JW Scores Theoretical Analysis Thread

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Pi, the audience doesn't need to know how the magic works, but if the magician himself doesn't understand his trick then trust me, he is no magician.

This is why I choose not to study music.

I prefer to just listen to it.

I don't want to know how John Williams saws the lady in half, I just wanna see him do it.

[pi 0]

Yes I have a masters degree in music and know my theory in and out. I just enjoy the work of many of the composers who are not theory experts, and I think they shouldn't be judged on the method but rather the final result. That is the point of my defense, and my continuing defending of Zimmer and the like. Like I said I judge based upon how it works with the film. That is why I, unlike many people here, can still enjoy scores like Two Towers, even though they are "simple". I enjoy film music mostly because of the FILM part.

I have enjoyed this conversation though. Good point Steef. And all though I dont agree with some of you guys I like to read well organized statements.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I, unlike many people here, can still enjoy scores like Two Towers, even though they are "simple".

I'm sorry - what?

[pi 0]

I, unlike many people here, can still enjoy scores like Two Towers, even though they are "simple".

I'm sorry - what?

Alot of the "trained" people look down upon the LOTR scores on this board and the industry. Too simple, too many whole notes, no action fast tempi, etc... are common complaints.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

And yet the LotR trilogy has one of the most complex thematic structures I've ever heard in film scores. Does it really always have to lie in orchestration?

[King Mark 3,631]

this thread is too advanced for me.

K.M.

[Marcus 390]

pixie_twinkle, I love you! Marvellous, marvellous (and witty) analogies in your last post!

[pi 0]

If the magician perform the trick without the audience knowing whether he knows how it works and still gets applause he is doing something right.

cough, cough.... old Elfmann.

There is always the story of the director who made him PERSONALLY change a passage on a film just to see if he could actually do it himself. He wasn't allowed to talk to his orchestrator.

[tony69 0]

Tony, contrary to Marcus' support that is a poor argument. You have claimed that anyone who plays any instrument at any level and even gone to the lowest ring of musicians, pop musicians,  know theory? That is a observation with great fault, considering the subject.  Thats not the theory we are discussing, i am discussing not what the notes are on a piano, but more like academic level music theory. Theory 1, counterpoint 1,2, etc... Your beloved French sixth chords, row theory, shenker anaylsis, roman numeral procedures, modulation methods etc... YOu do not need to know any of that shit to be a successful film composer these days.  Yes of course you need to know how to make a sound on your instrument but any fool can do that.  

The most important thing you need as a film composer is a good, likeable personality with the clients. You can fake everything else.....and it has been done.

And yes, i have a four year old cousin, who can improvise on Heart and soul cuz i tought her this trick. PLAY THE WHITE NOTES ONLY! duh.

Well 3.141592, you did not specify what theory you were mentioning. Even the lowest "ring" of musicians know music theory. However, they only need to know whatever theory applies to them. Thus, if you hire studio musicians in the pop industry, you are expected to know chord symbols and all the stuff. improvisation on chords, etcetc. It is a standard that you MUST have or else quite literally you won't be able to get gigs. Likewise, with film music, perhaps you do not need to know what is schenkerian analysis but you DO need a grasp of tonality considering almost all the humamble tunes ARE tonal. You see where I'm coming from? Yes, film composers do need to be likeable etc. But they also need to know the basics.

P.S. With heart and soul, playing only the white notes do not work. Pretty soon even the improvisers discover that playing only F (accenting it) on the first two chords sounds horrible. They learn to stay away from that and stick to three main notes.

p.s.s. i love that analogy as well.

[ChrisAfonso 186]

What kind of story is that? Never heard of it, can you tell more?

Actually the statement that got me started in this debate was "it's not necessary for a composer to know theory for writing good music". And your statement that theory was detrimental to creativity. Not "being successful in the business", that's clear, these days.

Actually I don't mind that a composer doesn't have academic training if he writes good music. JNH, Elfman (before all others!), etc. ... great music. And again, for some composers, theory mustn't come with fluent mastery of music notation. When I hear Elfman's synth demos and the corresponding final recordings and determine that it's the same only sounding (acoustically) better, no doubt he composed the music, completely.

(Still, I believe he could be an even better composer had he studied at a conservatory ... but he is a damn genius already, so I can live with that *g*)

And to comment your JNH synth example, it's got nothing to with how the actual composing process is done. I don't care if he sits in an empty room just with a piano, pencil and paper, or at his computer with midi keyboard, playing everything instantly into the final mix. I work both ways, depending on the situation... everything equally legitimate ways to compose music (but still, at least with myself I notice differences on the passages I write without "listening aid", just with brain&paper, and those I write at the computer... I'd say to some degree, the medium influences the product. In what way I don't judge, I don't think that one is per se better than the other).

[pi 0]

Well this whole conversation depends on the definition of "knowing theory", i assumed everyone meant academic theory, like I wrote many times. Like when I was in school music theory, 1,2,3,4 + counterpoint + what have you. It can be agreed that orchestration and composition are their own animals. I assumed since I was at first speaking to Marcus, that we always speak in advanced lingo when we argue, that it was the level of conversation.

