What the blogs say vs. what actual Classical Musicians actually say.

[jojoju2000 20]

https://www.talkclassical.com/classical-music-discussion/

 

This website has such a negative opinion about Williams and Film Music in general. I have tried to present evidence that paints Williams in a different light. But to no avail. 

 

But outside of the bubble, We got Anne Sophie Mutter, Itzhak Perlman, Yo Yo Ma, Gustavo Dudamel, all praising Williams as a good composer, a great composer. What respected classical musicians actually say vs. the internet. 

 

The Theme from Schindler's List for example; it is so famous on it's own right; that it has become totally completely associated with John Williams, and Perlman who now claims it as his theme song apparently. You can't say that about any other film composer. 

 

What is up with this bubble ? Because it's obvious that actual classical musicians and orchestras have welcomed Williams into their house. 

[j39m 75]

I'm going to dodge the deep questions here ("What are aesthetics? What comprises good music? Can we reach a global consensus on these questions?") and go one level up: are you perhaps running into an issue with selection bias?

 

Seems like an example of a megathread panning JW as you describe might be found here. A general classical forum attracts fans of all kinds, and not all of them may be warm to JW; some of them might even resent him for "diluting" their favorite parts of classical music. But over here, membership is predicated on liking JW's music. We may enjoy heaping derision on...other composers, and this can happen for any number of reasons. Any answers you might find here are likely to be frostily received by people whose hearts are already set against JW.

 

Having strong opinions attracts eyes and sometimes builds kingdoms ("bah! You can tell me Williams is great once you've listened to Stockhausen and Boulez"). Especially if a community skews esoteric or "cultured," some measured snootiness can help accrue social credit.

 

1 hour ago, jojoju2000 said:

it's obvious that actual classical musicians and orchestras have welcomed Williams into their house.

 

To be cynical, I would bet JW typically sells better and attracts a more diverse audience than does an average "conventionally classical" program. I personally see no problem here, but I'm sure some people would turn up their noses at the thought.

[Fabulin 3,510]

You are young, @jojoju2000. Wait a generation and there will be few born before Jaws and Star Wars left to rally against the good stuff.

[QuartalHarmony 542]

There’s a lot of snobbery masquerading as informed opinion in many places where artistic preference is key. Imagine how a Hans Zimmer fan would feel reading some threads here, for example. Classical music seems to be more prone to this than a lot of other things, for all sorts of historical and sociological reasons we can debate another day.

 

I think what the OP has found (I haven’t checked, since life’s too short) is a group of people who enjoy some of the more obscure and challenging forms of classical music, in which world being popular is the greatest crime. JW is popular and successful, therefore he is Classical Music Enemy No. 1 for these people. His recent work with top-notch (and historically snobby) orchestras like the VPO will simply have compounded his crimes in their eyes. ASM will be considered a traitor to the cause.

 

In my experience, it’s a certain type of fan that is prone to this sort of thinking, whereas actual musicians are far more open-minded because they don’t predicate their whole existence on a certain set of artistic assumptions. Just look at the face of the VPO violinist as they play the Star Wars B-theme - he’s clearly having a whale of a time and snobbery be damned. Quite right too.

 

Mark

[jojoju2000 20]

5 hours ago, QuartalHarmony said:

There’s a lot of snobbery masquerading as informed opinion in many places where artistic preference is key. Imagine how a Hans Zimmer fan would feel reading some threads here, for example. Classical music seems to be more prone to this than a lot of other things, for all sorts of historical and sociological reasons we can debate another day.

 

I think what the OP has found (I haven’t checked, since life’s too short) is a group of people who enjoy some of the more obscure and challenging forms of classical music, in which world being popular is the greatest crime. JW is popular and successful, therefore he is Classical Music Enemy No. 1 for these people. His recent work with top-notch (and historically snobby) orchestras like the VPO will simply have compounded his crimes in their eyes. ASM will be considered a traitor to the cause.

 

In my experience, it’s a certain type of fan that is prone to this sort of thinking, whereas actual musicians are far more open-minded because they don’t predicate their whole existence on a certain set of artistic assumptions. Just look at the face of the VPO violinist as they play the Star Wars B-theme - he’s clearly having a whale of a time and snobbery be damned. Quite right too.

