Similarities between Howard Shore's LOTR scores and John Williams' scores

[Richard Penna 3,688]

Speaking personally, I'm absolutely sick and tired of the broken record that presumes any counter argument, alternative angle or indeed jokish banter where Williams' music is concerned is automatically presumed to be a mean spirited afront to both the composer and his most loyal of fans. That in itself is a hoity and unassailable brand of arrogance which permeates the board easily just as much as the throwaway mockery and daily tit-for-tat, and yet those staunch fans act like their shit doesn't stink. Knock it off!

This.

It's not even that JW is being criticised (and that could be understood); rather that other composers are suggested as having the same grasp of the orchestra that he has, (or if not that, then the same understanding of what makes music emotional) and it's baffling why some people seem to be so offended by this.

[Joni Wiljami 1,206]

And vice-versa. I actually think that Shore followers(yes it is more like a religion) are more "thin-skinned" if someone is not praising him.

Another characteristic of this board (since Incanus is in a mood to list them), is prickly tension and touchy sensitivity whenever anyone dares to make light of the tone or given matter in relation to their, no - our - blessed maestro.

Speaking personally, I'm absolutely sick and tired of the broken record that presumes any counter argument, alternative angle or indeed jokish banter where Williams' music is concerned is automatically presumed to be a mean spirited afront to both the composer and his most loyal of fans. That in itself is a hoity and unassailable brand of arrogance which permeates the board easily just as much as the throwaway mockery and daily tit-for-tat, and yet those staunch fans act like their shit doesn't stink. Knock it off!

We all know there's a contingent of Williams followers who'd love nothing more than to keep this place a serious hub for all discussion about John Williams the composer sophisticate; happily sucking the personality and character out of the place while they're at it. Which is a shame and ridiculously selfish - since they must surely fail to realise that it's the fruity way and flow of this place which provides the forum's beating heart.

I was responding to more of a perceived "group reaction", to put it a little too bluntly, and perhaps a little more specifically to Quint's post (which I found very understandable, but in need of a clarifying reply).

Marcus, I've always very much enjoyed your extremely insightful posts, which are unfortunately rarer and rarer, but I'm afraid the musicians perspective is simply getting more and more predictable and tiresome. It's a historical thing here - for a musician to speak out in Williams' defense from a purely experience and technical standpoint - as if John's skill and sophistication automatically and just as a matter of course bests all [new]comers.

It's just a chronically limited pov to some fans here, and it all gets a bit boring when it shows up again and again.

As a musician I take this as a hint and I will leave this forum for good. Yes, have a party.

ps. It's been very rainy summer and the mushroom season started, supposed to be brilliant. To the forest!! Adios Señores.

pps. I will be lurking once after Lincoln been released, how bad you guys will consider it.

[Quintus 5,399]

Actually Hornist old boy, your voice is one of the more balanced 'trained' one's here, which even though I frequently disagree with you (and sometimes agree) I for one appreciate your consistency. That and you just have have thick skin, as per a stipulation of membership here.

[A. A. Ron 1,742]

And vice-versa. I actually think that Shore followers(yes it is more like a religion) are more "thin-skinned" if someone is not praising him.

Are you sure you aren't thinking of Zimmer followers?

Seriously though, we're all here out of appreciation for somebody. Even Zimmer. No reason to demean the composers whose styles we don't care for.

[Hlao-roo 389]

Speaking personally, I'm absolutely sick and tired of the broken record that presumes any counter argument, alternative angle or indeed jokish banter where Williams' music is concerned is automatically presumed to be a mean spirited afront to both the composer and his most loyal of fans. That in itself is a hoity and unassailable brand of arrogance which permeates the board easily just as much as the throwaway mockery and daily tit-for-tat, and yet those staunch fans act like their shit doesn't stink. Knock it off!

This.

It's not even that JW is being criticised (and that could be understood); rather that other composers are suggested as having the same grasp of the orchestra that he has, (or if not that, then the same understanding of what makes music emotional) and it's baffling why some people seem to be so offended by this.

But this is such a blatant caricature; I don't know anybody here who thinks any and all criticism of Williams is automatically mean-spirited. What's most alienating about this forum, I think, is that people, myself included, can be reckless about how they express themselves but don't necessarily take responsibility for their infelicitousness, preferring to brand others as touchy, sensitive, thin-skinned, and so on. Quint, I really don't understand why you would find it beneficial to rail against the supposed intolerance here, but do so in such exaggerated and hostile terms. I don't see "personality and character" in that; I just see boorishness and rudeness, and I think you owe people an apology.

[Quintus 5,399]

Oh piss off. I wasn't railing against anyone FYI, but rather suggesting that one controversial approach to dealing with strong opposition to one's personal opinions isn't necessarily more respectful than another in relation to both the subject and others involved - especially when it's masqueraded as phony authority poorly veiling an underbelly of sanctimonious condescension. Some people cut right through that shit, I'm sorry if you find that objectionable but I'm afraid it's just tough.