I don't even consider knowing all the lower stuff then that knowing theory, its just knowing music. The same as distinguishing between a cello and a bass and the same as a rock musician deciding to use a les paul rather then a strat. Most of that stuff is instinctual.

Music theory starts with intervals, key signatures, progresses to four part harmonies, resolutions, chord spelling, roman numeral anaylis, counter point all that yummy stuff. That is my impression of the matter. I consider Music Theory as the name of a class you take in conservatory or uni.

And Chris is right we also listen to non theory experts all the time. Basically all of rock music, basically all of jazz, alot of film, most of commercial music, most of pop music. Legends of the music world, Elvis, Lennon, Ray Charles, Quincy Jones, Robert Plant, etc... I bet only half of those mentioned could even read notes, but they are still damn good. Thats the point I made, you don't need to know college level music theory to write that stuff. Include the famous ex rocker film composers and you have the foundation of working A list composers in hollywood. Same idea applies to them and remember they have a film to work with.

And john Williams is just a wierdo cuz he is just so damn good at anything he does.

Anyway a point to TONY:

What sounds good is totally dependant upon the ear of the listener.

I can harmonize Heart and Soul a million ways.

I can solo in B major and it will sound like Mc Coy.

I can play in Ab Pentatonic to sound like Charles Mingus.

I can play in Bb Major 7 Pentatonic to sound like Chick Corea.

I can play in C major to sound like a rock ballad.

I can play in D7 (b5) to sound like Duke ellington.

I can play that f as a sus chord (as part as an f chord) and sound like elton John.

I can play one note over and over in a phat rythm to sound like dave brubeck.

Everything sounds good to someone if it is a GOOD idea. Which is what music is about.

[tony69 0]

What sounds good is totally dependant upon the ear of the listener.  

I can harmonize Heart and Soul a million ways.

I can solo in B major and it will sound like Mc Coy.

I can play in Ab Pentatonic to sound like Charles Mingus.

I can play in Bb Major 7 Pentatonic to sound like Chick Corea.

I can play in C major to sound like a rock ballad.

I can play in D7 (b5)  to sound like Duke ellington.  

I can play that f as a sus chord (as part as an f chord) and sound like elton John.

I can play one note over and over in a phat rythm to sound like dave brubeck.

good point:p. tho i'm not too sure a 4 year old will understand that a pentatonic scale will make is sound like mingus... or a sus chords sound like elton jonh... prolly they're just trying to learn how to sing baabaa black sheep at this time.

[Marcus 390]

Ah, at last, pi! Knowing you meant "theory" in a strictly academic context, and theory at a higher-than-rudimentary level, I finally understand where you are coming from! What of course becomes problematic, then, is that our references depend on commonalities of educational experience. As tony69 has pointed out, specifically, "theory" can be so many different things, and in so many different idioms. And even an introductory course in theory willl vary slightly from teacher to teacher, simply in terms of how the basics are presented, so academic theory really becomes difficult to narrow down with satisfactory precision.

I think ChrisAfonso has addressed, this has been a debate about the nececcity for a general cognitive approach to practical musicality, a general awareness of "what" we are doing, "how" and "why"...

I have only encountered a couple of people in my life of who can be said fairly that they really didn't have any theoretical understanding of what they were doing whatsoever, not on any level. And those cases have been bizarre, to say the least.

Even the most casual guitar-strummer will generally know that it is a D-major chord or an E7 or an A-minor he or she is strumming.

And I have to agree with ChrisAfonso also in that a composer such as Danny Elfman could only have become better with a greater grasp of theory, and a greater grasp of more sophisticated techniques.

And I'm sure you agree, pi, that we should always set high standards for ourselves,- the very highest!

And with people like John Williams around, we know we're in for a lifetime of learning.

In the words of Maurice Ravel contemplating the achievements of Mozart: "I will never achieve that level of perfection, but I get up and work every morning just to see how close I can come".

[pixie_twinkle 48]

pixie_twinkle, I love you! Marvellous, marvellous (and witty) analogies in your last post!

This could be the start of a beautiful friendship!

[AI 0]

pi wrote:

And john Williams is just a wierdo cuz he is just so damn good at anything he does.

And you seem to accept this, and gladly dwell in mediocrity. Yeah that will certainly get you furthur in the game, but it won't get you much respect. What is it you value?

[Salacius 7]

The lack of proper training and the separation from the traditional orchestral writing will be the downfall of film music.

Many film music composers start by listening and imitating other (not so good)film composers, slapping chords with bland melodies on the computer and getting away with it.

I hate to say it but for me when Williams leaves this Earth film music will be no more.

As good as all the other guys are their work, compared to the great Williams, old Goldsmith, old Horner etc etc, is a mere wallpaper.

