Is there any proof that Williams is an important composer?

[DarthJW 0]

Hello!

I'm a huge Williams-fan and I defend him wherever I can. But this time I need your help.

I have very heavy discussions with my Professor. He likes and knows nearly everything from Wagner, Strauss, Bach, Mozart, Schubert, Prokofiev, Stravinsky and many more "classical" composers.

3 weeks ago I gave him the special edition-soundtrack from "the empire strikes back". He listened to it and reviewed the album very badly: Williams themes are not as powerful as the themes of the above mentioned classical composers, Williams steals their styles and is not original etc. Overall my Professor described Williams as a handicraftsman, a manufacturer, a mechanic so to speak. Average.

Is there any proof that John Williams is a serious composer, an important composer in the same league as Wagner, Beethoven etc.?

[HPFAN 1]

Williams is a genius in his time as they were in their own. Proof? Well lets look at Williams' accomplishments and praises. To me it seems like you Proffesor is prejudice towards modern orchestral styles.

[Elmo Lewis 6]

There is no proof. There is just opinion. And then you can use his Concert Works.

[Morlock 11]

I find that generaly anyone I know of over the age of 50 who's a classical music fan hates film scores.

I've never understood basing one's opinions of a composer only on technical merits or originality. John Williams has written more pieces of music I love than any other person ever. So to me- thats the proof.

BTW I gave my grandfather my JW greatest hits CD, and although he disliked a bunch of it- there are a few things he really loved (Schindler's List, Jurrasic Park, Stepmom, Duel of The Fates, Scherzo for Motorcycle and orchestra). Try that out on him. I say- if he doesn't find something he likes- he is just stubborn snob.

[MSM 126]

At least Williams takes a unique place as a composer by combining styles ranging from Baroque to jazz into strikingly coherent music. In general one can say that his music forms a bridge between the late Romantic repertoire (most prominently Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Holst, Elgar) and the expressionism and modern popular music, in a way that no composer has done before. Most people do regard Williams' themes as exceptionally strong, and his musical textures as complex (Williams is a master of counterpoint). His inventiveness (avant garde techniques and orchestration) and acute sense of drama are often praised.

However, I have had similar discussions with professional musicians, and my experience is that most of them can be convinced of the value JW's music when given them the right tracks to listen to. It sounds your professor likes intellectualism in music, maybe this can be found in:

- The Devil's Dance from The Witches of Eastwick;

- Theme from Schindler's List;

- The Asteroid Field from The Empire Strikes Back;

- The Forrest Battle from Return of the Jedi;

- The Lost Boys Ballet from Hook;

- The Prologue from JFK;

- Excerpts (or Suite) from Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

If it doesn't have any effect, I'm afraid there isn't much hope for your professor!

MSM

[MSM 126]

Besides, it seems strange to me that he never heard of Williams before!

[Adam 1]

I don't think his importance is really in question. Even his harshest critics, if they're honest, would have to acknowledge his role in popularizing orchestral music and would have to acknowledge that he has aquired a name-recognition and popularity beyond what any other contempory orchestral composer has been able to achieve. I think that gives him an "importance" even independent of the question of how one regards the music itself.

As far as being in the same league as past greats, I think its misleading to try to compare. Film music is a very different craft than simply writing something for concert. As JW has said himself, most of what is written for film doesn't belong in a concert hall. If someone has spent their lifetime studying classical music and then they hear JW, its not surprising that they're going to listen to it like they would Mozart, Beethoven, etc. And if you combine that with the common tendency towards ivory tower snobbishness that US musical academia seems to produce, its not surprising that he is looked down upon by this crowd.

His music is top-notch, IMO, but its the ability to write quality music that is so wedded to the events in the movie that makes him so impressive. So while some people notice that a passage sounds like so and so from 100 years ago or whatever, I'm noticing that he's capturing all of the detail, emotion, tempo of a movie or scene. But I can't compare that to Mozart or anyone else outside of the film world. Its a different craft and has to be judged differently, I think.

