Lincoln FILM Discussion Thread

[Incanus 5,715]

Judging by the score, it's all a little too nice again. I wish a musical talent like John Williams would reinvent himself every once in a while.

But then majority of his fans would bemoan that he has abandoned the path of wisdom. In Williams' defence has done a plethora of different kinds of films in the past 12 years. Obviously Spielberg doesn't demand or challenge him by asking something radically different from him. But he also is more voracious than ever for new music from Williams, the composer recording over 90 minutes of music for Lincoln and Spielberg ends up using minimal amount of it in the film. Recording sessions are a bit expensive time as an excuse to hang out with your best buddy but Spielberg can afford it.

The more challenging Williams is found in his concert works, which while remaining quite accessible present a more free playground for him. Things like e.g. Quartet La Jolla are very interesting and wonderful fresh material from the Maestro if you find his film work stale.

[Quintus 5,399]

Lets face it though: in the eyes and ears of Incanus JW can do no wrong.

Village Voice actually gives a glowing review ending in this insightful comment:

Oh, and there's some orchestral bullshit by John Williams, too, if you're into that kind of thing.

What a cunt.

A "withdrawn performance" from Daniel Day-Lewis? Now this is unheard of.

If this is true then why can't I see fire and brimstone when I look out of the window this morning?

Just to rain on the jubilee parade

What a cunt.

[Brónach 1,302]

The more challenging Williams is found in his concert works, which while remaining quite accessible present a more free playground for him. Things like e.g. Quartet La Jolla are very interesting and wonderful fresh material from the Maestro if you find his film work stale.

One cannot ignore JW's concert work if you're trying to stablish whether you like his music or not anymore.

[Quintus 5,399]

Yes you can.

[Incanus 5,715]

Lets face it though: in the eyes and ears of Incanus JW can do no wrong.

Well I am not crying my every misgiving to high heaven like most of you are wont to do. It is almost like you love to trample on every small thing you don't like about his music and magnify it times 100 just so you can throw it on other people's face with sneering glee as if it somehow gains you something. Be critical by all means and I'll be ever the optimist. There is room for all of us here.

But not to the awful Radagast the Brown character from the new Hobbit films. In his case I'll focus on the negative. Some things just shouldn't be.

[Quintus 5,399]

Sorry Incanus, but that a fallacy. You're just hyper-sensitive to any form of JW criticism whatsoever, always have been. At times I'm afraid it can make your arguments a bit twee.

[publicist 4,643]

And we will always have the KM's and hornists as watchful guardians for the preservation of Williams' reputation.

[Incanus 5,715]

Sorry Incanus, but that a fallacy. You're just hyper-sensitive to any form of JW criticism whatsoever, always have been. At times I'm afraid it can make your arguments a bit twee.

Yes of course if we are having a debate, where I have to prove you something.

[publicist 4,643]

Sorry Incanus, but that a fallacy. You're just hyper-sensitive to any form of JW criticism whatsoever, always have been. At times I'm afraid it can make your arguments a bit twee.

He'll just write a 5000-word-poem on the magnificence of DINNER WITH AMELIA to get your snotty comments out of his system..

[Brónach 1,302]

Yes you can.

Oh so we can evaluate things without listening to them in the first place? Great.

[Incanus 5,715]

Sorry Incanus, but that a fallacy. You're just hyper-sensitive to any form of JW criticism whatsoever, always have been. At times I'm afraid it can make your arguments a bit twee.

He'll just write a 5000-word-poem on the magnificence of DINNER WITH AMELIA to get your snotty comments out of his system..

Don't tempt me. I might go for 10 000 words.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Quintus 5,399]

And we will always have the KM's and hornists as watchful guardians for the preservation of Williams' reputation.

To side with Incanus, you are the reliable exception to that aforementioned fallacy, historically. Come on pub, you really are only happy when you feel you've found something to sneer and scoff at, be it Williams or Spielberg. Scratch that - anyone successful and admired.

Dude, I'm only going off what you've given me over the years.

Sorry Incanus, but that a fallacy. You're just hyper-sensitive to any form of JW criticism whatsoever, always have been. At times I'm afraid it can make your arguments a bit twee.

