John Williams' role in the Gershwin/Copland/Bernstein Legacy

[indy4 155]

I'm curious what we think his role is. Is the heir to this legacy, as several have suggested? After all, he is bridging the gap between popular and so-called "high-brow" music, and he has a distinct association with Americana--whether that's an accurate association or not. Is the legacy itself too artificial to be true? Indeed, all three composers were very different from each other, maybe we're just fooling ourselves by making this grand oversimplification.

I got to chat briefly with composer Frank Ticheli recently (most famous for his works for wind bands). Each movement in his Clarinet Concerto (wonderful piece btw) pays tribute to a different member of the group (movements are titled Rhapsody for George, Song for Aaron, Riffs for Lenny), so I asked him who he felt was the most appropriate heir to this powerful threesome. His first reaction was that there was nobody. Then he named off a few composers that I admit I had never heard of, and forget their names. I asked if he would consider JW, and he immediately dismissed him as being entirely different--not just for being primarily a film composer, but because "he takes from everybody" (he did note that JW was a nice guy). Obviously I disagree with the criticism (especially since Bernstein was just as eclectic). But I'm curious to see what others think.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Surprised Ticheli would be that dismissive actually. Seems like a guy who would know better.

[Joni Wiljami 1,206]

So Frank Titsheli is basically bashing JW?

Who is he?

John is in his own league, compering to these three fine composers by the way.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

I think John fits in nicely in the line of great American composers. Simple.

So Frank Titsheli is basically bashing JW?

Who is he?

Frank is a fine composer in his own right. I'm sorry to say though it seems some of the venomous elitism that is rampant in a lot of concert music circles has infected him.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

This is emblematic of the snobbery you find in academe towards film composers. Williams responds to it here at 6:04.

My personal take on the legacy would be Gerswhin/Copland/Bernstein/North/Williams.

[Marcus 390]

Ticheli's response surprises me. I'd imagine someone like John Corigliano or John Adams would feel differently. Not to suggest that such is the case, but I have noticed a tendency for a more dismissive/less generous attitude from colleagues who aren't that high up on the "food chain", or rather: the more esteemed and secure, the more generous they are likely to be.

So many composers of more traditionally oriented concert music wish they had not only the popularity Williams enjoys, but also his means of communicating so explicitly and directly with a broader audience.

This popularity is then erronously assumed to stem from an inherent inferiority, a "negative" simplicity in the

writing itself.

Conversely, less popular music, less celebrated

composers, will at times be deemed more "worthy" simply for their lack of appeal.

This is pure snobbery, and absolute nonsense.

Gershwin, Copland, Bernstein and Williams are all vastly

different figures, with public personas and artistic legacies differing to such an extent that only in the broadest possible view may we really connect them (I agree that comparisons can be made, although I would perhaps substitute Copland for Duke Ellington).

Gershwin and Williams are perhaps the two composers

whose music is the most widely known and appreciated (and Bernstein for West Side Story), whereas Copland is iconic simply as the very image of the American Composer (especially for Americans; for Europeans that

distinction might belong to Charles Ives).

One would be hard pressed to find anyone else among contemporary American composers who would be better or even as qualified as Williams to embody the current continuation of this legacy, if we are to look for a legacy of not only artistic merit, but also cultural impact.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Ticheli's response surprises me. I'd imagine someone like John Corigliano or John Adams would feel differently. Not to suggest that such is the case, but I have noticed a tendency for a more dismissive/less generous attitude from colleagues who aren't that high up on the "food chain", or rather: the more esteemed and secure, the more generous they are likely to be.

I think you've got the heart of the issue here - simple jealousy and resentment of success. John Williams is an easy target because he's a popularist figure, almost an American institution at this point, and has been showered with praise in the last year or so with his 80th birthday, from the more mainstream quarters of the media.

Another figure that hasn't been mentioned so far is Leopold Stokowski. Although I'm not aware of him using his pedestal to bring jazz or popular music to a wider audience, he was certainly a progressive figure in American music, and was instrumental in bringing Western art music to a wider audience through film (FANTASIA), audio (he made the first orchestral phonograph recordings), community outreach programs (what we now call music education) and introducing minorities (namely women and African-Americans) into orchestras. His presence is still very much felt today.

[Ludwig 1,120]

In addition to Marcus' elegant and lucid comments, I would add that one thing that really distinguishes Williams from Gershwin, Copland, and Bernstein is Williams' broader stylistic boundaries. Whereas Gershwin and Bernstein represent a primarily jazz-informed approach to writing, and Copland invented his own brand of folk-informed classical Americana, Williams works with classical Hollywood, late Romanticism, atonality, experimental music, jazz, and popular styles, often with two or three of these fused seamlessly together.