 

Mark

But that's the problem with the whole thing; these internet blogs; they make it seem as if; people who enjoy Star Wars music are not " advanced " enough to enjoy Pierre Boulez or Stockhausen. 

 

 

[bollemanneke 3,337]

Talk Classical isn't reliable at all for opinions. Every time I try to ask a question about CD releases and what they contain, I get no reply. Every time I read reviews of recordings, I totally disagree with them after having heard said recordings. I mean, they actually say you should listen to Furtwängler. Well, it so happens I was born in the stereo age.

[Datameister 2,037]

2 hours ago, jojoju2000 said:

But that's the problem with the whole thing; these internet blogs; they make it seem as if; people who enjoy Star Wars music are not " advanced " enough to enjoy Pierre Boulez or Stockhausen. 

 

 

 

Meh, life's too short to stress over people who judge others' tastes and interests. Pick any given genre, composer, ensemble, or whatever, and there will be thousands of people out there (at least) who will turn up their noses. Doesn't change the enjoyment we get out of the music. Best we can do is decide not to act like that when it comes to art that's outside our own tastes.

[mrbellamy 6,272]

Reminds me of something I heard a comedian say once: for everything on the planet, there's someone who hates that. What the Internet has done is to say "Meet these people! Step right up! You ever wonder who could be mad at a baby eating applesauce?! This fucking guy!" 

[SteveMc 2,674]

The TalkClassical crowd speaks like Star Wars and ET are all JW ever wrote and judge him simply on those scores.

They come off as just refusing to take him seriously because he is popular.  

[Holko 9,499]

They're his best scores though.

[bollemanneke 3,337]

22 minutes ago, SteveMc said:

The TalkClassical crowd speaks like Star Wars and ET are all JW ever wrote and judge him simply on those scores.

They come off as just refusing to take him seriously because he is popular.  

Isn't that more because he's still alive? I thought these cultured elite people always needed 150+ years to realise something is great.

[jojoju2000 20]

37 minutes ago, SteveMc said:

The TalkClassical crowd speaks like Star Wars and ET are all JW ever wrote and judge him simply on those scores.

They come off as just refusing to take him seriously because he is popular.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D501lnlL3kk

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0_N1tFjLAk

 

If this doesn't make him a " Classical Music Composer " in their eyes, then shame on them.

13 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

Isn't that more because he's still alive? I thought these cultured elite people always needed 150+ years to realise something is great.

Leonard Bernstein was recognized as a great.  Aaron. Copland was as well. While they were still alive.

16 minutes ago, Holko said:

They're his best scores though.

So Williams's only sin was hooking up with Spielberg and Lucas because they're not true Auteurs.

He should have teamed up with Scorsese. 

 

Talk Classical's logic is that.

[SteveMc 2,674]

45 minutes ago, Holko said:

They're his best scores though.

ET perhaps is in the running for that, but I'm rather skeptical about Star Wars being his best.

 

CE3K is my choice for his "best" score.

[Madmartigan JC 85]

I understand your truthful interest in asking this question, but I believe it's apples & oranges territory and cannot be fruitful, beyond expressing personnal tastes.

The answers your sincere post got in that forum are ignorant garbage, but I truly wonder what's the interest in comparing Williams to Bach, Beethoven or Shostakovich? Such different worlds!

 

Some classical musicians often enjoy opening up to music outside the classical repertoire, and I'm sure Yo-Yo Ma or ASM are sincere in their praise of JW. But I doubt even they would compare Williams in that regard.

JW is a creative genius in his own right, but his film works were never meant as "classical" (for lack of a better term). While his language shares so many things with the classical world (it's history/techniques/grammar), its form and purpose are completely different. So to me the comparison is pointless.

 

To elitist snobs who won't even consider listening to something other than 'classical' and look down on more popular art forms because they're incapable of appreciating them in their own terms, I say it's their loss.

[Remco 685]

3 hours ago, Madmartigan JC said:

I understand your truthful interest in asking this question, but I believe it's apples & oranges territory and cannot be fruitful, beyond expressing personnal tastes.

The answers your sincere post got in that forum are ignorant garbage, but I truly wonder what's the interest in comparing Williams to Bach, Beethoven or Shostakovich? Such different worlds!

 

Some classical musicians often enjoy opening up to music outside the classical repertoire, and I'm sure Yo-Yo Ma or ASM are sincere in their praise of JW. But I doubt even they would compare Williams in that regard.

JW is a creative genius in his own right, but his film works were never meant as "classical" (for lack of a better term). While his language shares so many things with the classical world (it's history/techniques/grammar), its form and purpose are completely different. So to me the comparison is pointless.

 

To elitist snobs who won't even consider listening to something other than 'classical' and look down on more popular art forms because they're incapable of appreciating them in their own terms, I say it's their loss.

 

Wonderful answer. I love how you phrased that his works share a similar language but has a different form and purpose because this is something that many people don't take into account, from both sides.

[Fabulin 3,510]

7 hours ago, Madmartigan JC said:

I truly wonder what's the interest in comparing Williams to Bach, Beethoven or Shostakovich?

When people ask Google about the greatest composers (in general), what they really find overlaps 1:1 with "greatest classical composers". You will not find a mention of Williams, Goldsmith, Morricone, or Herrmann there. This reinforces the views that the four aforementioned, not to mention anyone else in the history of film, just do not cut it compared to the concert composers of their time.

 

Example effect: a young director of the Phoenix Symphony programmed a healthy dose of the music of Waxman, Herrmann, and Korngold, and while the public enjoyed it, the board members and major sponsors didn't. The director was replaced with one more hostile towards film scores.

 

Had the individuals involved been taught by their music teachers and their music critics to respect the masters, the way they respect Shostakovich or Messiaen or Messenet or Albioni, there would be no such problems.

[crocodile 7,984]

20 hours ago, Datameister said:

 

Meh, life's too short to stress over people who judge others' tastes and interests. Pick any given genre, composer, ensemble, or whatever, and there will be thousands of people out there (at least) who will turn up their noses. Doesn't change the enjoyment we get out of the music. Best we can do is decide not to act like that when it comes to art that's outside our own tastes.

This. But it's just something comes with age. It's just not important. 

 

Karol

[SteveMc 2,674]

Film music by itself is not necessarily classical music, just as a song is not necessarily a lieder.  It depends on composer and intent.  Who is the composer?  Did he or she have formal or informal training in the classical tradition?  If yes, in writing the score, did he or she have a kind of artistic intent that transcends the film? 

Sometimes the distinction is obvious.  Folks like Vangelis and Zimmer have artistic intentions in their scores, but their work is rooted more in popular music than classical.  Korngold and Rozsa and Herrmann were classical composers, and all their scores are clear compositions.  Sometimes the distinction can be a bit more subjective.  Steiner had classical training, but his scoring style was bit more in the direction of light music.  But, then, someone could dismiss Vivaldi as light music and I'd find that very wrong.  

 

What of John Williams?  

You can draw a clear line connecting late 19th century classical masters to him.  Mahler and Strauss to Korngold to Williams.  Rimsky-Korsakov to Glazunov to Tiomkin to Williams.   Add to that a healthy does of native influence from American Jazz.  He studied piano with Rosina Lhévinne, who encouraged him to be a composer  and then studied with Castelnuovo-Tedesco. This is what gives Williams's technique such a compelling quality and the ability to be almost endlessly studied or analyzed.

But, unlike a good deal of 20th century classical music, Williams's music is overt.  Which is to say  it's main point is often obvious and accessible.  This is a consequence of much of his music being written for films, which is to say, for patrons and an audience that often demands this.  This leads to critiques that Williams's music is thus shallow and subservient, that it represents not the true vision of the artist, but simply reflects the vision of others.  Never mind that obvious and accessible characterized much of the pre-20th century artform, this is declared to be backwards emphasis that further proves the essential point, which is that John Williams is not a classical composer, and nor is any of his music truly classical, concert or otherwise. 

But this is an unfair academic stance that ignores the essential nature of the art form.  For much of its existence, classical music was written for others.  Wealthy patrons, royalty, aristocrats, superstar performers, a demanding opera industry.  And yet, a great deal of this music is still considered artistic works of integrity and merit, the composers lauded as masters, even if they were partly doing the bidding of others.  Why?  Because the music is judged on its own merit, these factors included in the estimation, but the artistic intention snuck in by the composer also taken into account.  Why can't John Williams be accorded the same consideration?  Those who do judge him by this older standard rather than the narrower academic art cannot be for all crowd often deem him worthy.  There can be honest negative opinions about his work, how it might be too on the nose most of the time, maybe too bombastic, predictable, or how he may not have the greatest structural mastery.  But before you can have an honest opinion about John Williams's music, you need to acknowledge that it is classical, since it is rooted in that tradition, even if it is a branch of that tradition a certain school has declared anathema.  That might be changing, as I will address soon.   

First, take the example of Bach.  Bach is generally accepted to be one of the all time greats. For much of his lifetime, he was considered a throwback, out of date. For much of his lifetime, he was a hireling.  His greatest works were written for others, often on their instructions and with their interference.  That he was able to thrive in this environment and throw in the mastery and musical complexity that he did is amazing, and the greatest testament to his genius.  Towards the end of his life, he began to have a little more recognition, but still more as a politely respected curiosity than anything.  After his death, the establishment overlooked him.  Only the geniuses paid him full attention.  Finally, when he was dead long enough for him to no longer be passé, he was rediscovered and adored.  

Williams is not a 1-1 comparison here, he's not in Bach's tier.  But, we see similar patterns repeating themselves.

Which brings me to my next and final point.  Where exactly does John Williams fit into the classical tradition?  For some, the medium for which he most often writes and the style he uses marks him a member of a breakaway blasphemous sect that is not fit to be called classical, never mind that it has more in common in those respects to what was classical for 200 years than the modernist take.  But this is in fact the outdated view, rooted in a roughly 1920s-1960s modernist stance.  Since then, classical music went through a bit of a revolution.  Postmodernism.  For a point of reference, take postmodernism in architecture.  Roughly, you could divide it into three threads.  Overall a rejection of the formality and perceived coldness of various forms of modernism, Postmodern Architecture offered an alternative.  One thread went for an expressionistic flair, new shapes, unusual forms, shock value even.  This thread felt like a logical extension of modernism in a way.  The equivalent in music would be Ligeti and composers like him.  The second thread I like to call Pop-Postmodernism.  Color, vibrancy, familiar or vernacular forms with a twist.  Musical equivalents:  Glass, Adams, perhaps Morricone.  Finally, a certain neo-traditionalism.  Architects using traditional principles and ornamentation on newer forms, ranging from skyscrapers done in a pseudo- Flemish church style to buildings almost exactly 18th century on the outside, but completely modern internally.  Several post-modern composers have done similar things.  Rouse comes to mind.  So does Williams.  I see his approach as most definitely rooted in postmodernism, his voice one of the most important ones of the movement.  You may not like what is has to say, but would anyone try to call a traditionalist work by a noted architect not architecture?  Perhaps there are some folks who would, but it is rather absurd on its face. 

 

There, this should be pretty much the final word on the matter.  I would post it on TalkClassical, but I've forgotten my password and can't really be bothered.             

[Tom Guernsey 2,280]

I think I've finally reached a place of contentment (a "who gives a fuck?" type place) about what other people think about music I like (or don't like). However, I do find the those snarky classical music fans who turn their noses up at film music are kinda tedious and generally rave about music that almost nobody outside their niche enjoys. OK, so hard core film music fans are a relatively minority, but I have colleagues who have film music ring tones... OK, it's Hans Zimmer, but hey, nobody's perfect ;-)

 

I actually love a huge range of classical music (over 2,000 albums worth according to my iTunes library)... mostly Beethoven onwards, but with a heavy emphasis on 20th century Russians and Scandinavians, including both the super famous ones (I have 9 Rite of Springs... Rites of Spring?) and plenty that even some very well versed classical fan friends have never heard of, but who write marvellous music which is neither trite nor excessively demanding. What's most annoying is that they often have interesting things to say and recommendations about music that might be of interest but the close mindedness is kinda annoying enough to put me off bothering.

[Madmartigan JC 85]

When considering these dogmatic views of film music I thinks it's relevant to consider film itself as a medium has suffered this. Not only is it relatively recent (barely over 100 years old), but film as an art form didn't have a proper critical theory that could analize it as an artistic unit Auteur Theory came up in the early 50's.

 

Therefore it is still rarely regarded as highly as the traditional arts (literature, painting, sculpture, music, theater, etc.). Not that I agree with this, at all. But I have repeadtly noticed that films critically considered more 'artistic' often have some form of validation through a one of the traditional arts beign directly referenced. Be it a nod to a classic painting/work of literature, the use of classical music, etc. As if the cinematographic art wasn't enough to substantiate the film's own artistic merit. 

 

If views on the artistic merits of Cinema are so biased, what chance does music composed specifically for this medium have of beign considered 'artistic' by these people? Add on top of that, that music often requires little more that simple craftmanship to fit the basic standards required to accompany the film; and (at least in the case of Hollywood) is produced within an industry with technical restrictions and very palpable economic goals.

 

On top of it all, Williams is directly referenced with some of the most popular and highest grossing franchises in Hollywood history.

Morricone, coming from the more 'artistic' european cinema, has often been more kindly regarded in that respect. And the discussions on the recent release of JW's Images, also reflect how his most un-Hollywoodesque work has often received praise from the same critics who defaced his more accesible scores.

 

I don't endorse or agree with any of this, but it's the current reality. It doesn't really bother me, since I can enjoy all works for what they are, regardless of classification.

[jojoju2000 20]

1 hour ago, Madmartigan JC said:

When considering these dogmatic views of film music I thinks it's relevant to consider film itself as a medium has suffered this. Not only is it relatively recent (barely over 100 years old), but film as an art form didn't have a proper critical theory that could analize it as an artistic unit Auteur Theory came up in the early 50's.

 

Therefore it is still rarely regarded as highly as the traditional arts (literature, painting, sculpture, music, theater, etc.). Not that I agree with this, at all. But I have repeadtly noticed that films critically considered more 'artistic' often have some form of validation through a one of the traditional arts beign directly referenced. Be it a nod to a classic painting/work of literature, the use of classical music, etc. As if the cinematographic art wasn't enough to substantiate the film's own artistic merit. 

 

If views on the artistic merits of Cinema are so biased, what chance does music composed specifically for this medium have of beign considered 'artistic' by these people? Add on top of that, that music often requires little more that simple craftmanship to fit the basic standards required to accompany the film; and (at least in the case of Hollywood) is produced within an industry with technical restrictions and very palpable economic goals.

 

On top of it all, Williams is directly referenced with some of the most popular and highest grossing franchises in Hollywood history.

Morricone, coming from the more 'artistic' european cinema, has often been more kindly regarded in that respect. And the discussions on the recent release of JW's Images, also reflect how his most un-Hollywoodesque work has often received praise from the same critics who defaced his more accesible scores.

 

I don't endorse or agree with any of this, but it's the current reality. It doesn't really bother me, since I can enjoy all works for what they are, regardless of classification.

That's funny and ironic because George Lucas was ostracized by the Hollywood elite for not being " Mainstream " enough.

[Nick1Ø66 4,688]

I remember being vaguely insulted when I first read the liner notes in the Star Wars Soundtrack anthology, there was a line in there saying something like "hopefully the music of Star Wars will lead listeners to seek out more sophisticated fare". 

[Tom Guernsey 2,280]

One thing that seems quite likely with fans who dismiss JW etc. is that they probably don't actually know his music beyond the well known concert arrangements and famous themes, but have no appreciation of the rest of each score. The ability to write such complex, musically satisfying, thematically engaging music which both satisfies/reflects/emphasises/whatever the emotional thrust of the scene while also matching the picture is quite an achievement in itself. It would be churlish to watch a sequence such as the Asteroid Field from Empire and not conclude that it's a terrific orchestral scherzo in its own right, but manages to follow the drama of the sequence with breathtaking deftness but without sacrificing musicality. But I bet most of the classical snobs just think of the Star Wars main theme and just conclude it's all brassy fanfares and Korngold derived themes, plus pick out all the odds and ends that owe a debt to Stravinsky, Holst, Shostakovich etc.