And for the record, if Marcus was offended by my response to him (I don't think he particularly was) then I certainly do apologise to him for giving him the wrong impression. But you know what I think Alan? I think you just got offended on his and others behalf.

But this is such a blatant caricature; I don't know anybody here who thinks any and all criticism of Williams is automatically mean-spirited.

This is a comfortable fallacy you have brought forward to support your point. I'm afraid your version is just untrue - I see it every day here, many of us do.

[Brónach 1,302]

Zzzzzzz.

[Quintus 5,399]

Indeed.

[Hlao-roo 389]

Not seeking to pick a fight; you might be right, Quint, that your post was conveniently representative of the type of post I personally find overbearing and distasteful.

I continue to disagree that any such person as you describe exists. I think there's a difference between people who routinely disagree with the criticism of Williams they encounter and people who consider the criticism itself some sort of intrinsically hateful attack. As I tried to imply in my previous post, I think what incurs a defensive response a lot of the time is the unnecessarily strident manner in which such criticism is sometimes presented.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Late to the party, but I don't care how much experience and talent a composer has - if he's not inspired, the result isn't going to be great.

[Hlao-roo 389]

Makes sense, although "inspired" and "great" are hazy terms. I think what Quint was getting at in his post was that we each bring very different perspectives to bear upon the music we listen to, perspectives that sometimes can't successfully be bridged. And so when some exalt the inevitable professionalism, detail, and compositional sophistication that Williams brings to his music, others balk because their buttons aren't pushed by these virtues, or these virtues alone. The misunderstanding lies in the fact that for a lot of people in the former category, such as Marcus, their experience of the music is not a clinical exercise, as it might seem to others, but a strongly emotional one.

[gkgyver 1,645]

And vice-versa. I actually think that Shore followers(yes it is more like a religion) are more "thin-skinned" if someone is not praising him.

I'm not sure, I have the opposite impression, that some people here react allergically specifically to LOTR. You won't have a problem discussing other composers' work and even comparing them the Williams, but as soon as someone wants to discuss LOTR or compare it to the maestro, chances are some will act as if it were some kind of sacrilege to do so.

I don't know why that is, quite often I get the impression that the simple reason is jealousy.

[chuck 154]

Breaking news: Howard Shore is Angela Morley in disguise.

[Hlao-roo 389]

I suppose it's possible to explain KM entirely in terms of insecurity and hang-ups, but I think it's also possible that some people just don't like Shore's style very much, or at least the Hollywood "epic" style that he fashioned for The Lord of the Rings films. Action scenes are scored somewhat more ambiently and less kinetically than what would be standard with a Williams, or even a Goldsmith. The tone is less swashbuckling, the orchestrations less embellished, and compositions themselves less contrapuntally interesting.

[Quintus 5,399]

Makes sense, although "inspired" and "great" are hazy terms. I think what Quint was getting at in his post was that we each bring very different perspectives to bear upon the music we listen to, perspectives that sometimes can't successfully be bridged. And so when some exalt the inevitable professionalism, detail, and compositional sophistication that Williams brings to his music, others balk because their buttons aren't pushed by these virtues, or these virtues alone. The misunderstanding lies in the fact that for a lot of people in the former category, such as Marcus, their experience of the music is not a clinical exercise, as it might seem to others, but a strongly emotional one.

Nobody is suggesting musicians like Marcus, or Hornist lack any sort of emotional attachment to the awesome universal sweep that is music - such a statement would be a complete nonsense. No, I, for one, am merely claiming that a certain contingent of the trained and musically educated, perhaps naturally and justifiably, can't help but let their knowledge colour their response and indeed personal enjoyment of music; seemingly at the detriment of other, perfectly reasonable, and actually - I'm arguing - often more balanced and pure considerations, regardless of a piece's technical proficiency and its provenance. Which only becomes a problem for the many untrained listeners when instead of simply sharing their appreciation and opinions on a work, the students of music theory are often compelled to apply a preachy persuasive argument in which they always proceed to lecture others on how we all should listen to a piece and how we all should appreciate and respect it on their all knowing terms. Their arguably more linear, even purity-compromised terms. And that gets annoying to those who have vastly different, simpler methods of appreciating music.

[Hlao-roo 389]

I get where you're coming from; I'm not sure I perceive a more visceral experience as somehow more inherently "balanced," though. I don't separate a person's "knowledge" of music from their "enjoyment" of it in the same way you do. I think there's a conceptual distinction but not a practical one.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I get fed up with the aditude of some of the classically trained members here. They think they have a better understanding of Williams' music simply because they studied orchestral music.

They know more about the technical aspects, but I still maintain that's not really what music is about.

It's how it makes you feel.

