Jump to content

Sometimes I wish John were more...innovative....


BLUMENKOHL

Recommended Posts

I am really enjoying reading this thread, but have been waiting to contribute. There are a lot of very good thoughts here. I think I have to side with the notion that John Williams is about as innovative as a film composer is allowed to be, and even then he does push on the walls. Why do we all gather here? We gather here for this reason. How is it that someone can push the boundaries of film composing, and somehow still make it listenable?

I think a lot of this discussion has to do with the word "innovative" itself. However, I don't know if what is meant by being musically "innovative" would be appropriate for whichever hypothetical film. Also, as said before, innovation does seem to be a young man's game. Independent films seem to be "innovating" all the time in both the films themselves, and the scores. But are they any good? I always harken back to "The Social Network". That score is extremely innovative, even if in just one way: utilizing the Swarmatron... but is it appropriate? Maybe... Is it good? Absolutely not. Would we hire John Williams to write a concerto for swarmatron and electronic orchestra? Probably not. Could he write one? Probably... would it be good? Most likely. Would that make him innovative? To some people perhaps, but I still believe that one has to be true to oneself.

To me, the truly innovative nature of John Williams has not to do with pushing the musical limits of the world. It has more to do with how well he can paint a picture with music, many many DIFFERENT pictures in fact, but still remain true to his signature sound. That nuance is one of the most difficult concepts to get, and it shows his finely aged experience. You can see this in scores like Lincoln, Stepmom, and especially The Terminal.

He has always been pushing the limits of film music, not just pushing, but redefining what it will be for the next decade, and all the other composers will be trying to keep up. He defined what the scoring style in the 1980s was going to be back in the 70s with Jaws, Star Wars, etc... The 80s were full of epic scores. That tradition continued even into the 90s. In the 80s he defined what the 90s was going to be with scores like The Accidental Tourist and Born on the Fourth of July. The 90s were full of scores that had a more subdued quality. But at the same time, John didn't allow himself to be defined by any of this. He wrote scores like Jurassic Park, and many others that went against this subdued approach. If you look at his scores from 1993-2000, most of them are more subdued, but he was redefining the approach the whole way, all somehow within the confines of film. He obviously didn't feel that just because a score is subdued, it should be void of cerebral allure. (James Horner fell into that trap, unfortunately.) And honestly, right now I think we are seeing the effects that A.I. and Minority Report have had on the film score industry. Those scores are over 10 years old already.

I feel like I could go on, but I don't feel the need to do so. I think that if you are looking for musically innovative of the world, then film music is not necessarily the place for it. However, John Williams is definitely the most innovative inside the confines of film music as one could possibly be. It is true that artists plateau, and he cannot escape that either. I think that he may be on one right now, but it also may be due to the projects for which he is writing. I hope that we see one more surge from him soon. Perhaps if he lives long enough to score the next Star Wars film, perhaps he can completely redefine the huge staple that he established long ago and that has lasted for so many years. We will see. I know it's in there somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am really enjoying reading this thread, but have been waiting to contribute. There are a lot of very good thoughts here. I think I have to side with the notion that John Williams is about as innovative as a film composer is allowed to be, and even then he does push on the walls. Why do we all gather here? We gather here for this reason. How is it that someone can push the boundaries of film composing, and somehow still make it listenable?

I think a lot of this discussion has to do with the word "innovative" itself. However, I don't know if what is meant by being musically "innovative" would be appropriate for whichever hypothetical film. Also, as said before, innovation does seem to be a young man's game. Independent films seem to be "innovating" all the time in both the films themselves, and the scores. But are they any good? I always harken back to "The Social Network". That score is extremely innovative, even if in just one way: utilizing the Swarmatron... but is it appropriate? Maybe... Is it good? Absolutely not. Would we hire John Williams to write a concerto for swarmatron and electronic orchestra? Probably not. Could he write one? Probably... would it be good? Most likely. Would that make him innovative? To some people perhaps, but I still believe that one has to be true to oneself.

To me, the truly innovative nature of John Williams has not to do with pushing the musical limits of the world. It has more to do with how well he can paint a picture with music, many many DIFFERENT pictures in fact, but still remain true to his signature sound. That nuance is one of the most difficult concepts to get, and it shows his finely aged experience. You can see this in scores like Lincoln, Stepmom, and especially The Terminal.

He has always been pushing the limits of film music, not just pushing, but redefining what it will be for the next decade, and all the other composers will be trying to keep up. He defined what the scoring style in the 1980s was going to be back in the 70s with Jaws, Star Wars, etc... The 80s were full of epic scores. That tradition continued even into the 90s. In the 80s he defined what the 90s was going to be with scores like The Accidental Tourist and Born on the Fourth of July. The 90s were full of scores that had a more subdued quality. But at the same time, John didn't allow himself to be defined by any of this. He wrote scores like Jurassic Park, and many others that went against this subdued approach. If you look at his scores from 1993-2000, most of them are more subdued, but he was redefining the approach the whole way, all somehow within the confines of film. He obviously didn't feel that just because a score is subdued, it should be void of cerebral allure. (James Horner fell into that trap, unfortunately.) And honestly, right now I think we are seeing the effects that A.I. and Minority Report have had on the film score industry. Those scores are over 10 years old already.

I feel like I could go on, but I don't feel the need to do so. I think that if you are looking for musically innovative of the world, then film music is not necessarily the place for it. However, John Williams is definitely the most innovative inside the confines of film music as one could possibly be. It is true that artists plateau, and he cannot escape that either. I think that he may be on one right now, but it also may be due to the projects for which he is writing. I hope that we see one more surge from him soon. Perhaps if he lives long enough to score the next Star Wars film, perhaps he can completely redefine the huge staple that he established long ago and that has lasted for so many years. We will see. I know it's in there somewhere.

This is a really good post, and pretty spot on. I'm not sure I agree that "Williams is definitely the most innovative inside the confines of film music as one could possibly be", because there are probably more innovative composers out there working right now, doing more "innovative" things. But are they as effective as Williams? Probably not. Merely being innovative doesn't necessarily mean you've created something effective and enjoyable. If innovation means a score has taken away from the film associated with it, in any way, it's failed, no matter what its merits as a piece of music.

Williams, were he a bit more selfish, could probably be more "innovative" in his scores, and draw more attention to them in that way...but that wouldn't necessarily make the film they accompany any better, and the film is what it's all about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

I resurrect this thread to again push my "Williams As Third Stream Messiah" case, and maybe draw Blume out in the process.

What do people think? Is that a fair label for him, is it his Great Innovation? Didn't I already make a thread about this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's not a trailblazer when it comes to ... crafting new harmonic landscapes or doing anything fundamentally new, really.

I mean, but, he does do that.

What John Williams has done well is take existing orchestral idioms and infuse them with his own interesting idiosyncrasies and exceptional dramatic instincts

And that's how. And it's not just orchestral idioms. That's what I'm getting at. Even if we want to limit it to harmony, I think he's mastered the synthesis of Third Stream like no one else before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's not a trailblazer when it comes to ... crafting new harmonic landscapes or doing anything fundamentally new, really.

I mean, but, he does do that.

What John Williams has done well is take existing orchestral idioms and infuse them with his own interesting idiosyncrasies and exceptional dramatic instincts

And that's how. And it's not just orchestral idioms. That's what I'm getting at. Even if we want to limit it to harmony, I think he's mastered the synthesis of Third Stream like no one else before.

I'm not sure what you (or anyone) precisely mean with Third Stream, but if you mean that he fused jazz harmonic procedures with "classical orchestral" writing, I completely agree. It's exactly what makes Williams Williams, and I am not aware of others who have done it so successfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you (or anyone) precisely mean with Third Stream, but if you mean that he fused jazz harmonic procedures with "classical orchestral" writing, I completely agree.

Yes, that's what he means. He uses the fancy term "Third Stream" to sound super intelligent, but in the end, he just means jazzical music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sick fuck!

Though i really don't know if these traits feature quite so strongly as these posts would have led me to believe. There are distinctly 'american' scores by Williams, and maybe ROSEWOOD more than SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (i.e.) and there are those that are deeply steeped in orchestral romantic tradition which also have these jazz/blues traits in very small quantities but on the whole, the idiom is the same as 100, 150 years before (Strauss, Wagner, the russians etc.).

I never saw this as a problem but it helped to cement my position that the (popular grand orchestral) scores of Williams and to a lesser degree James Horner belong to an older, a tad old-fashioned school of musical thought that applies classical traditions very broadly without imprinting too much of a 'filter' or unique stamp (say Morricone, Goldsmith and such).

While the quality of Williams orchestration, voicing, phrasing etc. is undoubtedly top-notch i prefer more idiosyncratic works. I love a lot of my Williams collection but i would be lying if denied that a good portion of it has become stale and somewhat boring to listen to over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you (or anyone) precisely mean with Third Stream, but if you mean that he fused jazz harmonic procedures with "classical orchestral" writing, I completely agree.

Yes, that's what he means. He uses the fancy term "Third Stream" to sound super intelligent, but in the end, he just means jazzical music.

Blah blah blah, that's what it's called. Mingus had a "Jazzical" album though.

the idiom is the same as 100, 150 years before (Strauss, Wagner, the russians etc.).

See that's just not true at all though. Again, even limiting it to harmony, there's an immense difference. And it isn't just the inclusion of more classical idioms younger than 100 years. It's the sensibilities of someone steeped in jazz and its colors and moods. The scores you mention are the among the *least* of the examples of what I'm getting at precisely because they're so obvious. Rosewood is bluesy and jazzy, but so was A Streetcar Named Desire. Both composers went overtly into that language sometimes, but the point is a far more pervasive and subtle absorption of those principles into the rest of their music. North, Goldsmith, Mancini, they all had it too. Williams seems to me to be the culmination. In every bit of music he writes? No. But in most of his concert pieces, and many scores whether in entirety or contained moments, he does things that have an air of unprecedented union between the two musical realms of his youth and education. It's hard to quantify in that it's just a feeling, just the way it sounds. But Schuller would have probably had trouble too. Fortunately I'm on a discussion board pitching an opinion and not trying to write and defend a thesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Thomas Snoozeman is more innovative. Obviously, that doesn't make one's music interesting zzzzZZZZzzzz. I just think it would be interesting to see John Williams apply all that brain power in completely new directions. A score of synthetic sound design! Just something...anything out of the box, en masse, instead of a gentle spice on a romantic John Williams score.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See that's just not true at all though. Again, even limiting it to harmony, there's an immense difference.

My gut reaction is different. Musical scholars may find these traces, what defines the most recognizable Williams for me is the strong russian leanings, the dedication to 'classic' Hollywood sound (all that and the schmaltz, too) and a certain melodic/orchestral sheen that is typical for film music academics like Waxman. A Franz Waxman score often was noteworthy in its day for harmonic adventureness and inclusion of popular idioms within the frame of a 'classical' score but i don't see that as big innovation point 30 to 60 years later and Williams seldom moved BEYOND these fringes.

That's not a criticism, just why i think your argument is stretching it all a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See that's just not true at all though. Again, even limiting it to harmony, there's an immense difference. And it isn't just the inclusion of more classical idioms younger than 100 years. It's the sensibilities of someone steeped in jazz and its colors and moods. The scores you mention are the among the *least* of the examples of what I'm getting at precisely because they're so obvious.

That's the problem you'll unfortunately face though as I'm sure the majority of the listeners here are only familiar with (for lack of a better word) the obvious and more superficial characteristics of jazz and perhaps blues and roots music to a lesser extent.

There have been discussions here about SW and Williams' use of jazz in that/those score(s) and the first thing which is always mentioned are the Cantina tracks, which like you say are the obvious choices and not really related to Williams' understanding and general implementation of his jazz based vocabulary.

I know Mike Verta has been talked about here recently-ish and this idea is something he always talks about in his masterclasses.

He continuously points out how you can take Williams' voicings and they'll just fall under your hands on the piano and voiced exactly as a jazz pianist would, it's very true and a nice example can be found in TESB documentary.

I've always found Williams' polytonal writing to have much more in common with jazz arranging and orchestration than other composers who by writing in a similar style seem to be more influenced by the classical tradition.

It's another reason why I find Mike V's music to have much more in common with Williams' work as he too was a jazz pianist, while the majority of others who 'imitate' that style seem to just focus on Williams in the classic orchestral sense and lack a kind of swing, deep inside their music.

Nothing really wrong with that but for me it's one of the main reasons why many great imitation pieces still lack something when compared to Williams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's not a trailblazer when it comes to ... crafting new harmonic landscapes or doing anything fundamentally new, really.

I mean, but, he does do that.

What John Williams has done well is take existing orchestral idioms and infuse them with his own interesting idiosyncrasies and exceptional dramatic instincts

And that's how. And it's not just orchestral idioms. That's what I'm getting at. Even if we want to limit it to harmony, I think he's mastered the synthesis of Third Stream like no one else before.
I would say that the fusion of jazz harmonies with more "classical" idioms is a big part of why his music is so fascinating and so uniquely Williams. I just mean to say that the idea is not that new.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See that's just not true at all though. Again, even limiting it to harmony, there's an immense difference. And it isn't just the inclusion of more classical idioms younger than 100 years. It's the sensibilities of someone steeped in jazz and its colors and moods. The scores you mention are the among the *least* of the examples of what I'm getting at precisely because they're so obvious.

That's the problem you'll unfortunately face though as I'm sure the majority of the listeners here are only familiar with (for lack of a better word) the obvious and more superficial characteristics of jazz and perhaps blues and roots music to a lesser extent.

There have been discussions here about SW and Williams' use of jazz in that/those score(s) and the first thing which is always mentioned are the Cantina tracks, which like you say are the obvious choices and not really related to Williams' understanding and general implementation of his jazz based vocabulary.

I know Mike Verta has been talked about here recently-ish and this idea is something he always talks about in his masterclasses.

He continuously points out how you can take Williams' voicings and they'll just fall under your hands on the piano and voiced exactly as a jazz pianist would, it's very true and a nice example can be found in TESB documentary.

I've always found Williams' polytonal writing to have much more in common with jazz arranging and orchestration than other composers who by writing in a similar style seem to be more influenced by the classical tradition.

It's another reason why I find Mike V's music to have much more in common with Williams' work as he too was a jazz pianist, while the majority of others who 'imitate' that style seem to just focus on Williams in the classic orchestral sense and lack a kind of swing, deep inside their music.

Nothing really wrong with that but for me it's one of the main reasons why many great imitation pieces still lack something when compared to Williams.

Great post, right on. And that's definitely part, probably the main part, of what so many of the imitators lack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, naturally. Cringey thread, particularly some incorrect suggestions that certain composers don't have "classical" training (as if lacking that were a bad thing even if).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post, right on. And that's definitely part, probably the main part, of what so many of the imitators lack.

I've been trying to find the video example that I mentioned ....but I can't, ha :lol: .......I'll look again later.

I once said Star Wars was pretty damn jazzy.

It didn't go over very well.

http://www.jwfan.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13678&p=364918

Yeah, I kind of remember that thread.

This idea of how we all identify or identify with something most certainly varies depending on the individual.

Perhaps because my background falls more to the side of black American roots forms, I'm sure that even I'm biased to see similarities and connections there more than somebody with a different background.

Am I seeing imaginary faces in the clouds? I've no idea but don't mind either way as I'm more concerned with the belief in my own connections with his music and however I personally choose to get there.

It's (always) interesting for me to read Marcus' posts as I think he's an incredibly gifted and intelligent composer, so it's interesting to see his reaction on how he feels that perhaps jazz plays a less important role in Williams' creative process .....although a handful of sentences hardly reveals all of one's musical thoughts and philosophies, so I'm sure Marcus would have much more to say about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I begin to ask myself if the occurrence of jazz influences is such a unique quality in itself. I like Williams voicings and phrasings but don't find them THAT distinctive on a scale of, say, Delerue, Barry, Jarre or even Bernstein and Goldsmith (to name a few peers).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess for me it's more about how the musical identity, its core values, stayed the same for decades. The were often film-related adaptations to zeitgeist but the main traits were established as early as FITZWILLY (the droll, Prokoviev-like style and also a lot of the dissonances). With others you have a much more recognizable difference in between the decades - you'd never mistake 70's Goldsmith or Morricone for 80's etc. but i don't find that true with Williams. That's why i naturally reject TGP's elusive thesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess for me it's more about how the musical identity, its core values, stayed the same for decades. The were often film-related adaptations to zeitgeist but the main traits were established as early as FITZWILLY (the droll, Prokoviev-like style and also a lot of the dissonances). With others you have a much more recognizable difference in between the decades - you'd never mistake 70's Goldsmith or Morricone for 80's etc. but i don't find that true with Williams. That's why i naturally reject TGP's elusive thesis.

But my thesis says nothing nor cares about changes in style over time... though I find it hard to believe one could confuse 60s Williams with 90s Williams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's true but that's how i expand on it: that the pure fact as such is much less noteworthy than an adaptation of changing times would be of which i hear rather little. And yes, if you listen closely enough to scores like FITZWILLY (just one example) or even NONE BUT THE BRAVE and consider different recording styles and orchestra sizes there actually is quite a bit of overlapping, if we discount your precious special case A.I. for a second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the first part of escape from city war of the worlds..?

or. Everybody Runs from minority report. or Zam the assassin and escape coruscant.

I always liked these pieces as they demonstrate mastery of conterpoint, almost closer to something Goldsmith would write.

but I think the general public can't appreciate it. You have to dumb it down for the masses but I'm glad when you compare SW to transformers. Transformers pales, I doubt in 30 years that music (as good as it is) will have stood the test of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that's definitely part, probably the main part, of what so many of the imitators lack.

I don't know if you've ever seen this great video before of the wonderful Russell Ferrante but again it just reminds me of how much I feel a huge part of Williams' creative process comes from this way of thinking ...and this is certainly not meant to be at the expense of trying to minimise the ernormous influence of his 'cassical' studies but somehow reveals how the two can meet and maybe all roads do lead to Rome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.