- Adam

[Guest]

Give him a wedgie and say "don't be such a stick in the mud ya doddery old fool, the proof is in the Pudding!" take a picture each of Yo Yo Ma and Itzhak Perlman, roll them into cylinders and insert into each of his nostrils, then good naturedly pull on his nose and ruffle his hair.

[jsawruk 0]

What you are talking about here is whether JW is considered important in academia or not.

Generally, composers take time to become important. Most composers are dead before they become academically important, including such greats as Bach, Haydn, Wagner, and Webern, to name but a few.

Academia views composers based primarily on their compositional aptitude, their affect on a society, and their effective use of one or many genres. For example, Mozart is known for being a great melodist, having great ability in form, being extremely popular from his first violin recital to this very day (quite a social impact), and being well known as a master of many styles, particularly opera. Berlioz, on the other hand, is remembered for being a great orchestrator, inventing modern conducting practices, and writing his fabolous treatise on orchestration, as well as pioneering the tone poem. This could go on forever...

Composers since 1900 are generally considered new, and it is difficult to measure such long standing effects. Therefore, most composers since 1900 are studied in academia because of novelty or inventiveness, such as Schoenberg, Cage, Reich, and Stockhausen. Others, however, create their music by more traditional means, and therefore are viewed by academia using the more traditional basis (including social impact), such as Berg, Bartok, Copland, and Adams. Stravinsky is both.

Williams, in my opinion, belongs with Berg, Bartok, Copland, etc., and here's why. First of all, Williams, like Mozart and Wagner, shows an impressive skill with melody. The difference between seeing a film scored by JW or Goldsmith and one not scored by them is that you will remember their music a lot longer because the melodies are well written. I would call melody Williams' strongest compositional aptitude.

Williams certainly has a great ability in the genre of film music. He would definitely be on anyone's list of top 10 film composers ever, and will most likely remain there indefinitely. He achieved this hold through formal unity and melodic simplicity within a chromatic language.

Williams also has had a great social impact. People instantly recognize themes from Star Wars, Jaws, and Indiana Jones (and most recognize even more). Why? It's simple. The movies that the music was in became pop culture, and the melodic nature of the music caused it to stand out. Therefore, the music itself became pop culture. I mean, seriously, how often do you hear his music somewhere? Quite often. Can the same be said of any other film composer? Maybe Hermann and Goldsmith, but most people only recognize one theme of theirs each!

So that's my argument, now for some backup.

Williams is gaining more ground academically. He is mentioned in every book on film scoring that I have ever read, including the first college textbook on the subject. He was also cross-referenced in Adler's 3rd edition of "The Study of Orchestration", as a recommended score to view a composers' orchestration. Also, both of my composition professors have taught me about Williams, and I have taught Williams in an undergraduate college course on three seperate occassions.

Also, Williams does have an entry in Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians, which is a major step for any musician. Only the best get into Grove's.

So, is Williams academically important? The answer is: No. (Not yet!) He will be though, in about 5-10 years, or maybe imeddiately after his death. However, he certainly has a large headstart over anyone else in the genre.

If I go on to teach music at a college somewhere, JW will be part of my syllabus in film music and 20th century music (and maybe harmony too).

[jsawruk 0]

But is he in the same league as the greats, such as Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Wagner, Stravinsky, etc.?

No way. My above post only says that he is important, not a great composer. There is a large difference. Williams does not, in my opnion, have the compositional aptitude to achieve such greatness.

[Adam 1]

Good post, but its not at all clear the original post was speaking of only JW's importance to academia. But, even if so, the attention one gets in academia does not necessarily represent a very good barometer of a composer's value or intrinsic academic importance. The fact that people often have to die before being recognized in academia would be just one example of a weakness of academia that should be overcome. And I have no confidence, as my previous post pointed out, that academia will properly understand the contributions of film composers, JW or otherwise.