 

I'm currently reading The Rest is Noise by Alex Ross (NYT music critic) and it's a very interesting canter through 20th century classical music, but you do get the impression that anything that isn't breaking new ground isn't all that worthy of consideration. Everything has to have an exciting new musical language else it's just derivative, but then that's how you end up with serialism, atonality and other experimental music etc. in an attempt to find ever new areas of compositional, which, let's face it, few people actually enjoy. But then there are plenty of accomplished classical composers who didn't really write anything especially groundbreaking that classical fans lap up.

 

On that note, I'm going to listen to Carmina Burana, that should piss somebody off.

[Holko 9,499]

5 hours ago, Tom Guernsey said:

One thing that seems quite likely with fans who dismiss JW etc. is that they probably don't actually know his music beyond the well known concert arrangements and famous themes, but have no appreciation of the rest of each score.

And if they do know more, it's probably just his terribly messy misrepresentative OSTs.

[Madmartigan JC 85]

5 hours ago, Tom Guernsey said:

One thing that seems quite likely with fans who dismiss JW etc. is that they probably don't actually know his music beyond the well known concert arrangements and famous themes, but have no appreciation of the rest of each score. The ability to write such complex, musically satisfying, thematically engaging music which both satisfies/reflects/emphasises/whatever the emotional thrust of the scene while also matching the picture is quite an achievement in itself. It would be churlish to watch a sequence such as the Asteroid Field from Empire and not conclude that it's a terrific orchestral scherzo in its own right, but manages to follow the drama of the sequence with breathtaking deftness but without sacrificing musicality. But I bet most of the classical snobs just think of the Star Wars main theme and just conclude it's all brassy fanfares and Korngold derived themes, plus pick out all the odds and ends that owe a debt to Stravinsky, Holst, Shostakovich etc.

 

I'm currently reading The Rest is Noise by Alex Ross (NYT music critic) and it's a very interesting canter through 20th century classical music, but you do get the impression that anything that isn't breaking new ground isn't all that worthy of consideration. Everything has to have an exciting new musical language else it's just derivative, but then that's how you end up with serialism, atonality and other experimental music etc. in an attempt to find ever new areas of compositional, which, let's face it, few people actually enjoy. But then there are plenty of accomplished classical composers who didn't really write anything especially groundbreaking that classical fans lap up.

 

On that note, I'm going to listen to Carmina Burana, that should piss somebody off.

 

Agreed! I think you're right on.

 

Also, I really enjoyed that book. Ross is one of the very few music writers on classical music savvy about popular genres and willing to judge each music on its own terms. I think it's not a coincidence his interview with John Williams from last year was one of the most interesting ones, going beyond the tired usual questions.

[Tom Guernsey 2,280]

16 hours ago, Madmartigan JC said:

 

Agreed! I think you're right on.

 

Also, I really enjoyed that book. Ross is one of the very few music writers on classical music savvy about popular genres and willing to judge each music on its own terms. I think it's not a coincidence his interview with John Williams from last year was one of the most interesting ones, going beyond the tired usual questions.

Thank you! And yes, it's a good book. Second time of reading it, but not for a while. I rather think that Ross may have warmed to film music a bit more in recent years as I seem to remember him being one of the "film music is crap" brigade. However, I'm willing to put that aside as his insights into classical music are worth reading. Which is more than can be said for some of the snobbier online commentators!

[Schilkeman 955]

Most people who comment on forums are (sometimes very knowledgeable!) amateur's, who have a limited understanding of music theory and pedagogy. That's just as true here as it is on talk classical as it is in the pages of Gramophone. Anytime someone compares John Williams to Wagner (as was done several times on the other site) I know which one I'm dealing with.

 

Given the level of talent who have agreed to play John Williams's music over the years, I think he is well thought of in professional circles. I certainly had professors in college who thought highly of him.

 

As technology has improved, we are getting to the point where film music can be performed live with the film, as it was meant to be, and can be better appreciated on its own terms outside of the usual concert arrangements. I see it becoming just another aspect of the repertoire like opera and ballet.