[Damo 0]

Oh come on seriously if John Williams can be the "best" composer in the world then whoever follows his style of film music that I guess that anyone can be just as good as John Williams. You or everyone seem to think that it is impossible to be just as good as John Williams...which for a fact it can possible considering how good a film composer like John Williams can get.

It not like "proper best film music" is the end of the world when John Williams retired or dies or whatever.

[pi 0]

Well here is a question, who is the composer in thinks out of the box more?

John Williams or Danny Elfmann

My answer is Elfmann, he may not be as good a composer as Williams, but he takes more risk and quite honestly has a more original sound then Williams, who relys upon great classical composers.

[Marcus 390]

Oh, I beg to differ:

Of course, it depends on what you mean by risks... Williams is a far, far more mature artist than Elfman, and makes different choices. Williams is a learned, highly cultured man, and probably perceives human drama in different terms, musically and emotionally.

Elfman is certainly the quirkier and goofier composer, if that counts for taking risks or "thinking out(side) of the box". To say that Williams relies more on great classical composers is like saying Prokofiev, Shostakovich or Ravel rely on great classical composers: Williams IS a great classical composer, and relies on a great tradition, as do all greats...

And Elfman is not, but he's an interesting composer in his own right. I don't think Elfman is more original, but simply very identifiable due to a quirky and unique idiom. But comparing them is a lot like comparing a great novelist with a great cartoonist or a writer of graphic novels, or a Shakespeare-sonnet with a rap lyric:

The idioms are vastly different, and require vastly different training.

It's like saying Tupac was more original than Yeats...

Oh, and pixie_twinkle: beerchug

[Eric_JWFAN 11]

Well here is a question, who is the composer in thinks out of the box more?

John Williams or Danny Elfmann

My answer is Elfmann, he may not be as good a composer as Williams, but he takes more risk and quite honestly has a more original sound then Williams, who relys upon great classical composers.

Williams established a brand or a franchise of high quality complex writing for the traditional symphony orchestra, and maybe he feels he has an obligation to stick with that. That's what most of his films call for and what his fans expect. Elfman doesn't have this reputation, so he can take more risks and do things like score for 18 flutes, prepared piano, and detuned banjo.

I'm sure Williams is creative enough to make the most staggering, unusual, unorthadox, risk-taking score, but why should he?

[pi 0]

I am sure if Williams had scored beetlejuice we would have a very nice and safe score, great themes. But it would not be as original and quirky and Elfmann got. Cuz Williams imagination of music runs in a different direction, high class orchestral music, tight, awesome, thematic. Elfmann was like, let me make this wierd by adding synths and this wierd catchy tune and makiing it bouncy and all, cuz thats where his abilities lie.

[ChrisAfonso 186]

But then Williams wrote "Witches of Eastwick", which has its fair shore of Elfman-like stuff... He just has to score the material the calls for it.

Rosewood also isn't your typical full orchestra Williams fare, at least most of the time.

[Salacius 7]

Oh come on seriously if John Williams can be the "best" composer in the world then whoever follows his style of film music that I guess that anyone can be just as good as John Williams. You or everyone seem to think that it is impossible to be just as good as John Williams...which for a fact it can possible considering how good a film composer like John Williams can get.  

It not like "proper best film music" is the end of the world when John Williams retired or dies or whatever.

Nobody is as good as JW-simple as. He retains the traditions of orchestral writing plus he has added with his own stamp.

My opinion will change when I'll hear a score worthy of comparison with JWs’ work.

Not a score on the JW style. Not at all. Just a score on the same level of quality.

[Composer_Fan 2]

Your beloved French sixth chords, row theory, shenker anaylsis, roman numeral procedures, modulation methods etc... YOu do not need to know any of that shit to be a successful film composer these days. Yes of course you need to know how to make a sound on your instrument but any fool can do that.

The most important thing you need as a film composer is a good, likeable personality with the clients. You can fake everything else.....and it has been done.

This is pretty much the saddest thing I've read in this thread.

Also, I think the LOTR soundtracks are very complex, great scores!

Could we please return to the subject of JW theoretical analysis? Maybe make another thread to discuss the rights-and-wrongs of film score....

I'm interested in this Flute Concerto that was mentioned earlier.

[Trent B 337]

this thread is too advanced for me.

K.M.

Indeed, even just reading this page I'm a little lost...I'll stay out of this thread now.

[treadmond 0]

Could we please return to the subject of JW theoretical analysis? Maybe make another thread to discuss the rights-and-wrongs of film score....

I agree completely. The debates over the merits of theory in listening to JW or in writing film music go on continually in numerous threads. I created this one with the intention that those of us who want to break JW's music down theoretically could do so and share observations, etc., and those who didn't want to participate could go elsewhere.

[Salacius 7]

Hey guys,

Not sure if anybody mentioned that before but how about the writing through modes?

Clearly Williams uses them a lot in his writing.

ie Over the Moon is contracted over the Lydian mode at the beginning of the theme.

He doesn't keep at one mode all the time. He leaps from modes to modes with ease and this may give him the freedom to write the way he does.