You emphasize the role of melody as an important Williams contribution. No doubt, he is most known for his famous themes. But the way you formulated your argument, he could have wrote the Star Wars theme for Jaws and he would have been just as successful. In other words, the very crucial aspect of his success is not only writing appealing music with appealing melodies to successful movies (that could be done more commonly than by just a few people), but also writing music that evokes the spirit of the movie so vividly. And I don't think academia looks into that aspect of film music (unless you're in film scoring school). And it would be a very incomplete or inaccurate picture of JW's legacy if this weren't acknowldeged. Again, this is why film music and concert music have to be examined differently, IMO.

For similar reasons, I take your conclusion that he doesn't have "compositional aptitute" to achieve the greatness of Mozart, Bach, etc. with a grain of salt. His film scores are written to serve the puposes of the film, not to aspire to the heights of the composers you mentioned. And even if we were to examine JW's concertos, there's no way to convincingly conclude where JW stands in the scheme of great composers. From the point of view of technical difficulty and harmonic sophistication (something that can be objectively measured to a certain extent), an objective Martian studying the situation, knowing nothing of our culture or history, would likely conclude that Williams was vastly superior to Bach, Mozart and others. But, of course, JW has the benefit of hundreds of years of musical history to draw upon that past greats didn't. And there are other criteria - much more important, perhaps. But what we regard as "great" music is too mysterious to be articulated and it makes debate on this matter pretty much impossible. (:

- Adam

[Lurker 5]

Generally, composers take time to become important. Most composers are dead before they become academically important, including such greats as Bach, Haydn, Wagner, and Webern, to name but a few.

Then I never want Williams to be considered important.

Neil

[tpigeon 3]

Generally, composers take time to become important. Most composers are dead before they become academically important, including such greats as Bach, Haydn, Wagner, and Webern, to name but a few.

Then I never want Williams to be considered important.

Neil

Agreed.

[raegaiden 0]

It seems to me that your proffesor is not giving Williams the credit he deserves and that he is not recognizing the type of composing that he is doing. It is easy to diminish Williams work when you compare it to Bach or Mozart, but those composers weren't composing for film and therefore had a freedom that John does not. His work must fit into the context of each film, must be accessable to the audience that film is directed to, and must also take on all the constraints of the film itself (time, editing, etc.). This is what makes his work so great, because he manages to create music that is accesable to a film aucience and yet stands on its own. Even the music to his sequels, while reintroducing familiar themes, stands as its own complete composition and continues to grow and mature with each film. His works are very important to this time period and his influence can be heard throughout many of today's films. Try asking your professor to compare Wiliiams with other film composers (which would be a far more relevant arguement on his part). I'll guarantee he'll have a much harder time naming any that do.

[Dr. Jones 0]

Well, I had a very similar discussion with my musicteacher, but with a very other result. He really likes and respects John Williams.

His words:

"Well there is no doubt that everybody who knows very much about music will tell you that you can hear Wagner, Strauss, Strawinsky aso..in John Williams' scores. But he writes own and original melodies and if you know what expression they should have in the movie, you can see what a genius he is in using the right music at the right time. He also brings people like you back to classical, romatic and post-romantic music."

He is right I think. You can`t see moviemusic from the same point of view as "serious music". Filmmusic has to be more straight more mathematically. I'd like Williams to compose a Concertpiece were he discribes a certain story or a "happenig". Something like Smetanas "MY Fatherland", Richard Strauss "Till Eulenspigel's Merry Pranks" or Prokovief's "Peter and the Wolfe". I am sure it would be great!

Ahh just for information:

My teacher absolutely likes following Williams titles:

1. The Schidlers List Concert (Treesong CD)

2. Angela's Ashes (Whole Score)

3. Seven Years in Tibet - Theme

4. Leaving Ingrid

5. E.T.: Chase/Escape/ Saying Goodbye

6. Great Chase through Corouscant

[Dr. Jones 0]

What people also like to forget very often is, that John Williams only has eight weeks to compose two or two and a half Hours of music. Wagner Mussorgsky Schubert and Co. had unlimited time or much more very often!