On a pure compositional level most modern JW scores run rings around Shores LOTR! No doubt about it. But many of those scores don't involve me emotionally nearly as much as LOTR does.

If loving the LOTR is wrong, I don't wanna be right!

As for Koray's comment about inspiration. this is indeed a slippery slope.

Inspiration, is great when it appears, but it's an unpredictable element. It's not something you can schedule or factor in. A composer might be scoring a film that does not particularly inspire him, yet he can do a fantastic job. Goldsmith's Air Force One might be a good example. It's a wonderful and very effective score, but it was written in two weeks by two composers and Goldsmith probably took the job because of the big pay check . That doesn't stop the fact that the main theme is fantastic and The Hijacking is one of the best action cues of the 90's.

Also people tend to confuse the composer being inspired or not with their own opinion about a certain cue or score.

If they love it, then JW was deeply inspired, if they didn't, then JW was just working on auto pilot.

[Richard Penna 3,688]

Very true - it's one of the most fascinating parts of the scoring process for me - was the composer genuinely inspired for a particular cue, or were they just doing their job as a professional?

I just played Yoda and the Younglings on Spotify, and if JW did indeed find something inspiring in this scene, I don't feel any of it, and I can think of plenty of composers whose approaches would've been more interesting than what we got here.

Remember that word: interesting. The cue can be as complicated as you want, and have Marcus and KM studying the sheet music in utter musicgasm, but I'd rather have music that I want to replay again and again.

But then again, there's the other side of that coin - there are loads of composers I've heard recently whose orchestrations made my jaw drop in addition to being really memorable.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

KM doesn't study sheet music.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I personally find simpler tunes to be more effective on an emotional basis.

[Incanus 5,714]

People often mention the relative simplicity of musical structures in Shore's writing for LotR and what most do not know is that it was an entirely conscious decision to evoke certain antiquity and age and feeling of history. Shore slowly adds e.g. contrapunctal writing as the story progresses and becomes more complex. He also while taking sync points and even the smallest gestures into account musically tends to write broader, leaner lines for action yet is capable of engrossingly complex layers of thematic orchestral writing where he meshes his ideas into amazingly well flowing constructs, almost like musical machinery, where you suddenly realize, that all these smaller ideas are actually part of a whole. A good example are all the ancillary Mordor motifs, that work quite well on their own to evoke dread and evil but then play so efforlessly together in many scene, the Weathertop being one of my favourite moment where this happens early on in the story. I think the best way to hear these layers is either in concert or listening to the 5.1. sound of the CR DVDs as the stereo mix of the CDs can't quite capture it all clearly.

Shore also gives in to the fanfarish heroic writing very slowly in the trilogy out of conscious decision, the swashbuckling reserved really for RotK, where he does it for the fun of it e.g. in the battle of Pelennor Fields.

[KK 3,307]

Well put Incanus. When people criticize for Shore's action or other LotR music to be not as meticulous with its synch points (resulting in cues verging closer to mickey mousing, though obviously not quite there), they forget that Shore consciously took the decision to approach the score with broad harmonic strokes to create an atmosphere of antiquity. In fact, Shore's work is a lot of musical atmosphere, choosing to take the time to develop unique musical flavours for the multitude of different concepts in the trilogy over rigorous attention to complex technical work. Its why there are such clearly distinguishable identities when it comes to thematic representation like the exotic Eastern flavour of the Lothlorien material or the 5-beat rhythm of Isengard.

And Incanus pointed out, Shore's work is about bringing all these smaller and simpler ideas into an incredibly complex whole. All these small Mordor motifs and character leitmotifs are all simply small parts of a large machine. Much like an extended 10 hours symphony. Its why I appreciate RotK the most out of the trilogy because it really shows how the final product was supposed to be and the true intentions of all the thematic ideas introduced earlier on. To hear moments like when all the Ring themes come together at Mount Doom is wonderful and incredibly satisfying.

[publicist 4,643]

Very true - it's one of the most fascinating parts of the scoring process for me - was the composer genuinely inspired for a particular cue, or were they just doing their job as a professional?

Often enough, they don't know, either.

I still cringe at the notion that i as a non-trained musician listen to, say, CHASE THROUGH CORUSCANT and don't get the music. It's bollocks. I can pinpoint quite concisely why i think a lot of the action music JW writes nowadays may be accomplished and exact on a compositional basis, but it's neither brilliant music nor brilliant film music (emphasizing the latter) - especially comparing it to all that came before it. This all may partly lie in the eye of the beholder, but i think after roughly 20 years of listening experience in all kinds of music, you pick up on the skills to differentiate between musical forms ranging from plainsong to Mahler or Bruckner symphonies and free jazz improvisations - what are their goals, how they are accomplished. This has nothing to do with a kinky woodwind doubling at 02:43 etc. but how the general piece or work unfolds and how it compares to other works in the field.

If someone tries to tell me a very elegant and well-written score like WAR HORSE, which basically is Williams waxing poetic on works of the past (JANE EYRE, THE REIVERS, THE PATRIOT) is head and shoulders above any other musical work written today i cannot help the loud chuckle. Not that it matters, though...

[Richard Penna 3,688]

(publicist) Generally it's only head and shoulders above most other scores today because not many composers are given the encouragement and musical opportunities that Spielberg gives Williams. Plus there were less areas for temp track influence, and we know of Williams' love for English music. It's clear he was having a ball with this score, and in this case, I believe it allowed his experience to shine.

In the case of A's DD, I don't consider it a particularly amazing piece of music anyway. We'll never know what JW's level of inspiration was for the prequels, but all we know is he gave it his best shot - and some of it was great music, and some of it wasn't so great.

[Quintus 5,399]

It's these ancillary components of what it means to listen and study music which the trained often seem so quick to overlook, or worse, dismiss.

[publicist 4,643]

(publicist) Generally it's only head and shoulders above most other scores today because not many composers are given the encouragement and musical opportunities that Spielberg gives Williams. Plus there were less areas for temp track influence, and we know of Williams' love for English music. It's clear he was having a ball with this score, and in this case, I believe it allowed his experience to shine.

I don't begrudge WAR HORSE its status as very respectable film music, only that a nostalgic score heavenly leaning on past successes like that should or could be the artistic pinnacle of music written in the last 10 years is presposterous.

[Hlao-roo 389]

People often mention the relative simplicity of musical structures in Shore's writing for LotR and what most do not know is that it was an entirely conscious decision to evoke certain antiquity and age and feeling of history. Shore slowly adds e.g. contrapunctal writing as the story progresses and becomes more complex. He also while taking sync points and even the smallest gestures into account musically tends to write broader, leaner lines for action yet is capable of engrossingly complex layers of thematic orchestral writing where he meshes his ideas into amazingly well flowing constructs, almost like musical machinery, where you suddenly realize, that all these smaller ideas are actually part of a whole. A good example are all the ancillary Mordor motifs, that work quite well on their own to evoke dread and evil but then play so efforlessly together in many scene, the Weathertop being one of my favourite moment where this happens early on in the story. I think the best way to hear these layers is either in concert or listening to the 5.1. sound of the CR DVDs as the stereo mix of the CDs can't quite capture it all clearly.

Shore also gives in to the fanfarish heroic writing very slowly in the trilogy out of conscious decision, the swashbuckling reserved really for RotK, where he does it for the fun of it e.g. in the battle of Pelennor Fields.

Good insights, just want to clarify that my post wasn't intended as a critique of Shore, but as an explanation of why the stylistic approach he adopted might be less appealing to certain slices of the film music listening community.

The more one appreciates what Shore was trying to do with his music, I think the better chance one has of enjoying it, but it remains that his music might not be for everyone, and some of the things I pointed our earlier are potential explanations.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

From a musical perspective, Hornist has every right to be dead serious. I can't think of a single effort by Shore, nor of any other Hollywood composer in recent years, that has come close to "rivalling" the quality of Williams' mature writing. Ironically, given the premise of this board, this is precisely the kind of feedback likely to be dismissed as fanboy-ism...

How closely have you listened to Howard Shore's work? And what specifically would you argue makes writing more or less mature than the other?

Art is not particularly democratic, save for the one fact that hard work does pay off. And when tremendous talent, almost unfathomably vast experience and an incredible work ethic sustained over the last 65 years or more combine, what you get is something truly unique.

...

There is a certain amount of luck involved, of course, dealing superficially with external factors, opportunities, connections, providence, but the deeper luck is the combination of the above mentioned qualities (talent, training and tenacity), and the strength and energy to pursue the task of musical excellence for such an extensive amount of time.

The point I'm making, is this: Williams, through his unique experience, brings something entirely beyond the usual scope of film music (especially nowadays) to any project he scores. And that shines through even moments of temp-track derivation (if indeed that they be), simply because what he does in purely musical terms is at another level altogether.

You know, I hate to say it Marcus, as I really admire your work, but I think this is a relatively simplistic, dare I say an art school textbook definition of what quality art is comprised of. It's a lovely and ideal thought, something those of us in the arts would love to believe is true. All we gotta do is be fortunate to be discovered, meet the right people, get an education, put in hard work, rack up some experience, and we are on the road to greatness.

In the context of a real working world all those elements you mentioned are important, but ultimately a small handful of parts in the collection of innumerable variables and pieces that comprise a quality work of art.

Furthermore, rather than allowing you to explore each individual work on its own merits, this mindset will drop you straight into the trap of believing the fallacy that just because someone has authority (through experience and education) that their work is automatically good. The creepy part is, because of the lovely way generalizations work in the mind, you won't even realize it you are doing it. It muddies your objectivism. And the only weapon against it is to consciously be aware of when you are doing it. "Am I really analyzing, or am I allowing my preconceived notions to drive my analysis?"

