are not comparable to karajan or solti for instance.

nice to hear that kent nagano and placido demanded for an opera. this is huge. now the snobby classical ones will be like "wow, famous classical people are acknowledging his shit. maybe we shoudl too."