He'll just write a 5000-word-poem on the magnificence of DINNER WITH AMELIA to get your snotty comments out of his system..

LOL!

Sorry Mikko, but that was funny. And AFFECTIONATE

[publicist 4,643]

Well, i hardly am overly critical with i. e. Williams' contribution to LINCOLN, it often just appears that way because of all the masterpiece hyperbole bullshit so typical of our knee-jerk culture, where any kind of evaluation in a bigger context than 'the cd just arrived! OMG!!' is viewed with suspicion.

Which i find totally sucky.

Dude, I'm only going off what you've given me over the years

I could prove empirically that's not true, even within the other LINCOLN thread.

And to make point, for better or worse, my reactions are 99% triggered by other posters here, seldom by composers or directors.

[Incanus 5,715]

Well, i hardly am overly critical with i. e. Williams' contribution to LINCOLN, it often just appears that way because of all the masterpiece hyperbole bullshit so typical of our knee-jerk culture, where any kind of evaluation in a bigger context than 'the cd just arrived! OMG!!' is viewed with suspicion.

Which i find totally sucky.

Well there is of course the bigger picture but as a rule most people do not start doing a chart of how the new piece or score fits in the history of the genre or the world of art when they hear it. They might if they are of analytical sort make notes and spot similarities to what has come before but usually it is more of a gut feeling of whether you like the piece or CD or not. Analysis or setting things in context comes later. And if a piece of music speaks to you and you like it, should you still take a neutral stance and announce that it is merely ok when all things are considered although you find it great.

[Quintus 5,399]

Well, i hardly am overly critical with i. e. Williams' contribution to LINCOLN, it often just appears that way because of all the masterpiece hyperbole bullshit so typical of our knee-jerk culture, where any kind of evaluation in a bigger context than 'the cd just arrived! OMG!!' is viewed with suspicion.

I know and I tend to see that silliness in the same way as yourself, but at the end of the day this is a fan site and I think it's a bit pointless to reprimand such harmless excitement. Wouldn't ever want people to think of me as being miserable. Let the happy fans have their fun, just as long as they don't try to fill my head with their shit, which they rarely do.

And if a piece of music speaks to you and you like it, should you still take a neutral stance and announce that it is merely ok when all things are considered although you find it great.

But what happens when a person unabashedly embraces and adores EVERY artist's piece that comes their way? They become an unreliable source for critique (and praise).

[publicist 4,643]

@ Incanus: That's besides the point, the 'viewed with suspicion' is the culprit here. Apart from the banter, there is a tendency to condemn anything that's not wholesome praise (i categorically don't include you)

@Quint: see above; it's not about not wanting the kids to have fun, but how often confronting views are viewed as harmful and mean-spirited (at least in threads regarding Williams).

[Incanus 5,715]

And if a piece of music speaks to you and you like it, should you still take a neutral stance and announce that it is merely ok when all things are considered although you find it great.

But what happens when a person unabashedly embraces and adores EVERY artist's piece that comes their way? They become an unreliable source for critique (and praise).

Well that is true to an extent, no argument there.

[Brónach 1,302]

And if a piece of music speaks to you and you like it, should you still take a neutral stance and announce that it is merely ok when all things are considered although you find it great.

But what happens when a person unabashedly embraces and adores EVERY artist's piece that comes their way? They become an unreliable source for critique (and praise).

I think what happens is that people who don't actually do that are accused of this just because they prefer talking about what they happen to like*. Then there's people who yes, might do that.

*This is why I don't go scoffing around whenever publicist or Alex start going fanboy over Alexandre Desplat, for example.

[Quintus 5,399]

@ Incanus: That's besides the point, the 'viewed with suspicion' is the culprit here. Apart from the banter, there is a tendency to condemn anything that's not wholesome praise (i categorically don't include you)

@Quint: see above; it's not about not wanting the kids to have fun, but how often confronting views are viewed as harmful and mean-spirited (at least in threads regarding Williams).

I certainly agree with this. However, I think it's less the conflicting views which are the problem and more the style and disposition of the critic.

[publicist 4,643]

And i tone myself down already...

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[publicist 4,643]

Hear, hear!

[A24 4,338]

But then majority of his fans would bemoan that he has abandoned the path of wisdom.

I firmly believe that an artist should stay ahead of his fans. Lincoln's predictability puts me asleep. A little more musical venture wouldn't hurt.

[Quintus 5,399]

Incanus doesn't seem to understand the concept of what it means when fans of a band say, "I liked their older stuff." Either that, or it's just a sentiment he rejects.

[Joni Wiljami 1,206]

And we will always have the KM's and hornists as watchful guardians for the preservation of Williams' reputation.

Yeah!! Unhesitatingly if there is a need.

I firmly believe that an artist should stay ahead of his fans. Lincoln's predictability puts me asleep. A little more musical venture wouldn't hurt.

And possible ruin the whole elegant and delicate score? I think he knows better than you how to do it, also has made

quite many "musical ventures" during his career.

[King Mark 3,631]

Well, the movie is 92% on RT with 90+ critics counted...

[Koray Savas 2,251]

The problem is that every new JW score is ignorantly placed on the pedestal of supreme scoring.

[Joni Wiljami 1,206]

Not on behalf on me, I didn't like KOTCS at all.

But if I love something, I'm gonna shout it loud here. Also in the future. Whatever you heretics will say.

[Hlao-roo 389]

But then majority of his fans would bemoan that he has abandoned the path of wisdom.

I firmly believe that an artist should stay ahead of his fans. Lincoln's predictability puts me asleep. A little more musical venture wouldn't hurt.

I'm all for Williams fiddling with new ideas when he gets the chance (e.g., the overt minimalism of "The Mecha World," the timbral inventiveness of "The Conspirators"), but sometimes just having older ideas come together and culminate in something forceful and assured is just as satisfying -- and that's what Lincoln is to me.

The only thing I have a problem with is people saying no other composer can write music as good as John Williams' with every new score by him being released. To me, that's not an opinion, that's being narrow-minded.

I'm fine with them loving the music, thinking it's a masterpiece and all. But saying that he's the only composer who can write amazing music, now THAT pisses me off.

Other composers can write amazing music, but they're all dead. Or so I hear.

[publicist 4,643]

Not on behalf on me, I didn't like KOTCS at all.

The recording sessions revealed three catchy action cues (all the jungle stuff) and so i have made my peace with it.

But then majority of his fans would bemoan that he has abandoned the path of wisdom.

I firmly believe that an artist should stay ahead of his fans. Lincoln's predictability puts me asleep. A little more musical venture wouldn't hurt.

I'm all for Williams fiddling with new ideas when he gets the chance (e.g., the overt minimalism of "The Mecha World," the timbral inventiveness of "The Conspirators"), but sometimes just having older ideas come together and culminate in something forceful and assured is just as satisfying -- and that's what Lincoln is to me.

Right, right, old chap. It also must be acknowledged that it is a tad unrealistic to expect a 80-year old man to be that hungry for innovation - yelling at Spielberg to let him do an impressionistic fugue over one of the wholesome Norman-Rockwell shots.

[Hlao-roo 389]

Not on behalf on me, I didn't like KOTCS at all.

The recording sessions revealed three catchy action cues (all the jungle stuff) and so i have made my peace with it.

In other words, you hate it. Typical!

[publicist 4,643]

I can't fight my basic nature!

[A24 4,338]

I'm all for Williams fiddling with new ideas when he gets the chance (e.g., the overt minimalism of "The Mecha World," the timbral inventiveness of "The Conspirators"), but sometimes just having older ideas come together and culminate in something forceful and assured is just as satisfying -- and that's what Lincoln is to me.

But does it have to be so typical? Don't you want to be surprised just a little bit? Listening to Lincoln felt as if I already listened to it a thousand times before. I feel that Williams has composed what already exists over and over again. Even though the notes aren't exactly the same, the emotion they make is getting old. Williams should be in a position where he can do what he wants but somehow he's afraid to color outside the lines. New flavors keeps it interesting, not only for the audience but for the artist as well. Wherein lies the progression that Williams makes?

Alex

[Hlao-roo 389]

And if a piece of music speaks to you and you like it, should you still take a neutral stance and announce that it is merely ok when all things are considered although you find it great.

But what happens when a person unabashedly embraces and adores EVERY artist's piece that comes their way? They become an unreliable source for critique (and praise).

I think what happens is that people who don't actually do that are accused of this just because they prefer talking about what they happen to like*. Then there's people who yes, might do that.

Well, it seems to me that people assume if someone is "embracing and adoring" one artist's work, he's somehow doing it at the expense of not only his appreciation of others artists' work, but everyone else's. I just find that very silly.

A person might have very good (personal) reasons for regularly cheering or pooh-poohing a composer's work, and we should be fine with that, even if our own appraisal of the composer's work is more mixed.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Hlao-roo 389]

I'm all for Williams fiddling with new ideas when he gets the chance (e.g., the overt minimalism of "The Mecha World," the timbral inventiveness of "The Conspirators"), but sometimes just having older ideas come together and culminate in something forceful and assured is just as satisfying -- and that's what Lincoln is to me.

But does it have to be so typical? Don't you want to be surprised just a little bit? Listening to Lincoln felt as if I already listened to it a thousand times before. I feel that Williams has composed what already exists over and over again. Even though the notes aren't exactly the same, the emotion they make is getting old. Williams should be in a position where he can do what he wants but somehow he's afraid to color outside the lines. New flavors keeps it interesting, not only for the audience but for the artist as well. Wherein lies the progression that Williams makes?

Alex

On an abstract level, of course I agree with you. Who doesn't want every new score to achieve top marks not just in originality, but in every category: melody, compositional sophistication, performance, recording quality, entertainment value, and so on? But, realistically, scores will be strong in some areas and not as strong in others. This is where you have to weigh things like taste and context. Again, that Williams here mostly refines previously mined ideas doesn't bother me because I genuinely like what Williams gives us melodically; I like the intimate, chamber-like nature of much of the score; I like that even if I've encountered some of these emotions before in previous scores, I've never experienced them as completely and cogently as I do here.

As to context, I remember writing when I first heard "No Man's Land" that it was the freshest action music Williams had written in years. I still feel that way. Despite featuring some slight MV/RC overtones, it seemed fresh because it represented such a stark departure from the ADHD-ridden tendencies Williams had been exhibiting in his action music for at least a decade. There seemed to be a renewed commitment to the emotional, as opposed to simply kinetic, experience of the scene. But then I watched the film and felt strongly that Williams (and Spielberg) had made the wrong call. I thought the scene called for something grimmer, something starker, more spartan, to fully convey the terrifying and disorienting nature of the proceedings. Suddenly "No Man's Land," for all its atypicality at this point in Williams's career, didn't seem to be the triumph I'd originally thought it was.

The point is that fidelity to the picture ultimately has to be highest consideration, even if the potential for greater originality has to be sacrificed in the process. It's not by definition a zero sum game, of course -- you can have both -- but you always have to consider the context. Lincoln, by all accounts, is very much a conservative film (not in the political sense), if occasionally in somewhat unSpielbergian ways, and I expect the score to match its conservative sensibilities.

[publicist 4,643]

The point is that fidelity to the picture ultimately has to be highest consideration, even if the potential for greater originality has to be sacrificed in the process.

Have you heard recent Horner scores? Do you consider his (certainly more crass) reurgitations as refinements, too, or where does he overstep the line?

[Quintus 5,399]

Well, it seems to me that people assume if someone is "embracing and adoring" one artist's work, he's somehow doing it at the expense of not only his appreciation of others artists' work, but everyone else's. I just find that very silly.

Yes we already know that you believe fanboyism on the internet to be a myth. Or more specifically; you're uncomfortable with the negative connotations attached to unbridled enthusiasm, which is a bit daft really and not worth worrying about since being a fanboy of John Williams or anything else for that matter is actually absolutely fine and even admirable, in a way.

[Hlao-roo 389]

The point is that fidelity to the picture ultimately has to be highest consideration, even if the potential for greater originality has to be sacrificed in the process.