[A24 4,345]

Ask your professor if he can write a better theme for Superman or Star Wars (give him a VHS copy). If the answer is that he can't but Mozart and Wagner could have, then we have proof that Williams is in the same leaque of the ones he admires.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I agree with a lot of what has been said before. Writing music for film is completely different from writing an orchestral piece, let alone the way orchestral music was written 100 or more years ago.

By the way, anyone, academic professor or not, who tells me themes like the Force theme or Han and Leia's theme are not powerfull just looses any credibility with me. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.

- Marc

[Simon R. 10]

You're wrong on one thing though: the time pressure. Mozart etc. also had deadlines to meet and wrote much of his stuff very fast. The same for a lot of other composers. They were doing jobs, just like Williams is doing a job. Having more time to compose music, doesn't mean it'll be better. I would say that often the pressure is a driving force rather that an obstacle.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Ren, as our resident music teacher, its up to you, finish your masters degree, and go for your doctorate, once you have those in hand you can take up the fight for John in the academic world.

[DarthJW 0]

@HPFAN

No, he is not prejudice towards modern orchestral styles. He loves "Elektra" from Strauss for example which is modern...

@MSM

"It sounds your professor likes intellectualism in music."

No, that's not true. He also likes pieces with great emotions, themes where you're drawn into, musical sections with erotic tension - like "Walkuere, I. Act".

@Adam

"Good post, but its not at all clear the original post was speaking of only JW's importance to academia."

My main question really was and is:

Is there any proof that John Williams is a serious composer, an important composer in the same league as Wagner, Beethoven etc.?

"...but also writing music that evokes the spirit of the movie so vividly..."

What about John Williams non-film-music? Is it important and in the same league as Mozart, Bach ....? Has it an impact on the evolution of music like Mozart's and Bach's and...?

@Everybody...

I will tell you about his point of view...

Some people have a "divine spark" and some people don't have. The last ones are just "manufacturers".

You know...there are a lot of good painters which can paint something that looks like a photography. But there is only one Michaelangelo...

I mean that's not only a question of opinion or taste...

There IS a deeper difference...

[Adam 1]

When we're talking about "divine spark" we're getting into the mysterious territory that I was speaking of earlier. We can sort of know what he means but its impossible to articulate what characterizes music of this type. And there IS plenty of subjectivity involved.

Williams hasn't written very many non-film, "serious" works. For that reason alone, he's not going to have the impact that Mozasrt and others have had. Also, orchestral music has come a long way since then. It would be hard for anybody to have that kind of impact.

His biggest impact has been and will continue to be, I would assume, in the area of film music which, again, is too different a craft to make direct comparisons with past greats. If somebody likes to listen to music in the manner they listen to Wagner and others, its quite possible they aren't going to like JW. His adaptability, which makes him so impressive as a film composer, might make these people view him in the manner of your professor. No reason this should stop the rest of us from appreciating Williams or whoever it is that "speaks" to us.

- Adam

[nja 0]

His biggest impact has been and will continue to be, I would assume, in the area of film music which, again, is too different a craft to make direct comparisons with past greats.

Well spoken. I think it bears mentioning that the art of soundtrack writing is not even a century old which makes it very difficult to categorize within a long-term perspective. One thing we do know for sure is that it tends to fall squarely in the category of incidental music (accompanimental music), but when it comes to knowing how it will be remembered- only time will tell.

One other point that was alluded to in earlier posts is that many of the greatest composers of all time were not given their rightful place during their lifetimes. I visited Leipzig this summer and was reminded that the only reason Bach was offered a position there was that Telemann turned it down. I like Telemann, but when was the last time you heard a Telemann chorale?

Perhaps it is an exercise in futility to predict composers' long-term significance based on current opinion.

Que sera sera . . .

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

The thing is, Classical music era was two or three centuries ago. Now that music does not have the same impact. Classical music today only lives in some for in film scores (and lately they are begining to be 'stained' with too much modern tunes). Williams concert works never will do more than his films, becasue if few people likes scores, even few like classical music...

If Williams were a pop or techno-dance DJ now he will be having impact on people.

