Who do the classical community rate...

[Quintus 5,399]

...as being the greatest working composer alive today? And where does Williams figure? I know there can be a certain snobbery towards him, but surely even amongst the elitists there must be at least some appreciation for his orchestral composition skills?

[GoodMusician 56]

I was majoring a small private college here in Florida known for it's excellent music program...

Suffice it to say, your answer wouldn't be very pleasant.

"There is no great composer alive today."

In all seriousness, they HATE John Williams with about as much passion as we love him.

They all say the greatest are dead.

I do know some who liked living composers like Hans Zimmer's score to Batman, modern Horner... and the like...which I find humorous because it's mostly stuff I can't stand... lol

But there are also those who like this... brilliant... but yet very unclassical guy...his name is just not comming to me...

He's the one who loves Tone Clusters... he's pretty new... he's written some amazing stuff though... very hypnotic. I thought one piece I heard a recording of was synth until I heard someone cough... then I realized it was just... unique orchestration that really brought out... these...amazing sounds...

Think A.I. in a way

THey like him lol

Becuase he:

doesn't rip of other people (like they say John Williams does)

and writes theoretically intricate music (which they care more about than anything)

This, atleast, is how the snobists were at my school... (snobists including teachers, faculty, and most of the student body).

[deimos 0]

You answer doesn't surprise me. Though I have no musical knowledge, those I know who have, tell me that Williams and filmscore in general are regarded as derivative and not serious.

[SomeNewGuy 0]

I know only one true classical music nut, and he generally looks down upon film scores. His two exceptions are Goldsmith (whom he says he enjoys simply for his Trek music) and Williams.

There's hope for him yet.

[Vaderbait1 1]

With hundreds of years of music history, I really doubt there is one person in the world who is a completely original composer. That is really bizarre that elitists would like Zimmer, who arguably doesn't actually make music as classical composers know it.

[superman 0]

John Adams

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

John Adams

The president?

[Eric_JWFAN 11]

...as being the greatest working composer alive today? And where does Williams figure? I know there can be a certain snobbery towards him, but surely even amongst the elitists there must be at least some appreciation for his orchestral composition skills?

As a former composition major, I can tell you some of more popular ones among students (now this was 10 years ago) were Gorecki, Penderecki, Arvo Part, and Ligeti but this is assuming you're talking about composers for traditional orchestra. Different answers for the avant-garde/experiemental crowd.

I can tell you that John Williams isn't too respected by composition students. I think if you go higher up and talk to serious composers and professors in the field, those people respect him. In my opinion, JW is THE best composer for orchestra alive today in any genre, be it classical or film.

[tony69 0]

well, among the best working composers, you have the minimalists (esp reich, though also adams and glass), part, ligeti, gorecki. film music is generally looked down upon, except for williams and goldsmith. i think it is because many of the other composers have a very standard style that we can sum up as the 'hollywood style' plus they did not go through the classical training that williams and goldsmith did. elfman for instance was a member of oingo boingo.

[batmanand 0]

Here in the UK, Gerald Finsay and (probably more than anyone) Karl Jenkins get a lot of classical airtime.

[bruckhorn 105]

I too, was a composition major-- at the wrong school, probably. There was quite the aforementioned "snobbishness" regarding all tonal music. On more than one occasion, I had a composition teacher take me aside and discuss how disappointed they were at how atonal I wasn't. They wanted the music to be a mathematical experience, while I wanted it to be an emotional one. The school offered a B.S. in music compostion, not a B.A. (That should have been my first clue...)

The only class that the school offered in Jazz was through the Black Studies department. (And that should have been my second clue...)

The only film composer that any of them admitted to respecting was David Raksin, who was a friend of one of the falcuty. It seemed that none of them wanted to admit that film music existed or that it was the most likely way any of us students had any chance of making a living composing.

This was twelve years ago, I wonder if it's changed since then...

[MAG-SI 10]

I think the main problem here is money. Didn't the same thing happen to Mozart?

Williams alone makes more money in a year than all "classical" composers together. This must hurt big time!

Everything Williams writes, gets released. Another low for them.

I don't know, if Shostakovich were alive and saying that Williams is a hack, then I would consider it, but now.....please..

Oh, did anyone see a London Philharmonic's documentary about them and stuff?

They were performing a new (modern) opera - weird shit. There was an "instrument" a metal trash can. Percussionist dumped in some metal chains to make "uniqe" sounds. But at the end when all was over, he threw the score in that trash can and narrator (in a way) thanked god it was over. Hilarious.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Everything Williams writes, gets released.

If only.

[GoodMusician 56]

I too, was a composition major-- at the wrong school, probably.  There was quite the aforementioned "snobbishness" regarding all tonal music.  On more than one occasion, I had a composition teacher take me aside and discuss how disappointed they were at how  atonal I wasn't.  They wanted the music to be a mathematical experience, while I wanted it to be an emotional one.  The school offered a B.S. in music compostion, not a B.A.  (That should have been my first clue...)

The only class that the school offered in Jazz was through the Black Studies department.  (And that should have been my second clue...)

The only film composer that any of them admitted to respecting was David Raksin, who was a friend of one of the falcuty.  It seemed that none of them wanted to admit that film music existed or that it was the most likely way any of us students had any chance of making a living composing.

This was twelve years ago, I wonder if it's changed since then...

It was two years ago for me... and the answer is No, it was just the same. You sure you didn't go to school with me? lol.

There are, however, large examples where this doesn't hold up.

It seems the more private the school is, the more snobbish people are. I hate to admit this but I've never liked classical music. It has ALWAYS put me to sleep... I mean, think back to my childhood at least , 18 or so years ago... you have the baby einstein tapes and such... where you're suppose to play classical music as the baby sleeps... That was me... so I have ALWAYS equated classical music with lying back on the couch, mid afternoon as it rained outside or as something at night that played softly on the radio as the cicadas chirped outside. lol...

But! I've always had John Williams CD's. It seems I was reered to be a John Williams fanatic. I use to LOVE this one CD I had. It was the Boston Pops/John Williams cd "Digital Jukebox." I loved it... never clicked though. Then Jurassic Park came out...and TLW...and Star Wars (again) and I started to see a pattern... "Hmm... maybe I like this guy?" lol On the Bus to school people would be listening to Brittany Spears and 98 Degrees, and I'd be listening to my complete DVD rip to Jurassic Park

I have friends who go to this large school, University of Central Florida. The composition school there is really great I'm told... And from what I could see they arn't snobs about the mediums. They, like Bernard Herman, see composing as just that...Composing... it matters not the medium in which it is in...it is still a challenge.

And then you have another school here in Florida called Full Sail that is pretty much a film school... dealing with all aspects of film. This is a private school but the difference between that and the one I went to is ...well... obviously that it had to do with film, not Classical composing.

I too, had a composition teacher who loved atonality. He would sit down at the piano in class and play 5 consecutiive half steps together and say what a wonderful chord it made. lol

And almost every composition project utilized some 20th century style... 12 tone etc. ... I somehow managed to find the tonality in them though and create barable pieces. My class was really eclectic. There was one kid who only wrote in like 3/4 and everything had a waltz feel. I had another friend who was definately celtic inspired... he, I felt, was my only true "competition" if you will. There was another kid who was inspired by spanish music, and then the rest were... uninspired .... then again, I can imagine how hard it is freshman year to be inspired by 5 consecutive halfsteps on the piano.

I have nothing against atonality... I think that there are times where it can be quite beautiful--like the guy I spoke about earlier. His stuff is... beyond words. There are times where I am, in sooth, as moved by his pieces as I am by John Williams...

And that's what *I* feel it comes down to. Musical connection... that...emotional touch. I wrote a piece where when I performed it for the class, everyone gasped ...it was so funny..EVERYONE...gasped... because I played...a minor 7th jump or something I think it was... and they just... were so moved by it.... and THAT is what I feel it should come down to.... not... "Who is it influenced by" but rather "How it influences you."

But again, they are musical purists and wnat theoretically difficult music. If you so much as hint as having influence by some other composer they throw you out in the garbage and say you rip him off.

blah

[Hitch 57]

John Adams

I like you already.

John Adams

The president?

I hate you already.

[orrakul 0]

I think that there will always be self-annointed "artists" who look down on anything that achieves mass appeal and financial success; they seem to believe that if something is popular, it must be inferior.

[Ollie 1,059]

I have little interest in what the "classical community" thinks of John Williams.

Seriously I could really care less. All that matters to me is what I think of him.

[Jediwashington 59]

Just wait...The classical community won't be able to get enough of him someday, but they like waiting until the persons dead before they even consider the music worth while.

But yes, there is a lot of snobbery. And as mark said, I don't really care. It's nearly the only way kids are going to learn about orchestral music, and if they want their field to stay competititve, they're going to have to go to it, because if it wasn't obvious enough, the amount of young people at concerts is about 1 or 2 out of 50.

Either way, I think Williams has done something wonderful for the classical community, getting many people interested in orchestral music before they develop that snobbery. If anything, they owe him, not the other way around.

~JW

[Marcus 390]

Very true on all counts, JediWashington!!

I've always found that the "elite" respects and admires John Williams greatly (John Corigliano, Yo-Yo Ma, Richard Danielpour, Andrew Litton, Gil Shaham, etc.), whereas "academia" will treat with scepticism anything that cannot be defended on purely analytical terms, and anything that does not adhere to a modernist conception of history and musical evolution.

Williams will survive them all, though...

[JMan 0]

If Wagner, Mozart, Copland, Bernstein, Stravinsky, etc were still alive today, theyd probably be doing film scores. That is the way of our time now. People need to have visual pictures in front of them for music to enhance. Thats even what John Williams says.

Some people, including the half arrogant college music professors, will not realize how wonderful his music is until he is gone.

[tony69 0]

Well, why does the classical community have a snobbery against williams? i think this can be because of 2 major reasons. Of course some of you will disagree with me in terms of some of my statements and cite bar numbers of different pieces as contradictions, but the classical community doesn't know every single williams opus. They can only judge based on what they've heard/seen.

1) He mainly writes in a neoromantic style for movies, which has already been 90 years too old. Classical music is about progress, not anachronicisms. Remember the famous story of Korngold. When he was a kid, strauss proclaimed him a musical genius. When he died, he was considered an old fashioned dud cuz he did not progress. I think this is one of the reasons, williams is an old fashioned dud in that respect.

2) His classical pieces are not that good either. When i mean good, i mean in terms of classical ideals such as motifs, development, motivic continuity through all the movements (the "Ursatz"). Do you see melodic inversions, inversions, etc? He is a tuneful composer, but tuneful doesnt cut it for the classical community. They want to see semblances of the serial row (which by now is also an anachronicism. it's 60 years too late).

The anachronicism thing is VERY important. It explains the lack of bach's popularity in his time by other composers, especially at the end of his life. He was writing in a style that was already superceded by the galant stile. Another example (but a success story) is beethoven. after his heroic period, he had a crisis in which the styles around him were changing away from the classical ideals. Some people were beginning to consider him old fashioned (from a biography). He changed his style accordingly and ended up creating the masterpiece Symphony 9, well recieved by everyone.

[tony69 0]

If Wagner, Mozart, Copland, Bernstein, Stravinsky, etc were still alive today, theyd probably be doing film scores. That is the way of our time now. People need to have visual pictures in front of them for music to enhance. Thats even what John Williams says.  

Some people, including the half arrogant college music professors,  will not realize how wonderful his music is until he is gone.

I 100% agree with JMan's statement. Movie music is THE new genre of the 20th century. However, it is not yet very artsy. Take zimmer for instance. I think that is the reason of the hesitation of composers to accept this medium. However, the lack of creative control for the film composer may make wagner hesitant to do film scores. He's used to TOTAL control.

[JMan 0]

Thanks man! beerchug

[Hitch 57]

I 100% agree with JMan's statement. Movie music is THE new genre of the 20th century. However, it is not yet very artsy. Take zimmer for instance. I think that is the reason of the hesitation of composers to accept this medium. However, the lack of creative control for the film composer may make wagner hesitant to do film scores. He's used to TOTAL control.

He needs a TOTAL RECALL.

[ymenard 54]

John Adams

Philip Glass

Ennio Morricone

[GoodMusician 56]

You know, JW, you're absolutely right.

As a kid, the only time I ever heard classical music outside of trying to sleep, was in cartoons. It was the thing that made me want to play a string instrument all my life.

I remember as a kid watching cartoons and hearing the classical music layered underneath and I loved how well it worked...and I wanted to be able to play music just like that.

So when I got to middleschool, I started playing viola. Tried to go to college for that, but realized it wasn't the only thing I could/would do so I stopped playing it as a major.

But now I'm into composing because of that. It's funny that some parents hate cartoons, but if it weren't for them, I wouldn't give a shit about classical music, playing a string instrument, or film scores at all.

It's kinda why my favourite scene in Close Encounters is when Roy wakes up, and the little girl is watching cartoons and she's like "Are you gonna yell?" and he says no... and he starts telling his wife he's ok, and he tries to break apart his mountain, and then he pops off the top and he see's it...

and the camera slowly pans up... and in the background, all you hear is the cartoon still playing...the music in the cartoon swelling. I loved that scene... it was simple... it was perfect... it wasn't overdone or anything and it was effective lol...

But yea, I mean, from cartoons, and then to my favourite movies like Jurassic Park... that's where I got my appreciation for music. My understanding of music, and how to compose and such didn't come from a book, it came from me listening to John Williams on the bus and studying it. Every once in a while I pick up something new I didn't notice about the piece and how he composes and how to compose...and I learn. That's how I learned. I didn't learn from some teacher, book or class... I learned by listening and studying.

So I completely agree that John Williams (and maybe even cartoons :-P) do a great service to society

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

It's kinda why my favourite scene in Close Encounters is when Roy wakes up, and the little girl is watching cartoons and she's like "Are you gonna yell?" and he says no... and he starts telling his wife he's ok, and he tries to break apart his mountain, and then he pops off the top and he see's it...

and the camera slowly pans up... and in the background, all you hear is the cartoon still playing...the music in the cartoon swelling. I loved that scene... it was simple... it was perfect... it wasn't overdone or anything and it was effective lol...

I was watching that film recently. That scene is great. If it were done today, when Roy rips the top off, all the ambient noises would disappear, to be replaced by some choral cue. Instead, the cartoon sounds continue in the background, juxtaposing the every-day noise with Roy's lone discovery, and underlining his disconnection from his family.

- Marc, to whom CE3K skyrocketed up the list of favorites after that recent viewing.

[GoodMusician 56]

Sorta like how Jaws, if it were done today, the shark would have been seen jumping out of the water,doing a backflip and a summersault, and then landing a 9.0 splash down before eating the girl.

heh

I personally am not a minimalist... I don't really enjoy it too much... but I find there is a place for everything and everything if in it's place can be amazingly effective.

I don't really care what they think, but when I do is when my friends mock me for liking him and for listening to him.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Sorta like how Jaws, if it were done today, the shark would have been seen jumping out of the water,doing a backflip and a summersault, and then landing a 9.0 splash down before eating the girl.

I remember the last time I watched Jaws (which was only the second viewing I think), there's this shot about seven minutes into the movie of Brody's truck driving into town. It's a long take, just taken from a tripod, and the car slowly drives towards camera, and then passes at quite a distance into town. It was then I got that "this is going to be great"/"they don't make them like they used to" feeling. Today, there would be some fancy shot with the car passing close to camera or something. Because apparently, motion equals drama and excitement. Blah.

[codanai 0]

2) His classical pieces are not that good either. When i mean good, i mean in terms of classical ideals such as motifs, development, motivic continuity through all the movements (the "Ursatz"). Do you see melodic inversions, inversions, etc? He is a tuneful composer, but tuneful doesnt cut it for the classical community. They want to see semblances of the serial row (which by now is also an anachronicism. it's 60 years too late).

Oh come on! "Not that good"?? You have heard his concertos, haven't you? Take the Cello Concerto for instance--it is absolutely modern, with Williams's most skillful, transfixing uses of atonality and chromaticism--yet, paradoxically, you can still hear that the music is based on the kind of unrequited passion of the Wagnerian operatic idiom (give your ears to the 4th movement, "Song"--hear how the cello just keeps reaching for something which always eludes its grasp--and you'll understand what I'm saying). And not to mention the absolutely impeccable orchestration, with a dialogue between soloist and orchestra which rivals that of Rachmaninov. Williams's orchestration is all that orchestration should be--colorful, unpredictable, organic, lush, and inspiring. I'm not saying he's the greatest orchestrator to ever live, but I would say he's John Adams's worthy competitor.

And I'm not sure what you mean when you say that he's not "good...in terms...motifs, development, motivic continuity..." I mean, are you serious? Once again, just listen to the Cello Concerto--something like the horn restatement of the First Movement's theme at the beginning of the Fourth Movement, and how Williams can develop the cello "Song" so satisfyingly and dramatically still boggles my brain.

Williams's concert works--his Cello Concerto, two violin concertos, "Five Sacred Trees," etc.--are just as brilliant as his film scores. They're elegant, complex, passionate, genuinely inspired. They're just not as accessible as his film scores. And any professor unsatisfied with the eclectic and impressive repertoire of the Maestro is either crazy or stubbornly ignorant.

[John Crichton 4]

I have little interest in what the "classical community" thinks of John Williams.

Seriously I could really care less. All that matters to me is what I think of him.

beerchug

[tony69 0]

2) His classical pieces are not that good either. When i mean good, i mean in terms of classical ideals such as motifs, development, motivic continuity through all the movements (the "Ursatz"). Do you see melodic inversions, inversions, etc? He is a tuneful composer, but tuneful doesnt cut it for the classical community. They want to see semblances of the serial row (which by now is also an anachronicism. it's 60 years too late).

Oh come on! "Not that good"?? You have heard his concertos, haven't you? Take the Cello Concerto for instance--it is absolutely modern, with Williams's most skillful, transfixing uses of atonality and chromaticism--yet, paradoxically, you can still hear that the music is based on the kind of unrequited passion of the Wagnerian operatic idiom (give your ears to the 4th movement, "Song"--hear how the cello just keeps reaching for something which always eludes its grasp--and you'll understand what I'm saying). And not to mention the absolutely impeccable orchestration, with a dialogue between soloist and orchestra which rivals that of Rachmaninov. Williams's orchestration is all that orchestration should be--colorful, unpredictable, organic, lush, and inspiring. I'm not saying he's the greatest orchestrator to ever live, but I would say he's John Adams's worthy competitor.

And I'm not sure what you mean when you say that he's not "good...in terms...motifs, development, motivic continuity..." I mean, are you serious? Once again, just listen to the Cello Concerto--something like the horn restatement of the First Movement's theme at the beginning of the Fourth Movement, and how Williams can develop the cello "Song" so satisfyingly and dramatically still boggles my brain.

Williams's concert works--his Cello Concerto, two violin concertos, "Five Sacred Trees," etc.--are just as brilliant as his film scores. They're elegant, complex, passionate, genuinely inspired. They're just not as accessible as his film scores. And any professor unsatisfied with the eclectic and impressive repertoire of the Maestro is either crazy or stubbornly ignorant.

I think you're having a blind devotion to jw. i do like jw, but he is not a god of music like wagner was. jw is THE best film composer alive, but he still has faults. i know some people on the board will agree with me that william's orchestration isn't THAT good when compared to other composers, in particular Respighi, Berlioz and Ravel. too much redundancy as in overdoublings, but then it may be due to functional reason, since the frequencies of the dialogue voice will interfere with the music. example: Harry potter main title, across the stars the third repeat, basically all woodwinds and violins. that's unnecessary doubling.

and wat i mean in terms of development is based on a reti/schenker/schoenberg view, which has dominated much of classical thinking in the 20th century. williams doesn't really exemplify that tendency. there are a few, such as ET; the 3 themes are based on the same idea. but williams is not a very good developer; he hints at themes a la ravel's valse, but does not break it up like beethoven or mozart and invert it, etc.

but anyways, i think we've had some 5 threads based on the merits of JW as a composer. maybe we should have a new clause in JWFan saying "thou shalt not repeat threads within 3 months."

[Jediwashington 59]

Harry potter main title, across the stars the third repeat, basically all woodwinds and violins. that's unnecessary doubling.

I don't know...that's a big thing that Williams heralds himself on, is his doubling. I think it's a good thing to double all those parts because the orchestra sounds completely different. He's not doubling all these instruments at forte, so it's not like it's a big deal anyway. He's doubling them at their lowest dynamic markings. I think it sounds creepy, which is a good thing. It's acctually my favorite effect of his.

I don't mind doubling when it's done with certain dynamic approches.

And no composer is a God, even Wagner, Bach and Mozart. They all have flaws.

I do agree that he's not that great of a developer, but most of the time other ways of developing melodies wouldn't come across to most audiances. I hate to say he's dumbing it down for people, but he probably is. Besides, I forget where I found such things, but I know he's used several of the development tecniques you're talking about.

But yeah, the classical community doesn't exactly get a good representation of him, as a John Williams piece is acctually about 2 hours long, the span of a film, of which most orchestras are playing a maximum of 10 minutes. It's easy to see why they don't like Williams when they barely get a snap shot of the score.

~JW

[Marcus 390]

I have to say, tony69, that I find your statements puzzling... Have you looked at "Five Sacred Trees"? It is extremely concise in its development, and great evidence to the contrary of your statements. I also think we should rethink our ideas of what constitutes "anachronisms" and what "neoromanticism" is. Williams is neither "anachronistic" nor "neoromantic". We have to remember that he is one of the very few composers today to grow organically out of a tradition: His language is neither a conscious recollection of past styles nor a stagnant take on the romanticism of, say, the 1880's to the 1900's-1910's... He inherited tradition from his teacher Castelnuovo-Tedesco (who inherited it from Ildebrand Pizzetti and Respighi) and from composers such as Korngold, which you mention, and has added to that language constantly, and has been singularly successful in making every technical and "stylistic" addition his own.

Schenkerian analysis is really not a tool to determine any other musical property than a general tendency of tonalities, and will not "prove" anything pertaining to the quality of Williams' writing. His orchestrations are better than Respighi's, better than Berlioz' and as good (but very different) as those of Ravel's. His doublings are very effective and very modern. And strikingly personal. There are no redundancies in his doublings; rather, he creates new "super-instruments" (like the "grand marimba" in the opening of "Catch Me If You Can" (marimba,pno,cl,vibes). You seem to suggest that a French-Russian- Italian( though not really) romantic-impressionistic aesthetic is somehow more "valid". Williams is one of the very greatest orchestrators known to me (and orchestration is something I take very seriously).

As for "inversions" and other (very simple) developmental procedures, well, TAKE A CLOSER LOOK!!

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

whats 'doubling'?

[A24 4,326]

whats 'doubling'?

That's different instruments playing the same "line".

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

ah thks. so, whats so bad about it?

[Marian Schedenig 8,172]

whats 'doubling'?

It's what you get when you hire Zimmer as an orchestrator.

The Patriot

[Ollie 1,059]

LOL

[Hitch 57]

I don't think that's funny. I don't think it's funny at all. I'm sorry.

[Ollie 1,059]

Party pooper....

[Hitch 57]

In a world full of poop, there's just one prooper. I'm Sir Alfred Hitchcock, the pooper scooper.

[tony69 0]

whats 'doubling'?

doubling is putting multiple instruments on the same line. i guess the best way to describe this procedure is with painting. you have ur standard colors, Red, blue, yellow, etc. then you can mix these colors to get other more subtler shades. in terms of music, you have ur standard orchestral instruments, oboe, clarinet, flutes, etc. when you double them, you get a different and more expressive timbre, though often, the expressiveness of the melody goes down (the general idiom is a solo instrument can be the most expressive since he is able to do rubato). one famous timbre is often used by elgar, Violincellos, Horns and Clarinet, giving you the "nobilimente" sound. Wiliams uses it ALLLLLL the time. Sometimes without clarinets though.

Anyways, when i was mentioning excessive doubling, almost all classical composers detest this technique. why? two reasons. REASON1 let me go back to the painting analogy. imagine now that ur mixing red, yellow, blue, green, purple, black, brown, orange, pink, etc. the result is some horrible colorshade. likewise, when you use too many instruments at once, you lose the uniqueness of the timbral combinations. now you have simple a sound mass. adding an extra trumpet makes no difference to the timbre; it still sounds the same. thus, this sound is very much not encouraged by the classical community. REASON2 by using so many instruments on the melodic line, you are depriving those instruments of other potential roles. in otherwords, suppose you had all the upper instruments play the melody and all the bass instruments play a bass line. in reality, you only have two lines but in octaves. wat about the inner voices? you could have so much more contrapuntal activity by removing some of the melodic doubling.

I am not saying william's technique in this regards is bad. it had offered me with some unique sounds i have never thought of. ex. vibes and piano in CMIYC or sull pont gliisses in chamber of secrets. but the fact that he resorts to excessive doubling in some instances (as mentioned earlier, across the stars) is not trend that classical musicians encouarge. this trend however may be due to time constraints. i have NOT seen any classical piece orchestrations, so until i do, i cannot make any comment on those orchestrations.

[Marcus 390]

I have to say, from studying Williams' scores very closely, that the one word that strikes me is "economy": There's very little on the page, and only what needs to be there. There are some tutti moments, as in "Across the Stars", where Williams pulls a "Tchaikovsky", but I find this to be very effective. Also, I think in general, Williams has about as much inner voice activity as the music can bear without losing clarity. Check out the violin concerto, 1st and 3rd movements. I really always feel that his doublings have a very clear purpose, and wouldn't have wanted them changed in the least, as it would have sacrificed the effect he obviously desired. Let us not forget that Williams is a more experienced composer and orchestrator than most classical and leonized composers throughout history. He knows what he wants and how to get it.