Have you heard recent Horner scores? Do you consider his (certainly more crass) reurgitations as refinements, too, or where does he overstep the line?

I haven't, actually, not since A Beautiful Mind, which of course gave us the fourth not-so-well disguised and highly distracting iteration of a theme first heard in Sneakers -- the Ludlow's Demise of Horner's canon, if you like.

Something you hear about Williams, generally in a laudatory sense, is that he takes other people's ideas and makes them new. The influences are clear, but be owns them and makes the final product his own. Horner, on the other hand, gets accused of (self-)plagiarism. The line between the two probably isn't as bright as many of us like to think. The crude way of putting it may be that Williams is usually (but not always) the sneakier thief, while Horner is the lazier one who makes no attempt to cover up his tracks, shamelessly quoting entire passages wholesale.

With regard to self-references, it does come down to taste, I think. This isn't the best comparison, but it's what pops into my mind. Horner uncreatively repackages Sneakers, The Spitfire Grill, Braveheart, Deep Impact (itself derivative of The Spitfire Grill), and other scores into Bicentennial Man, with diminishing returns, I think, and so it sounds like he "oversteps the line." Whereas I find that in the case of Lincoln, Williams revisits Amistad, Saving Private Ryan, The Unfinished Journey, The Patriot, and War Horse and cobbles it all together in a way that generally sounds energized, not enervated.

[Quintus 5,399]

The point is that fidelity to the picture ultimately has to be highest consideration, even if the potential for greater originality has to be sacrificed in the process.

Have you heard recent Horner scores? Do you consider his (certainly more crass) reurgitations as refinements, too, or where does he overstep the line?

Horner is a lazy bastard hack!

Still love him.

[Hlao-roo 389]

Well, it seems to me that people assume if someone is "embracing and adoring" one artist's work, he's somehow doing it at the expense of not only his appreciation of others artists' work, but everyone else's. I just find that very silly.

Yes we already know that you believe fanboyism on the internet to be a myth. Or more specifically; you're uncomfortable with the negative connotations attached to unbridled enthusiasm, which is a bit daft really and not worth worrying about since being a fanboy of John Williams or anything else for that matter is actually absolutely fine and even admirable, in a way.

I am yet to see the supposed harmful effects this "unbridled enthusiasm" has on this board aside from arousing the ire of people like you. It seems to me just one general perspective among many (or a few).

[Quintus 5,399]

I'm all for Williams fiddling with new ideas when he gets the chance (e.g., the overt minimalism of "The Mecha World," the timbral inventiveness of "The Conspirators"), but sometimes just having older ideas come together and culminate in something forceful and assured is just as satisfying -- and that's what Lincoln is to me.

But does it have to be so typical? Don't you want to be surprised just a little bit? Listening to Lincoln felt as if I already listened to it a thousand times before. I feel that Williams has composed what already exists over and over again. Even though the notes aren't exactly the same, the emotion they make is getting old. Williams should be in a position where he can do what he wants but somehow he's afraid to color outside the lines. New flavors keeps it interesting, not only for the audience but for the artist as well. Wherein lies the progression that Williams makes?

Alex

On an abstract level, of course I agree with you. Who doesn't want every new score to achieve top marks not just in originality, but in every category: melody, compositional sophistication, performance, recording quality, entertainment value, and so on? But, realistically, scores will be strong in some areas and not as strong in others. This is where you have to weigh things like taste and context. Again, that Williams here mostly refines previously mined ideas doesn't bother me because I genuinely like what Williams gives us melodically; I like the intimate, chamber-like nature of much of the score; I like that even if I've encountered some of these emotions before in previous scores, I've never experienced them as completely and cogently as I do here.

As to context, I remember writing when I first heard "No Man's Land" that it was the freshest action music Williams had written in years. I still feel that way. Despite featuring some slight MV/RC overtones, it seemed fresh because it represented such a stark departure from the ADHD-ridden tendencies Williams had been exhibiting in his action music for at least a decade. There seemed to be a renewed commitment to the emotional, as opposed to simply kinetic, experience of the scene. But then I watched the film and felt strongly that Williams (and Spielberg) had made the wrong call. I thought the scene called for something grimmer, something starker, more spartan, to fully convey the terrifying and disorienting nature of the proceedings. Suddenly "No Man's Land," for all its atypicality at this point in Williams's career, didn't seem to be the triumph I'd originally thought it was.

High praise indeed. I shall immediately rethink my snobbery toward the score and find the time to listen.

The point is that fidelity to the picture ultimately has to be highest consideration, even if the potential for greater originality has to be sacrificed in the process. It's not by definition a zero sum game, of course -- you can have both -- but you always have to consider the context.

Refreshing to hear this good sense from another JWFaner, since sometimes it feels like I'm the only one here who champions function over form. An exaggeration on my part, obviously.

[publicist 4,643]

I am yet to see the supposed harmful effects this "unbridled enthusiasm" has on this board aside from arousing the ire of people like you. It seems to me just one general perspective among many (or a few).

Usually, i don't care much one way or another, but 'unbridled enthusiasm' here and elsewhere goes often hand in hand with certain undesireable traits, like the all-too-known putting down of others (composers). And that's not just something on the fringes.

[Quintus 5,399]

Well, it seems to me that people assume if someone is "embracing and adoring" one artist's work, he's somehow doing it at the expense of not only his appreciation of others artists' work, but everyone else's. I just find that very silly.

Yes we already know that you believe fanboyism on the internet to be a myth. Or more specifically; you're uncomfortable with the negative connotations attached to unbridled enthusiasm, which is a bit daft really and not worth worrying about since being a fanboy of John Williams or anything else for that matter is actually absolutely fine and even admirable, in a way.

I am yet to see the supposed harmful effects this "unbridled enthusiasm" has on this board aside from arousing the ire of people like you. It seems to me just one general perspective among many (or a few).

No ire, I'm afraid. Just a response to your quoting of me earlier. Back off, Alan.

I am yet to see the supposed harmful effects this "unbridled enthusiasm" has on this board aside from arousing the ire of people like you. It seems to me just one general perspective among many (or a few).

Usually, i don't care much one way or another, but 'unbridled enthusiasm' here and elsewhere goes often hand in hand with certain undesireable traits, like the all-too-known putting down of others (composers). And that's not just something on the fringes.

This is a myth. Stop trying to upset the perfect harmony of the internet.

[publicist 4,643]

Something you hear about Williams, generally in a laudatory sense, is that he takes other people's ideas and makes them new. The influences are clear, but be owns them and makes the final product his own. Horner, on the other hand, gets accused of (self-)plagiarism. The line between the two probably isn't as bright as many of us like to think. The crude way of putting it may be that Williams is usually (but not always) the sneakier thief, while Horner is the lazier one who makes no attempt to cover up his tracks, shamelessly quoting entire passages wholesale.

In recent years, Horner's highly idiosyncratic style (to put it mildly) somehow interests me; not because the musical level is so high (it isn't) but more the reasons behind these actions and how i and others react to it. First, in the late 90's everyone just rolled their eyes (around BICENTENNIAL MAN there was a high point) but now i almost got used to it and am kind of content with it.

Even a totally shameless score like FOR GREATER GLORY, which not only rips but is drenched in overloud pathos and grandioso but undeserved musical gestures somehow lands on my playlist time and time again and i have not yet figured out what it is i like about it...

In Williams' case, it obviously lacks the shamelessness but it tends to be, like Alex put it, mildly boring in parts. I couldn't say what i mind more, actually although Williams wrote the superior MUSIC.

[Quintus 5,399]

Re: Horner.

I don't think I've ever agreed with you on something more.

[Brónach 1,302]

Today I mostly ignore Horner.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

The point is that fidelity to the picture ultimately has to be highest consideration, even if the potential for greater originality has to be sacrificed in the process.

Have you heard recent Horner scores? Do you consider his (certainly more crass) reurgitations as refinements, too, or where does he overstep the line?

Horner is a lazy bastard hack!

Still love him.

that's the point, i think.

All other composers are allowed to be "a [insert composer's fault here] bastard", and people still love them.

With williams it seem that if he has a fault... people have to stop loving him and hope he retires soon.

[Quintus 5,399]

They stop "loving" him?