Anyway when comparing Classical music against Scores, happens the same as with SW. Nobody wants to put the new things along ones that were stabilished years ago...

Now if Williams would have been born in the 18th century, he (i'm sure) would be one of the most acclaimed classic composers of all time... But then we would have lost our scores....

I hope you understood what i wanted to say...

[Elmo Lewis 6]

Ren, as our resident music teacher, its up to you, finish your masters degree, and go for your doctorate, once you have those in hand you can take up the fight for John in the academic world.

Why? Why can't you people just let academics have their opinion of what JW deserves, just like we have ours? Why do we even have to care about what they think or say?

[Magnus 0]

umm... Wagner and Mozart composed Operas... wouldn't you say that that was in a sense the past times film, just with a lot of singing in it? The composers had to catch the story in their music as well as songtexts, etc. Is Williams really that different from them? You have to view it with the aspects in what timeperiods these, in my mind, equal greats were living in. Williams is one of the few people who today keeps classical music alive. I have grown up in a family, more or less revolving only about classical music, however it wasn't first until after I got a real interest in Star Wars I actually started enjoying classical music; Mozart, Beethoven, etc. In my mind Williams deserves a place in the history books just for that, Mozart and Beethoven alone would never have had that impact on me.

[hitman20 0]

I feel his overall assessment of JW's works are utterly incorrect, although everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Although I don't idolize JW, he is one of my favorite composers. John Williams is "new school" just as Mozart is old school. Mozart and other used other mediums to convey emotion through music (operas, plays, etc), while JW uses movies, as it was said earlier. It seems to me that his critique of the Empire Strikes Back was highly flawed and I feel that his favoritism to older composers prompted him to give you the response he did. If John Williams truly isn't important, then why do so many people in the movie industry trust him to create a score. If they all felt the way your professor did then, he wouldn't have been chosen to score some 80 plus films. If you really want to make a huge come back to what your professor has said, show him the many accomplishment of JW, like how his score have been selected for numerous awards. I mean, truly, if you think about it, how many composers can say that they've composed themes for the Olympics; perhaps the most important sports event's in history. Games that have been played since the times of the Ancient Greeks. To me, with out any composer, a movie would not be the same. (Take Star Wars for example; one of the longest running and most popular science-fiction series' in history. Would the movie be the same without the infamous Imperial March, or what about the splendor and all the fanfare of the Opening Theme. Millions of people correlate the themes in movie to the series in general. The many fans could be reading a book, and one of the first things that could pop in their head is that of the Star Wars themes. I know it does for me. lol. You could also associate the importance of John Williams to the fact that he has recieve numerous honorary degrees from a wide variety of Universities among the nation. I mean, with such a feat as this, someone feels that he has done more than his fare share to recieve such honors. So you can say to your professor that Hitman20 feels this way, and show him my many examples. If he still feels the same way, then I guess that he just it'll take time to change his position. Or you could always tell him to attend a JW concert. That might work. Hitman20 out!

[jsawruk 0]

It seems to me that your proffesor is not giving Williams the credit he deserves and that he is not recognizing the type of composing that he is doing.  It is easy to diminish Williams work when you compare it to Bach or Mozart, but those composers weren't composing for film and therefore had a freedom that John does not.  His work must fit into the context of each film, must be accessable to the audience that film is directed to, and must also take on all the constraints of the film itself (time, editing, etc.).  This is what makes his work so great, because he manages to create music that is accesable to a film aucience and yet stands on its own.  Even the music to his sequels, while reintroducing familiar themes, stands as its own complete composition and continues to grow and mature with each film.  His works are very important to this time period and his influence can be heard throughout many of today's films.  Try asking your professor to compare Wiliiams with other film composers (which would be a far more relevant arguement on his part).  I'll guarantee he'll have a much harder time naming any that  do.

I am not sure what you are referring to. Both of my composition professors (1 a film composer himself) and my music history professor consider JW to be important and I believe give them sufficient credit. If not, then why did one encourage me to write an academic paper on JW and teach her class, and the other analyse JW works for advanced compostion. Advanced composition! I could've analysed any composer out there and HE suggested JW .