In that respect, I view him as standing apart from the triumvirate Indy4 mentions and best understood as the "modern classical Hollywood" composer par excellence, a composer whose bread and butter is the Hollywood sound of yore, but is informed by concert music and popular styles to such a degree as to render him unique among his peers.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

It would be a good start to stop making any kind of distinction between "film composer" and "concert composer." We're all composers.

[Ludwig 1,120]

My point is that he's stylistically apart from the others, not that he's a film composer and the others are concert composers. When I say classical Hollywood, I'm invoking a style rather than a medium.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Sorry Ludwig, wasn't directed at your comment - just a general principle I think would be nice to see adopted.

[Ludwig 1,120]

Sorry Ludwig, wasn't directed at your comment - just a general principle I think would be nice to see adopted.

D'oh! I had a feeling that was the case, but just had to be sure. Agreed on your point.

[karelm 2,915]

I can't help but feel that if Ticheli was pushed, he would acknowledge that JW is a substantial contribution to American musical legacy. I can say I know firsthand from Pulitzer prize winning composer, Kevin Puts, that he greatly admires JW and is influenced by him. I very much enjoy Ticheli as a composer but find JW to be a genius and would happily debate Ticheli on this topic. I think Ticheli is falling prey to the dogma that if it is popular, it is not art. I am a fan of Ticheli, but he is wrong here.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Exactly. He's a really genuine, down to earth guy, so it is an odd thing to hear.

[Henry B 50]

In addition to Marcus' elegant and lucid comments, I would add that one thing that really distinguishes Williams from Gershwin, Copland, and Bernstein is Williams' broader stylistic boundaries. Whereas Gershwin and Bernstein represent a primarily jazz-informed approach to writing, and Copland invented his own brand of folk-informed classical Americana, Williams works with classical Hollywood, late Romanticism, atonality, experimental music, jazz, and popular styles, often with two or three of these fused seamlessly together.

In that respect, I view him as standing apart from the triumvirate Indy4 mentions and best understood as the "modern classical Hollywood" composer par excellence, a composer whose bread and butter is the Hollywood sound of yore, but is informed by concert music and popular styles to such a degree as to render him unique among his peers.

You're really short changing Copland though. Copland began with angular avant garde music and explored 12-tone serialism later in his career. He was a versatile, well rounded composer, not just an Americana specialist.

[Ludwig 1,120]

In addition to Marcus' elegant and lucid comments, I would add that one thing that really distinguishes Williams from Gershwin, Copland, and Bernstein is Williams' broader stylistic boundaries. Whereas Gershwin and Bernstein represent a primarily jazz-informed approach to writing, and Copland invented his own brand of folk-informed classical Americana, Williams works with classical Hollywood, late Romanticism, atonality, experimental music, jazz, and popular styles, often with two or three of these fused seamlessly together.

In that respect, I view him as standing apart from the triumvirate Indy4 mentions and best understood as the "modern classical Hollywood" composer par excellence, a composer whose bread and butter is the Hollywood sound of yore, but is informed by concert music and popular styles to such a degree as to render him unique among his peers.

You're really short changing Copland though. Copland began with angular avant garde music and explored 12-tone serialism layer in his career. He was a versatile, well rounded composer, not just an Americana specialist.

True, but he doesn't fuse styles together like JW. And seamless stylistic fusion is one aspect of JW's genius that sets him apart from the others.

[Thor 7,533]

Williams definitely belongs in the company of the trio mentioned. The sentiment expressed by that composer seems like the standard reply from the classical world, which is based more on prejudice and ignorance than anything (as others have noted). I wouldn't give it much credence.

[Hlao-roo 389]

(he did note that JW was a nice guy).

An extraordinarily ignorant remark. It is a well known fact that nice guys finish last, and, whatever you think of his music, Williams has certainly not finished last. I'm afraid there is nothing in Mr. Ticheli's comments on Williams that is remotely redeemable.

[KK 3,307]

Exactly. He's a really genuine, down to earth guy, so it is an odd thing to hear.

Really? When I met Tichelli, he came off as a real snob to me. I do like his music though.

[Joni Wiljami 1,206]

If I'm ever going to meet Titsheli, I will kick the guy in the balls.

[King Mark 3,631]

So Frank Titsheli is basically bashing JW?

Who is he?

exactly, what great contribution to music does he have to offer

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

A lot. Frank is a fine composer, and a generous educator at USC, which makes his importance to future film musicians undeniable.

[Faleel 5,368]

LOL

[Muad'Dib 1,802]

If I'm ever going to meet Titsheli, I will kick the guy in the balls.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

"Ah, my groin!"

[Muad'Dib 1,802]

Never gets old