It's a tempting mindset to be in, especially if you've been immersed in academia for a lengthy period of time, but it will be valuable to you in the real world to break from it. Your work will become better because of it, because you will gain an appreciation of the multitudes of variables and their complex interactions that go into making good work.

Hard work, experience, and education are just fragments of what you need. They can be very helpful in developing a solid foundation to approach the challenges of, but they are no means to an end.

[Richard Penna 3,688]

The point I'm making, is this: Williams, through his unique experience, brings something entirely beyond the usual scope of film music (especially nowadays) to any project he scores. And that shines through even moments of temp-track derivation (if indeed that they be), simply because what he does in purely musical terms is at another level altogether.

That kind of statement is the sort of marketing thing that composers put on their website. And it's always a sugar-coated way of saying that they write music for a living; because that doesn't really make anyone stand out by itself.

I've skimmed through rather a lot of Williams scores recently, since buying a load on Amazon marketplace - Far and Away, Seven Years in Tibet and Amistad, specifically. First thing, yes, he's very good with making simple melodies very memorable. However, once you take those melodies and ideas and look at the orchestrations... there's nothing transcendent or 'another level' going on here, to my ears. It's just well-composed music, and I'm sure that there are many other composers who would approach the same material just as well.

If you're studying his music as a fellow composer, and being utterly bewildered at his apparent genius - good for you. But it's irrelevant to me as a listener (and I suspect to most directors too). If it has an emotional meaning of some sort, great. If it doesn't, then I really don't care how many years it took to perfect that woodwind flourish.

[Faleel 5,348]

I have heard people say "John williams shows how to NOT write music"!

[Marcus 390]

Dear Blume,

First of all, thank you for your kind words regarding my work; they mean a lot to me.

As to your questions, I'll try my best to reply with clarity, and simplicity where I think (hope) it can suffice. In reverse order:

1. "Ideals of Art": If what I wrote comes across as simplified or relatively "textbook", it may be because the only thing we truly can influence to any considerable degree, is our choices concerning craftsmanship and work ethic. Beyond that,things quickly take a turn for the metaphysical. And I'm certainly not one to deny the importance of all the myriad of unknowns factoring into what constitutes a successful life in the arts, but in my experience, in my life in the arts, there's little to be gained from attempting to "control" anything beyond one's own work-a-day tools. I believe in being humble before one's chosen art form, which I personally think is the exact opposite of being obedient to any pre-conceived notions whatsoever! It is not a matter of academicism, or of being loyal to anything other than one's own ambition and, with a little luck, potential. Granted, the ethos of this may be simple, but I believe this philosophy to be true, and also completely aesthetically undogmatic and flexible.

2. "Maturity in Art": As simply as I can possibly sum this up, it's empathy. Empathy through knowledge and experience, empathy through seeing clearly and fully, empathy in being honest and truthful. "Honesty" and "truthful" are lofty and potentially untangible qualities, but if I am to be concrete, few media serve better than film music: As a film composer, you respond to an external drama; you may comment on various aspects of it, or elect to play indifferent to it, but ultimately, what you write will be seen & heard as a response, either to a specific scene or to a broader context. And this is -for me, at least- where technique and craft come into play. By craft, I mean to imply the sum of one's experience.

In general terms, film music today (especially in Hollywood, with a select few exceptions!) is unspecific. It captures drama, emotionality and psychology (if at all) only in the very broadest sense. Music exists as a kind of sonic prop, an adrenaline filter, and mostly only marginally effective, meaning it will perhaps propel the action, but seldom anything more than that. I find an alarming amount of film music completely interchangable. There's probably been some truth to this ever since a "film idiom" was first established, and before that, an echo of this unpleasant truth rings through all times and cultures, whenever a language becomes more or less cemented. Still, I find myself only rarely touched by most recent film music. Nor do I find how music is currently being used in film very interesting. There are exceptions -Thomas Newman, Alexandre Desplat, Elliot Goldenthal and a few others (John Corigliano more than most, whenever he scores a film); composers who still seem interested in exploring what music can do for a film. I enjoy Howard Shore's music to Cronenberg's films quite a bit (I remember loving "Naked Lunch" many years ago!), so I'll include him in that list. But: I don't think Shore is a particularly strong or interesting orchestral composer; that really isn't his forte, and this brings me back to the concept of "maturity":

Artistic maturity has to do with mastery, sincerity and depth of perception. It has to do with multi-layeredness, with "totality of vision" (the way something is constructed from beginning to end), and with having the vocabulary to be sufficiently articulate, being able to say what you want, and also to say the right thing at the right time (or knowing when to shut up!).

For one thing, I find that the "interchangable-ness" of so much film music, stemming from a limited and/or oversimplified vocabulary, feels dishonest, untruthful. It ends up washy or vague, and it conveys drama -and life!- falsely. Falsely because it is neither sufficiently personal nor sufficiently accurate. It's as if the music doesn't truly have a point of view, and therefore it becomes irrelevant. Undoubtedly, this has to do with film becoming more and more a producer's medium, and there's less and less room for real creative contribution. But another factor is the dwindling of greater technical integrity, of real musical standards, within the film scoring community in recent years.

Now, I don't wish to imply that all film composers should be highly trained classical composers (although back in the day...): We need all kinds of composers, all kinds of vision, and I agree with you, Blume, that we ought to keep an open mind, to explore each work on its own merits. But merit really is the key word here:

I believe that our open-mindedness as artists must go hand in hand with a strong set of standards, with a sense of artistic morality, a sense of beauty. This can be just about anything, but it cannot be fickle! It must be severe and unyielding!

In closing: I really didn't wish to go into pitting composers against each other here, but let me say that I find that Williams, for instance, always seems completely sincere in what he writes, and always very specific: His musical characterizations are seldom interchangable, and more likely than not, they have a tendency to capture more than just one essential element of what they attempt to portray. It's precision work. It never feels as if he's writing down to an audience; there's always a complexity (and I'm not just talking about chromatic saturation or busy writing!) to it. And I think this stems also from a certain view of the world, and of life. There's a generosity, a kindness, about it, that to my mind, at least, bespeaks a certain wisdom and warmth that I find immensely attractive and admirable.

And beyond its servitude to film, there's the whole separate agenda of taking one's musical responibilities seriously. Williams obviously writes with a sense of purpose. He knows what film music can mean in terms of recruiting and exposing a broader audience to orchestral music and to classical music. His concert arrangements of his own film music often take on a level of ambition unprecedented in this particular brand of "cross over" genre (The "Children's Suite" from Harry Potter, for instance, or "Escapades for Alto Saxophone & Orchestra"). This unquestionably sets him very much apart from the rest of the world of film music, and is certainly one reason why so many musicians might have a strong sense of preference for his musical contribution to the world of film. It's wonderful serious music as well as wonderful film music.

[Quintus 5,399]

A very elegant, almost superlative response. I greatly enjoyed reading it and agreed with much of what you had to say.

In closing: I really didn't wish to go into pitting composers against each other here, but let me say that I find that Williams, for instance, always seems completely sincere in what he writes, and always very specific: His musical characterizations are seldom interchangable, and more likely than not, they have a tendency to capture more than just one essential element of what they attempt to portray. It's precision work. It never feels as if he's writing down to an audience; there's always a complexity (and I'm not just talking about chromatic saturation or busy writing!) to it. And I think this stems also from a certain view of the world, and of life. There's a generosity, a kindness, about it, that to my mind, at least, bespeaks a certain wisdom and warmth that I find immensely attractive and admirable.

Such a reverent passage here, and I agree with every single word. But I think it's only fair to point out that John Williams isn't the only sincere and honest composer scoring movies today. Despite your claims of not wanting to "pit" composers against each other, I can't help but feel you still sought to place Williams on a ruling pedestal of supreme professionalism and musical integrity - when the truth is there are, as you say, other working composers out there today who too apply a "precision" of thought and craft when writing for movies, and so of course I'm going to say that Howard Shore is absolutely such an example of this uttermost sincerity of which you speak. That does not and should not in anyone's mind take anything away from Williams' own accomplishments and his very serious approach to his art form.

But it sometimes just feels like the act of drawing such close comparisons, here, is just too much for the more devout Williams followers to bare. Which is a shame. Alan suggests, curiously innocuously I think, that this is simply a popular caricature of the board, a myth; but broadly speaking that just isn't the case.

[Romão 2,274]

Superb post, Marcus, I got teary eyed reading it and you were able to articulate perfectly (minus the technical details of which I am sadly ignorant), why the music of John Williams reasonates with so many of us. Brilliantly put indeed.

Also, very classy responde by Quint and thank you two gentlement by the great argument we're having here, which could have easily fallen in dire straits

[Incanus 5,714]

All I can say is that it has been a great pleasure to read such articulate and well formed and thought out responses, that have, as Romão says, not only said something about the standards with which we look at music and composers' work but also about the essence of why John Williams in particular is so special and resonates so strongly with many people, me included.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

I believe that our open-mindedness as artists must go hand in hand with a strong set of standards, with a sense of artistic morality, a sense of beauty. This can be just about anything, but it cannot be fickle! It must be severe and unyielding!

Well said.

However I think the subtler component of this paragraph that I want to get at is this:

Yes, it's wonderful to have a set of standards, sense of artistic morality, and a sense of beauty. I think you'd be a very boring individual to short-change yourself out of [continuously] developing and holding any one of those over your lifetime.

But these are all paradigms that are very fluid, susceptible to variability from person to person and even within an individual person who grows, learns, and experiences more and more. Even amongst those who claim to adhere to the same standards.

It may be difficult to get John Williams, Marcus Paus, and John Corigliano in one room, but if we could it would be really wonderful to see how three very talented and well educated men have very differing senses of aesthetic, artistic morality, and even standards, despite a common classically trained background. Who knows, one of them might even hail Howard Shore's works as among his favorites, leaving the other two bewildered.

And I think the reason many of those with your particular line of thought end up a little antagonized in threads like this is because while I'm sure you are aware of this subtler component, it doesn't come across as so. Your particular scheme of standards, aesthetics, and morality have led you to hold John Williams very highly. And the way you convey that often carries with it a sense that others holding up other composers, or even criticizing John Williams violates some divine law of music, rather than your particular aesthetic, moral, and technical musical scheme.

In reality this is a byproduct of being very articulate in this area as well as holding Williams in very high esteem. But pairing those two with sweeping statements like "I can't think of a single effort by Shore, nor of any other Hollywood composer in recent years, that has come close to "rivalling" the quality of Williams' mature writing." that gets you in a "pickle."

For me personally, I believe Shore's work on Lord of the Rings easily rivals some of John Williams' best works. And I'm willing to discuss why if you are interested. But I would readily agree with you that the collected works of Howard Shore hold little against that of John Williams.

But John Williams himself is responsible for some truly ugly music, especially in his later career. He's still the best living composer out there, within the bounds of my specific scheme of standards. But within my scheme, it's difficult to deny he's missed the mark on many occasions, and that his aesthetic sensibilities have developed in less than stellar ways over the last decade. I call it his "throw everything you know on the page" aesthetic. Against this, it's easy to point to Howard Shore scores that could rival John's work.

[gkgyver 1,645]

From a musical perspective, Hornist has every right to be dead serious. I can't think of a single effort by Shore, nor of any other Hollywood composer in recent years, that has come close to "rivalling" the quality of Williams' mature writing. Ironically, given the premise of this board, this is precisely the kind of feedback likely to be dismissed as fanboy-ism...

How closely have you listened to Howard Shore's work? And what specifically would you argue makes writing more or less mature than the other?

Howard Shore surely didn't write something like Close Encounters, but Williams just as surely didn't write a dense and captivating score like Silence Of The Lambs either.

And by the way, as enjoyable as it is to read an articulate response like that, to say that John Williams is that much more sincere and specific than all other composers, or indeed the only one, is absolutely ridiculous. And disrespectful.

Especially since his scores in the last 11 years, aside from Geisha and maybe War of the Worlds, are anything but extraordinarily specific.

Not to mention that this man has built a relationship with Spielberg, and is nowadays picking by himself what work he accepts, and is therefore in a position where he is able to express himself to the fullest, and has been in this position for many years. Not many other composers have that privilege, and certainly not today.

[Quintus 5,399]

And by the way, as enjoyable as it is to read an articulate response like that, to say that John Williams is that much more sincere and specific than all other composers, or indeed the only one, is absolutely ridiculous. And disrespectful.

Whether he meant it that way or not, it is certainly a tone I discerned, too. It's the slightly preachy aspect of an otherwise marvelous set of views and values which unfortunately become magnified to those who find such - dare I say - aloofness rather irritating. And yes, insulting; which is pretty much my original point when I felt compelled to join in the debate to begin with. Otherwise it was the best post here in ages.

[Richard Penna 3,688]

Have to agree - as sincere as Marcus' responses are, they are making assumptions about his working process and dedication to his craft which no one except him and Spielberg could possibly know.

Not to diminish the surprisingly mature discussion on this page, but Quint and I can't be alone in having found it rather preachy and condescending. I don't mean that as a criticism Marcus, rather that as a composer, you're approaching this with an opinion that Williams is the best in his craft (i.e,. understanding the structure of music), without stopping to think about how his music sounds from a 100% listening perspective.

The last 10 years of Williams have been a very mixed bag for me as a listener, regardless of how much blood and sweat Williams put into them. In some cases it's very evident where Spielberg has allowed him to choose routes that would give most executives a heart attack and go crying to Zimmer. But even when he is given those chances, there's absolutely no guarantee that the instrumentation or emotions he chooses are going to be meaningful to everyone.

I mentioned last week that cue from Minority Report that I found boring as heck - if that cue has some amazing techniques behind it, then knock yourself out studying the sheet music. However, as a listener, that doesn't matter to me. It meant nothing to me, and I've heard approaches to similar scenes from composers you'd consider far less gifted, which blew me away.

[Romão 2,274]

Nowhere did Marcus in his post claim that Williams was the only one with sincerity, dedication, work ethic or what not in his work. He gave his reasons, beautifuly I might add, why he holds Williams in such high regard. He didn't try to turn this argument into a A is better than B kind of thing. And he also went to great lengths to explain how Williams talent manifestates through other things than just pure technique. There's also a very clear effort to transform the music he writes into something other than pure film music

And anyway, I don't see what's controversial about an opinion that claims is the most acomplished composer in Hollywood right now, no matter what criteria you use to judge him. And his peers in the field (which I would definitely agree on Corigliano and Goldenthal, master and student, by chance), are pretty much absent in the Hollywood scene anyway

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

When Jerry was alive, John called him his favorite living composer.

When Jerry was alive, Jerry called John his favorite living composer.

That is all I need to know about my two favorite composers!

[Romão 2,274]

I might prefer John's music, but I still think Jerry was truly on the same level

[Brónach 1,302]

There's a point in genius and awesomeness were they all converge to more or less the same level.

[publicist 4,643]

When Jerry was alive, John called him his favorite living composer.

When Jerry was alive, Jerry called John his favorite living composer.

I'd sure love to see where you got that from. I somehow don't think either man said that at any time.

[Jay 37,363]

I've never seen that said before either

[MrJosh 892]

When Jerry was alive, John called him his favorite living composer.

When Jerry was alive, Jerry called John his favorite living composer.

That is all I need to know about my two favorite composers!

Don't forget about James Horner saying that his favorite living composer is James Horner!

[Quintus 5,399]

Nowhere did Marcus in his post claim that Williams was the only one with sincerity, dedication, work ethic or what not in his work. He gave his reasons, beautifuly I might add, why he holds Williams in such high regard. He didn't try to turn this argument into a A is better than B kind of thing. And he also went to great lengths to explain how Williams talent manifestates through other things than just pure technique. There's also a very clear effort to transform the music he writes into something other than pure film music

And anyway, I don't see what's controversial about an opinion that claims is the most acomplished composer in Hollywood right now, no matter what criteria you use to judge him. And his peers in the field (which I would definitely agree on Corigliano and Goldenthal, master and student, by chance), are pretty much absent in the Hollywood scene anyway

Hmm, you seem to be reading him differently to me. Literally, perhaps. Again, I'm stressing the perceived tone and agenda which some of us are picking up on, that's all. And you're right - there is no controversy at all in claiming that Williams sits at the top of the film composers pile right now, since that is arguably every bit the case. Which leads me to think you're reading something different to the rest of us.

When Jerry was alive, John called him his favorite living composer.

When Jerry was alive, Jerry called John his favorite living composer.

That is all I need to know about my two favorite composers!

Don't forget about James Horner saying that his favorite living composer is James Horner!

I thought that was Tommy Newman

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

When Jerry was alive, John called him his favorite living composer.

When Jerry was alive, Jerry called John his favorite living composer.

I'd sure love to see where you got that from. I somehow don't think either man said that at any time.

I think Goldsmith's was in the famous AOL interview...maybe. John's was in a video interview.

[Romão 2,274]

I've read Williams saying Goldsmith was his favorite Hollywood composer. It was a long time ago. But I remember it clearly

Nowhere did Marcus in his post claim that Williams was the only one with sincerity, dedication, work ethic or what not in his work. He gave his reasons, beautifuly I might add, why he holds Williams in such high regard. He didn't try to turn this argument into a A is better than B kind of thing. And he also went to great lengths to explain how Williams talent manifestates through other things than just pure technique. There's also a very clear effort to transform the music he writes into something other than pure film music

And anyway, I don't see what's controversial about an opinion that claims is the most acomplished composer in Hollywood right now, no matter what criteria you use to judge him. And his peers in the field (which I would definitely agree on Corigliano and Goldenthal, master and student, by chance), are pretty much absent in the Hollywood scene anyway

Hmm, you seem to be reading him differently to me. Literally, perhaps. Again, I'm stressing the perceived tone and agenda which some of us are picking up on, that's all. And you're right - there is no controversy at all in claiming that Williams sits at the top of the film composers pile right now, since that is arguably every bit the case. Which leads me to think you're reading something different to the rest of us.

I might be indeed, but being familiar with Marcus posts, I don't think he wrote in any sort of demeaning way towards other composers. But he is highly reverencial of Williams (as we all are, in a way or another) and sometimes veers towards what some might consider hyperbole (I don't, personally), but never at the expense of other composers

[gkgyver 1,645]

I would also have to disagree with him that Williams' music past 1999 is marvellous music as well as marvellous film music.

When I compare SW the original trilogy and SW the prequels, you could certainly say that the originals are very good as a standalone experience.

However, listening to the prequels, or Indy 4, I rarely get the impression that I'm hearing good music. And in some instances, I don't even hear particulary great film music. I hear music that, while technically accomplished, is just there. What saves these scores are the great themes and concert suites.

Without them, these scores would be absolutely boring to me.

[Faleel 5,348]

I don't agree on the prequels Gyver, I listened to AOTC recently (complete) and I enjoyed it just as much as the OT scores.