I think you misread my post. My professors love JW, but most others probably wouldn't. And as far as my professors comparing JW to other film composers, they all can far exceed any comparisons I could do at this moment.

[jsawruk 0]

My main question really was and is:

Is there any proof that John Williams is a serious composer, an important composer in the same league as Wagner, Beethoven etc.?

The answer is quite simple really. The proof you seek exists, but no one has found it yet. In order to ascertain properly such a statement, one would have to do an in-depth analysis of the entire corpus (or signifigant portions thereof) of JWs works.

My intuition and own analyses, however, lead me to this conclusion:

JW does not belong to be filed with the greatest composers of the world, and here is why:

- JW does not work in enough genres. He works in primarily contemporary, romantic, and jazz concert and film scores. Although he has written a musical and a symphony, as well as several concerti, he should continue to do more in these realms. If his concerti sounded like his film scores, maybe I would think differently.

- JW's overall compositional technique is lacking. The absolute best composers were masters of orchestration, style, form, harmony, melody, counterpoint, and extramusical associations. I do not feel that JW approaches ALL of these aspects consistently strong, except for melody and extramusical aspects.

- JW is still alive. No great composer lives anymore. It's not to say that no living composer is not great, it's just that we won't know it until after they are dead.

This does not mean JW isn't good or even great. It just means he's not Beethoven. Perhaps JW should be filed with Schumann, Holst, Vaughn Williams, Copland, Adams (etc.); all of whom are wonderful composers but just not at the top. I would call such composers "first and a half rate composers", and this is where I (personally) feel Williams will be remembered.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Why? Why can't you people just let academics have their opinion of what JW deserves, just like we have ours? Why do we even have to care about what they think or say?

Because not all academics have the same opinion, and Ren, being an academission, could be a voice on the side of JW. Personally I only care about my opinion, and those here.

:cool: Young Sherlock Holmes.

[Elmo Lewis 6]

Yeah, I just don't see the need to defend JW before any academic, or anyone at all. We're not the missionaries of John Williams' music - just fans.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

We're not the missionaries of John Williams' music - just fans.

true, but who better to take up the cause of JW than his fans.

still be a music professor doesn't necessarily give him any extra insight into the workings of filmscores, he may be just spouting elitist claptrap, with no real base to stand on.

[Elmo Lewis 6]

You are right in that post, Joe. All I'm saying is that I, as a JW fan, don't feel the need to "take up" any "cause", other than going to a mall to pick his latest CD.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

:cool:

[jsawruk 0]

true, but who better to take up the cause of JW than his fans.

still be a music professor doesn't necessarily give him any extra insight into the workings of filmscores, he may be just spouting elitist claptrap, with no real base to stand on.

I hope you honestly don't mean that. After all, my composition professor IS a film composer. If he doesn't know the insight into the workings of film scores, then no one does. Sure, he hasn't won an academy award, but he gets to vote on who does.

And may I remind you that there are more academics here than just Ren (and I don't mean just myself either). I am almost insulted, because you make it seem like she is the only one among us with a brain. I think such statements insult other users on this board. She only has a bachelor's degree, as do I and a ton of other people on this board. But does that make her the only academic? No.

Also, you should give music professors more credit than you do. They know a lot more about music than you do. Sure, there can be elitism, but it is my experience that the overwhelming majority are not such. If academia were truly ignoring film music, why are more and more colleges offering courses in it? Why are the academic conferences on the subject? The truth is, there is serious musicological research and analysis of film music with an ever expanding interest in it. They are NOT the enemy, so don't treat them as such.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

the words

doesn't necessarily  

mean that a music professor

doesn't necessarily  

mean he knows anything about film scoring. I would bet, and win, that most music professors, are not film composers, or experts on the subject,

And may I remind you that there are more academics here than just Ren (and I don't mean just myself either). I am almost insulted,

be insulted if you want, I just used Ren as an example since I know she is working on her masters, and is a music teacher, but it wasn't personal.

Also, you should give music professors more credit than you do. They know a lot more about music than you do.

yes they do, as do most people here, but it doesn't mean they (professors) know more about John Williams than I do, and just because they are blessed with music knowledge doesn't make their opinions any more valid or invalid than mine, or yours for that matter.

there is serious musicological research and analysis of film music with an ever expanding interest in it.

so, maybe they ought to listen and feel, rather than just research and analyze.

They are NOT the enemy, so don't treat them as such.

who said they were, but if I or anyone else here wants to treat them as enemies, it isn't for you to tell us not too.

Joe, who keeps his friends close, but his enemies closer(that is until I kill them!)

[Morn 8]

- JW does not work in enough genres. He works in primarily contemporary, romantic, and jazz concert and film scores. Although he has written a musical and a symphony, as well as several concerti, he should continue to do more in these realms. If his concerti sounded like his film scores, maybe I would think differently.

JW has worked in evert genre, you mean forum. I don't see why it is required that he covers many forms for him to be considered great, but regardless of that, forum is becoming much less important today anyway, with composers often using their own forums, wanting to avoid a forum where in hundreds of composer are competition and where the form has been used hundreds of times.

In any event, the range of styles, ethnic music and genres that Williams has tried and excelled in, makes up for any lack of forms.

- JW's overall compositional technique is lacking. The absolute best composers were masters of orchestration, style, form, harmony, melody, counterpoint, and extramusical associations. I do not feel that JW approaches ALL of these aspects consistently strong, except for melody and extramusical aspects.

JW is very strong in style, orchestration and melody. The others I'm not sure if he is a master in, but I don't think he's lacking in by any means. I would like to know why you don't think JW approaches all of these aspects consistently strong.

Also, I wonder why you give such little value in the innovation of a composer as to a requirement of one being considered to have a 'divine' spark.

[charlesk 0]

I've found that those classical music 'lovers' who promply discard Williams are, in fact, hidding their lack of tolerance to the modern style of orchestra music, which is very different from Mozart or Beethoven or even Wagner. They just can't keep track of the free form structure of the score, the highly changing action descriptive moments, the non-tonal parts. They just have nothing to grab to, like the old structures of Mozart.

It was Aaron Copland who said in his book that it is actually weird that we should be listening to music from Bach and Mozart, which belong to a much different kind of people, instead of embracing the music of our era. Our music is less isolated, less 'local', it now embraces drums and rythms, melts classical simplicity with baroque counterpoint with romantic lyricism and modern atonality. Our music is the result of our history, it exhudes the drama, the wars, the complexity of our fast technological world. Of course some people will not be willing to embrace this, as they don't embrace technology, as they live in the past, yearning for their 'better' days, instead of enjoying the process of evolution. I pity them...

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Well said.

- Marc

[tpigeon 3]

I've found that those classical music 'lovers' who promply discard Williams are, in fact, hidding their lack of tolerance to the modern style of orchestra music, which is very different from Mozart or Beethoven or even Wagner. They just can't keep track of the free form structure of the score, the highly changing action descriptive moments, the non-tonal parts. They just have nothing to grab to, like the old structures of Mozart.

It was Aaron Copland who said in his book that it is actually weird that we should be listening to music from Bach and Mozart, which belong to a much different kind of people, instead of embracing the music of our era. Our music is less isolated, less 'local', it now embraces drums and rythms, melts classical simplicity with baroque counterpoint with romantic lyricism and modern atonality. Our music is the result of our history, it exhudes the drama, the wars, the complexity of our fast technological world. Of course some people will not be willing to embrace this, as they don't embrace technology, as they live in the past, yearning for their 'better' days, instead of enjoying the process of evolution. I pity them...

Great post, Charles!

Ted

[Morn 8]

charlesk is certainly onto something... that will apply to some people. But many people just don't see Williams as someone who is original or they think such things as well he's good with mere commericial stuff like film music. :-/

[djc242 0]

The question really is what genre in music dominates (besides MTV)? There are many "serious" composers, but orchestral writing is not necessarily on their agenda. My composition professor, for example, was commissioned by Leonard Slatkin and the National Symphony to compose a symphony, and she nearly declined! It was a huge success last fall, but the point is that many composers are writing for new combinations of chamber groups and a lot of electronic music (not techno) in styles like Reich or Varese and beyond.

At the point where Schönberg and his Viennese school made their leap into new territory, those composers who went the other direction continued to look back at Beethoven and Wagner, and brought their style to the silver screen in the Golden Age (composers Korngold, Steiner, Waxman, etc - many of Williams' teachers and influences). The continuation of using music to represent something extra musical was very much apart of their agenda.

In fifty years, the genre that will be most remembered from the 20th and early 21st centuries will be the film score, symphonic or otherwise. Wagner believed in the power of the music/drama binary, which is why he stuck mainly to his music drama (not opera, according to him), and left other standard genres behind (symphony, string quartet, etc.) Films are today's operas, both serious and comic, and Williams is the single most influential composer in this "new" sector of music.

~Daniel Chan

[jsawruk 0]

I think Americana and experimental and electronic musics will dominate the majority of 20th century studies, with film scores playing a secondary role. The role of the film score in the 20th century will be analogous to the role of the camerata during the early baroque. There are some noteworthy composers, but I feel that the real artistry can only come with time. Perhaps then, in this regard, Williams would be an analogue to Monteverdi.

[ocelot 508]

The works of Williams in Film as magnificent as it is, does not count him amongst the Classical composers of note. He has to change his style from one film to the next and so he brings in things from other composers of the past. Your teacher needs to listen to his classical works and then make a comment. Elegy for Cello and Orchestra, his concertos, his millenium piece, all those things, not his film and olympic fanfares.

[ocelot 508]

Having said that, let him llisten to AI and Minority Reprot, those are more classical like works!

[Guest]

. I would call such composers "first and a half rate composers.

So what does that make you, 10th rate?

I think Americana and experimental and electronic musics will dominate the majority of 20th century studies, with film scores playing a secondary role.

And film music is not Americana? You know little but spout much Jeremy.

[King Mark 3,631]

The works of Williams in Film as magnificent as it is, does not count him amongst the Classical composers of note.  He has to change his style from one film to the next and so he brings in things from other composers of the past.  Your teacher needs to listen to his classical works and then make a comment.  Elegy for Cello and Orchestra, his concertos, his millenium piece, all those things, not his film and olympic fanfares.

All I can say is that in reverse no other classical composer sounds like JW,so there.

If he changes style from one film to the next,how come I can tell it's him 99% of the time before I see his name credited

K.M.Who would listen to more "classical music" if it sounded more like Williams.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

Sure, he hasn't won an academy award, but he gets to vote on who does.  

WHAT?!?!?!?!??!

And haven't you killed him already?

All those Williams scores that didnt won....

(PS: i was joking ok? dont try anything foolish )

[jsawruk 0]

This post has been deleted because it was redundant.

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[jsawruk 0]

. I would call such composers "first and a half rate composers.

So what does that make you, 10th rate?

I think Americana and experimental and electronic musics will dominate the majority of 20th century studies, with film scores playing a secondary role.

And film music is not Americana? You know little but spout much Jeremy.

I'm probably about 20th - 25th rate, and I am not ashamed of that. Only a handful of composers make anything about 5th rate before they are 21. Certainly I won't, but I'm not infinitely rich nor can I devote ever passing moment to composing. However, most composers my age are even further down and we all together move up over time, if we have the will and determination.

As for film music being Americana, I think you misintepreted me. What I meant was composers like Ives, Copland, and Gershwin (to name a few) who successfully created an American sound without being overly derivate of the European tradition. Williams, I think, falls into this category. However, I do not think the majority of film music does. Americana does NOT mean patriotic, nor does it necessarily mean made in North America. Hope this clears things up.

You assume too much. I didn't get to teach nor write research papers on JW by not knowing anything. I think I deserve a little credit. Sure, I don't know everything, but neither do you.

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: