In defence of John Williams

[SkyMaker 0]

I think my point is this: JW is a good composer, and an excellent film composer. However, his musical structures are somewhat limited (although both AOTC and Minority Reports are wonderful expansions to his lexicon), and draw too closely on his immediate and distant predecessors.

JS, please don't take this wrong, because it's not meant to be attacking you.

I see that you may feel being ambushed here, but that's not my intent, and my questions I have for you is to understand.

What do you mean that Williams' structures are limited? Do you mean his treatment of form, or harmony, or melody, or orchestration, or all of the above?

You also gave examples about expansions of his Lexicon, any specific examples from AOTC and Minority Report and explanations as to how and why?

In my very personal point of view, and it may not be shared with many, Williams' usage of structure are masterful. But we may have a different definition here. If I were to define structure in all its aspects, such as form, harmony, melody and orchestration, then I truly consider him to have mastered them, and excels at all of these aspects.

In trying to make a small assumption as what you maybe thinking that Williams is lacking, is it perhaps the emotional depth as say, Mahler?

If not, could you give examples of specific composers and their specific pieces that you consider to be structurally sound?

Furthermore, you mentioned about drawing too closely? Well, every composer draw from another. You feel he is not original enough?

I agree with you on that one on certain things of Williams. We all know that all composers are influenced a great deal. We can trace every single composer to his roots and how there current style still have traces of their followed masters. Each composer have many masters that drew from.

But I think where Williams is superior is turning something that's from one influence and make it his own voice. Plus, there are some very original stuff he does, his voicings, his orchestrations, and his harmonic vocabulary.

Thanks.

[Morn 8]

What do you mean that Williams' structures are limited? Do you mean his treatment of form, or harmony, or melody, or orchestration, or all of the above?

In my very personal point of view, and it may not be shared with many, Williams' usage of structure are masterful.

It is my impression that he is saying Williams structure is limited in the sense that he uses a lot of out of date structures, 19th century romantic style etc. Not that Williams isn't masteful with structures, but that Williams is not contempory enough.

You also gave examples about expansions of his Lexicon, any specific examples from AOTC and Minority Report and explanations as to how and why?

If you assume he ment what I thought he ment, isn't it obvious?

In trying to make a small assumption as what you maybe thinking that Williams is lacking, is it perhaps the emotional depth as say, Mahler?

LOL The Mahler fans would have you believe that, as good as Mahler is.... he doesn't beat say Schindler's List.

[jsawruk 0]

If I may venture my opinion, I think you're probably the biggest victim of musical elitism in this board, but NOT from us.

You obviously love JW's music, or you wouldn't be here.  You also happen to be in music school, in which the peer pressure as to your tastes must be astounding.  You yourself said that during your education you were made to disregard the music of The Beach Boys and The Beatles.  Now, with a little more maturity, you've come to appreciate them again.

The problem with classical elitists is that they close their minds, and nowhere is this more common than in a specialized school environment.  You have to work on two fornts: first, continue your education, and second, learn to ignore the B.S. that pops out of most of the pseudo-intellectuals you're surrounded by; 99% of them are just full of it and you'll be lucky if you find a handful of people you can actually respect.

Take what they tell you with a healthy grain of salt.  The validity of music does not begin and end with Mozart.

Thank you. And by the way, I think one of the reason I dislike Mozart so much is because people treat him as a music god. I know that I have said in the past that some of you take JW too subjectively, but I think their treatment of Mozart is far worse.

[jsawruk 0]

[it is my impression that he is saying Williams structure is limited in the sense that he uses a lot of out of date structures, 19th century romantic style etc. Not that Williams isn't masteful with structures, but that Williams is not contempory enough.  

You also gave examples about expansions of his Lexicon, any specific examples from AOTC and Minority Report and explanations as to how and why?

If you assume he ment what I thought he ment, isn't it obvious?

Rhythm, orchestration (especially the 2 sec of electric guitar, which I thought should have been more of because of how effective it was, as well as increased used of percussion section), harmony (particularly cluster chords, esp built Klangfarbenmelodie style), and even melody (Across the Stars modulates at least once, maybe twice in its exposition, I'll have to check - traditionally, JW rarely modulates a melody in its first exposition). That's just what I heard in AOTC that I found striking for JW movie scores (I don't know his concert pieces). If he continues to write like this, then he might be the greatest film composer ever.

[Ricard 2,245]

There is a difference between liking a composer's music and understanding a composer's music... sometimes I wonder if you do understand his music.

I certainly know a lot about music, film music, and JW.

(I don't know his concert pieces).

If he continues to write like this, then he might be the greatest film composer ever.

LOL If he continues to write like this (i.e. AOTC or MR), then I might stop buying his CDs.

And perhaps one day you'll learn that music appreciation has very little to do with objectivivity.

Ricard - Who has been listening, collecting, appreciating and understanding film music for more than 30 years.

[Akipk 0]

What's klangfarbenmelodie style?

I didn't like AOTC score that much either, lol.

[jsawruk 0]

Ricard - Who has been listening, collecting, appreciating and understanding film music for more than 30 years.

And I, who haven't lived for 30 years yet. I don't know why you laugh. I am almost complete in my JW collection: I just don't have his concert works yet. As soon as I have money, I will buy them

Klangfarbenmelodie is a technique invented by Webern which is supposed to be like pointilism, but layered. It's hard to explain. Just listen to the cluster chords where he adds them a note at a time (like in Zam...) and you will understand what I mean, even though it is not pure Klangfarbenmelodie.

I got an email today from Universal; they want me to send them my stuff.

Guess knowing something about music pays off .

[SkyMaker 0]

Rhythm, orchestration (especially the 2 sec of electric guitar, which I thought should have been more of because of how effective it was, as well as increased used of percussion section), harmony (particularly cluster chords, esp built Klangfarbenmelodie style), and even melody (Across the Stars modulates at least once, maybe twice in its exposition, I'll have to check - traditionally, JW rarely modulates a melody in its first exposition). That's just what I heard in AOTC that I found striking for JW movie scores (I don't know his concert pieces). If he continues to write like this, then he might be the greatest film composer ever.

traditionally, JW rarely modulates a melody in its first exposition).

Well, from my studies, Williams modulates very frequently when repeating his themes. He also changes orchestration. E.g., Love theme to Superman, where every "verse" is in a different key. The theme is never played twice in the same key.

Furthermore, E.T. & Me, after the theme is played by the harp, it's repeated by the strings in a different key.

Raiders March repeats the theme from C Major to D flat Major. Then he modulates to G Major for Marion's theme, and modulates again at the repeat of Marion's theme, and modulates again back to the original keys of the Raiders theme.

Across the Stars, modulates all the time, even modulating as the theme's exposition is developed.

From my studies of William's works, he almost always modulates. So, maybe I am not understanding what you meant about modulations in Williams' works. Not sure whether you're meaning it's not frequent enough, or something else.

What about these questions, which you forgot to answer?

What do you mean that Williams' structures are limited? Do you mean his treatment of form, or harmony, or melody, or orchestration, or all of the above?

If not, could you give examples of specific composers and their specific pieces that you consider to be structurally sound?

Again, these questions are nothing to attack you, just asking for clarification.

Thanks.

[Rogue_Leader 2]

LONG LIVE WILLIAMS!

Words to live by!

[jsawruk 0]

Well, from my studies, Williams modulates very frequently when repeating his themes. He also changes orchestration. E.g., Love theme to Superman, where every "verse" is in a different key. The theme is never played twice in the same key.  

Across the Stars, modulates all the time, even modulating as the theme's exposition is developed.  

The key word here is repeat. Every time the theme comes back, it's in a new key, which is perfectly fine and every composer does it. What makes Across the Stars different, as you pointed out, is that there are modulations within the theme's exposition. That is the point I was making, and why it is different from almost all his other themes which modulation only upon reiteration. This is characteristic of a later romantic style similar to Wagner and Wolff, rather than the earlier romanticists.

What do you mean that Williams' structures are limited? Do you mean his treatment of form, or harmony, or melody, or orchestration, or all of the above?  

Williams' form is not at issue here. Since he works in film music, we should almost discard the term form completely because the onscreen action alone dictates the form.

Melodically, Williams tends to use periods almost exclusively and disregards the sentence form of melodic construction. If anyone could give an example of a theme where Williams uses sentence construction, please give an example.

Also, thematically, Williams has extreme symmetry. His themes are almost always in measures evenly divisible by two. Composers have almost always used irregular thematic constructs. Could someone point out a JW theme of irregular construct?

Harmonically, Williams is still 19th century. He does not use modality, free chromaticism/12-tone, alternate scales (octatonic particularly, but I think he has done whole tone stuff), polytonality, polymodality, rapid modulations, functionless harmony (simultinaities), non equal tempered tunings, non-triadic harmonic units (quintal chords, quatral chords, cluster chords), extended triadic units (9ths, 11ths, 13ths).

Also, could someone please cite an augmented 6th chord in JW music; I just haven't found one yet, although it should be full of them. Also looking for phrygian cadence and altered 251 cadence using a neapolitan (seeing as he was jazzy, this should be very, very common).

Rhythmically, he is pretty good, even having odd time signatures in The Lost World (3/4, 3/8, 7/8, 5/8 etc). How about polymeter, polyrhythms, and metrical modulation?

His orchestrations, however, are not very adventurous; even Mahler had better orchestrations. Williams' orchestrations seem to come right out of the Rimsky-Korsakov book. Nonetheless, his orchestrations are great and probably the best orchestrations anywhere at this time. Got to give him credit for that.

[Romão 2,274]

JS, you make me feel very ignorant.

I don't know much about music, but I don know I cry listening to E.T, Amistad, Schindler's List. A.I, etc, etc, and I do know I just feel like jumping when listening to Zam, the Assassin, or Desert Chase, or Parade of the Slave Children, or just feel pure clean emotion when listening to Jane Eyre or Seven Years in Tibet. I just love his melodies and atmospheric writing...he realy knows how to define concepts musically.

I don't know a thing about music, but I really hinestly love John Williams music. I can only supose that having a musical education such as yourself would only increase my love for his music.

But I do agree with Ricard..objectivity and art don't match, but that's just my humble and ignorant take on things I do not fully understand but i sure feel.

[Ren 75]

woh.

this is kind of a mean thread. yuck :cool:

[Ren 75]

Hmm, I don't know how I missed this topic, but I assume its about me.

jeremy,

why do you say this? I never thought this at all. Were you having a bad day? Everyone jumped all over this and made you feel horrible. I don't think anyone starting this meant it at you. :cool:

[tpigeon 3]

i agree, Ren. this is getting ugly.

not that it matters a whole lot, here's my take on all of this. i'll be honest, i don't know too much about the technicality of music, and i know a very limited ammount about classical music and composers. and from what i've read in this thread so far, JW doesn't appear to be very embraced by the "intellectual" (for lack of a better word) music world, which i think is kind of a shame.

i will always equate Williams in the world of music to Spielberg in the world of movies. They both have achieved enormous popularity, and because of that, neither of them get the respect they deserve. recognition - yes, repect - no.

look at Spielberg and the amount of amazing films he's responsible for.

Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, E.T., Schindler's List, Jurassic Park, and Saving Private Ryan, are all arguably recognized as classics. he's made many more great movies, but these movies are universally known as amazing movies.

And yes, everyone knows the name Steven Spielberg. He is not known as a brilliant filmmaker, but rather as a pop-culture icon, generally speaking of course. if i say my favorite filmmaker is Steven Spielberg to a bunch of film critics and film historians, they will laugh in my face.

the same goes for Williams i think, except in the musical world of course.

[ChrisAfonso 188]

Well, from my studies, Williams modulates very frequently when repeating his themes. He also changes orchestration. E.g., Love theme to Superman, where every "verse" is in a different key. The theme is never played twice in the same key.  

Across the Stars, modulates all the time, even modulating as the theme's exposition is developed.  

The key word here is repeat. Every time the theme comes back, it's in a new key, which is perfectly fine and every composer does it. What makes Across the Stars different, as you pointed out, is that there are modulations within the theme's exposition. That is the point I was making, and why it is different from almost all his other themes which modulation only upon reiteration. This is characteristic of a later romantic style similar to Wagner and Wolff, rather than the earlier romanticists.

I don't have the time nor concentration now to look for more examples, but he does this more frequently than you think. The secondary part of JP's "Journey to the Island" theme (the part right after the initial statement of the island fanfare) is full of modulations. And Raiders's "Marion's Theme" the same.

Another theme that came to my mind right now which modulates a lot, is the theme from "Seven Years in Tibet" (c minor, b minor, bb minor, f minor, db minor, G Major, Ab Major, G Major, a minor ....)

And try the Main Titles from Raides (not the march but the second track on the Silva release), I haven't found the time yet to analyse it, but there's much to be found.

Melodically, Williams tends to use periods almost exclusively and disregards the sentence form of melodic construction. If anyone could give an example of a theme where Williams uses sentence construction, please give an example.

Please explain what this means, then I could see if I can add anything to that. :cool:

Also, thematically, Williams has extreme symmetry. His themes are almost always in measures evenly divisible by two. Composers have almost always used irregular thematic constructs. Could someone point out a JW theme of irregular construct?

Again, the secondary part of the Island Theme, e.g.. I count 9 bars (11 if you include the short bridge that leads to the primary theme again). And there are more, I'm sure.

Harmonically, Williams is still 19th century. He does not use modality, free chromaticism/12-tone, alternate scales (octatonic particularly, but I think he has done whole tone stuff), polytonality, polymodality, rapid modulations, functionless harmony (simultinaities), non equal tempered tunings, non-triadic harmonic units (quintal chords, quatral chords, cluster chords), extended triadic units (9ths, 11ths, 13ths).

It makes me really curious how you claim to know most of Williams's music (ok, or esp. film music, as much more is to be found in his concert music). Again, it would be too much to collect much examples right now, but just as an example, he uses Messiaen's mode 2 in a part of the Yavin battle from Star Wars.

Also, could someone please cite an augmented 6th chord in JW music; I just haven't found one yet, although it should be full of them. Also looking for phrygian cadence and altered 251 cadence using a neapolitan (seeing as he was jazzy, this should be very, very common).

Rhythmically, he is pretty good, even having odd time signatures in The Lost World (3/4, 3/8, 7/8, 5/8 etc). How about polymeter, polyrhythms, and metrical modulation?

Again, I'm not exactly sure that I know what you mean by those terms, but it would be nice if you could specify those further. However, I hope the following example matches that what you asked for.

Polymeter: What about this?

(Star Wars - listen here

-Chris

[JoeinAR 1,949]

jsawruk, I have chided you a little in this thread with no real anomosity, but I will say this and I don't mean it in any nice way, cause I don't think you can do what I am about to ask.

You think way to much, and you seem real proud of all your musical theory knowledge, but you just might want to shut up, turn on the stereo, turn out the light and just listen to some music. Really listen, don't analyze. Just listen and feel.

Are you capable of doing that, just listening and feeling the music without breaking it down into structures, and polythis and polythat?

Joe.

[jsawruk 0]

I can't not analyse. It is my responsibility as a composer to analyse every single piece of music that I encounter: and for some things, I don't even need the score to analyse, I can just hear it in the music. I can't help it; if I don't analyse, then what will my music sound like?

Chris, explain more on the mode 2: I would like to know more about how JW uses it in that music, and where in the score it is. Mode 2 is the octatonic scale, yes? If you can show that he uses Mode 2, or any Messiaen mode of limited transpostion, then I will indeed recant my statement about his musical structures: using Messiaen's modes is a sign of a highly achieved 20th century composer (except mode 1 - whole tone because it is very frequently used to imitate Debussy).

The polymeter you present is highly debatable. It could go either way: however, the only person with the right answer is JW himself, and fighting over it will lead to nothing. I can say that I hear it in 3/4, and not as 3/4 against 2/4.

I also think the JP Island theme is 8 measures: did you count the anacrusis as a seperate measure, or am I totally missing a measure.

Please, no more fighting. It gets us all nowhere. Can't we all just like the music, even if we do disagree on some very miniscule points?

:oops: :cry: :cry:

[Romão 2,274]

I feel really ignorant

But I'm ignorant with style.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I can't not analyse. It is my responsibility as a composer to analyse every single piece of music that I encounter: and for some things, I don't even need the score to analyse, I can just hear it in the music. I can't help it; if I don't analyse, then what will my music sound like?

You have my pity.

Stefancos- who does not analyze, only FEEL music.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I do pity you too jsawruk.

I may be ignorant of musical theory.

You are ignorant of feeling. What a cold and empty existance you must lead. You must not be much of a composer either, since you must analyze instead of feel.

[Morn 8]

What makes you assume he doesn't feel music as well as analyzing it? He is able to get enjoyment out of both feeling (of course) and analyzing it. Maybe it is you who should be pitied.

[jsawruk 0]

Agreed. First of all, you have never heard any of my music. Secondly, you don't know what I feel or how I feel. Just because I analyse music doesn't mean I don't feel something; I am just advised to strongly not feel anything. People hate when I write absolute music.

If I didn't feel things, how could I enjoy the movie?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Most pople on this MB who who claim to know about musical theory just seem to complain about how all living composers are inferiour to people who have been dead for hundreds of years.

that's the one gripe i have with classical elitists, they belief all the best music has already been written, therefore they have so little to look forward too. (Great, another recording of The Planets :roll: )

While I am confident that the best music still has to be composed.

Stefancos- who knows that music, reduced to it's technical specifics is no music at all.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Agreed. First of all, you have never heard any of my music.

You say you are a film composer, right?

What films have you scored.

Have you anything for us to sample?

Stefancos- curious.

[jsawruk 0]

You say you are a film composer' date=' right?

[/quote']

Not quite - but almost.

I am a film composition student. I am going to be going to USC next year for their certificate program which is excellent (ocelot went there).

Other than a short clip for the YFCC, I am scoring 2 films that my two friends are doing (and one may get into a film festival... we hope ).

Everything else I do is just concert music - though it varies a lot.

I have my first CD coming tomorrow . Anyone want a copy?

[Romão 2,274]

You could post a link for some mp3 sound samples.

I hope everything turns out for you.

[Morn 8]

Did you try this site?

http://members.sibeliusmusic.com/jsawruk

[JoeinAR 1,949]

What makes you assume he doesn't feel music as well as analyzing it? He is able to get enjoyment out of both feeling (of course) and analyzing it. Maybe it is you who should be pitied.

Morn, maybe when you have experience some real life, you will understand a few more things than you don't seem to grasp now.

[Morn 8]

huh?

[JoeinAR 1,949]

exactly Morn, you have an opinion on everything, but you seem to understand so little.

[Romão 2,274]

Peace, my friends.

One can barely judge the other based on his posts.

Sticks and stones...sticks and stones.

[Morn 8]

What did you mean by 'Morn, maybe when you have experience some real life, you will understand a few more things than you don't seem to grasp now.'?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

You are still very young, while Joe is very...very old.

Stefancos-

[Morn 8]

Most pople on this MB who who claim to know about musical theory just seem to complain about how all living composers are inferiour to people who have been dead for hundreds of years.

I think you'll find that they might think it's inferiour but they could like it more.

[jsawruk 0]

Most pople on this MB who who claim to know about musical theory just seem to complain about how all living composers are inferiour to people who have been dead for hundreds of years.

I think you'll find that they might think it's inferiour but they could like it more.

I never said anyone was inferior to anyone else...

But if we had to look at just composers living today, there are those that are inferior to other living composers. If we put it up for a vote among all musicologists, we'd probably have it close with Glass, Williams, Stockhausen, and McCartney; and of those 4 who probably are the greatest contemporaries (in their own fields: minimalism, film music, avant-garde, and rock), I don't like Glass, and I only like some Stockhausen, and I don't like EVERY McCartney song. But yet Glass and Stockhausen are technically superior to Williams and McCartney, and yet I like the latter better.

Oh and by the way, I think that all four of them are better than Mozart . So no, I complain not that Williams isn't Mozart, but rather that Mozart wasn't Williams LOL

I hate classicists, unless they say Hadyn was better than Mozart

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I seriously doubt that the two you mentioned are superior to Williams and McCartney. McCartney has touch more lives than either glass or the other guy will ever touch in ten lifetimes. What good is music if it doesn't touch someone?

McCartney has also touched more lives than John Williams. You make McCartney seem insignificant, when it is actually the others.

When glass and the other person write something as great as Hey Jude, and the Rubber Soul album, call me, leave a message cause I doubt I will ever hear from you

[Morn 8]

Have you heard Glass's film score Kundan? I think that is as good as anything McCartney has done.

And here are samples of Stockhausen. Now that is what you call intellectual music! Hmm, and it's some what good too And jsawruk why is Williams inferia to Glass and Stockhausen? Maybe just more out of date....

http://www.stockhausen.org/stockhausen_multimedia.html

[AHerrera83 0]

I can't not analyse. It is my responsibility as a composer to analyse every single piece of music that I encounter: and for some things, I don't even need the score to analyse, I can just hear it in the music. I can't help it; if I don't analyse, then what will my music sound like?

jsawruk:

To answer that last question; if you over-analize, your music will risk sounding forced and formulaic; like so many artists who attempt to create "quality". The danger is that it might lead someone to believe that there are only certain combinations of notes and rythms that make up "quality music". That is why music is considered an art and not a science. I'm not trying to put down music theory, but sometimes you just have to close the books and let go.

Please, no more fighting. It gets us all nowhere. Can't we all just like the music, even if we do disagree on some very miniscule points?

On this I think we can all agree.

[Ricard 2,245]

I don't know why you laugh.

I laugh because you claim you know "a lot" about Williams and that you "understand" his music, assuming that we don't (see example below)...:

"His musical structures are somewhat limited (...) He is by no means the greatest composer ever, and may not even fit in the top 20 (or top 50, i don't know!). There is a difference between liking a composer's music and understanding a composer's music... sometimes I wonder if you do understand his music. I feel this site is more like JWFanatic rather than JWFan."

...yet you haven't heard any of his concert works. :roll:

And in case you didn't re-read my first post, I was NOT saying that you don't know about music. I was saying that you have NO CLUE about what kind of music we listen to, yet you ASSUME, ASSUME and ASSUME (which makes you look like an arrogant ignorant):

There is a lot more music out there than JW; listen to it and you will understand my conclusions.

Still don't understand what's wrong with your attitude?

[SkyMaker 0]

Testing

[SkyMaker 0]

The key word here is repeat. Every time the theme comes back' date=' it's in a new key' date=' which is perfectly fine and every composer does it. What makes Across the Stars different, as you pointed out, is that there are modulations within the theme's exposition. That is the point I was making, and why it is different from almost all his other themes which modulation only upon reiteration. This is characteristic of a later romantic style similar to Wagner and Wolff, rather than the earlier romanticists.[/quote'']

Williams' form is not at issue here. Since he works in film music, we should almost discard the term form completely because the onscreen action alone dictates the form.

I disagree, even though Williams have to write according to the dictates of the screen, when the opportunity arrives, he often uses forms in a smaller scale, because he likes balance. Not all sequences in films have to be mickey moused, giving opportunity for extended form. Of course, he can't give himself the luxury of formatting his music to Mahlerian form.

Melodically, Williams tends to use periods almost exclusively and disregards the sentence form of melodic construction. If anyone could give an example of a theme where Williams uses sentence construction, please give an example.

Please explain in real musical terms, not in metaphoric language. Also give examples. Your explanation are often too general.

Also, thematically, Williams has extreme symmetry. His themes are almost always in measures evenly divisible by two. Composers have almost always used irregular thematic constructs. Could someone point out a JW theme of irregular construct?

You're talking about style. I don't think this is a weakness. but rather; a preference. It's like saying that orchestral music is poorly composed because it doesn't know how to avoid using strings, and no rock drum kit.

Harmonically, Williams is still 19th century. He does not use modality, free chromaticism/12-tone, alternate scales (octatonic particularly, but I think he has done whole tone stuff), polytonality, polymodality, rapid modulations, functionless harmony (simultinaities), non equal tempered tunings, non-triadic harmonic units (quintal chords, quatral chords, cluster chords), extended triadic units (9ths, 11ths, 13ths)..

I think you're giving an embarrasing point here. Because you're talking about personal languages. There are moments he uses some of these elements, but others are completely useless. Forgive me, but what are you talking about non-equal tempered tunings, which century you expect him to compose for? Clusters he uses frequently, like in the bike chase of E.T. Free chromaticism, well, he is not an atonal composer, so you're speaking of languages that he doesn't like to speak, because it's not part of his nature. But he does use them here and there, still. If you expect him to use it all the time, then ask yourself, which composer uses all of the musical techniques ever developed? And when you realize that none of them have, following your rules of engagement, it means that none of them are really any good.

I think you're trying to complain about techniques that are hardly used, and specialized by only a handful of composers that nobody cares for. It's like saying the famous French chef is not so good of a cook, because he doesn't cook Italian.

Also, you mentioned that you think he has done whole tone stuff, well, I'm surprised you only think. Because he uses pentatonic all the time.

Also, could someone please cite an augmented 6th chord in JW music; I just haven't found one yet, although it should be full of them. Also looking for phrygian cadence and altered 251 cadence using a neapolitan (seeing as he was jazzy, this should be very, very common)

I think you've underestimated his harmonic vocabulary. I don't know what it is that you're expecting him to do? Compose a film score like a Mahler symphony, to put everything in?

Neapolitan 6th? There's no magic in such thing. All it is, a minor subdominant relation, patterned after the IInd degree. Another word a substitute for II in the cadence. This is just nothing more than a 6-4 chord. How can you say that he never used it, when there are several variations for the Neapolitan 6th? Since every 6th chord of a major triad can imitate the function of the Neapolitan 6th when using the church modes. Furthermore, you don't cram every possible chord in a piece of music, even for jazz. Everything are used in context.

Rhythmically, he is pretty good, even having odd time signatures in The Lost World (3/4, 3/8, 7/8, 5/8 etc). How about polymeter, polyrhythms, and metrical modulation?.

Believe me, my friend, he studied Holst well, and his polytonality does exist. But you must understand, he doesn't use it in the way a symphony does, he dabs in here and hit over there, where it's appropriate, so, it's not that obvious. If you've studied Close Encounters, his "atonal" stuff have no metric time of notes, telling the string players to just play the notes that are written, in any way they want, without timing. So, the entire string 60 plus section, each of them doing different things.

His orchestrations, however, are not very adventurous; even Mahler had better orchestrations. Williams' orchestrations seem to come right out of the Rimsky-Korsakov book. Nonetheless, his orchestrations are great and probably the best orchestrations anywhere at this time. Got to give him credit for that.

Mahler's orchestration are often experimental. He revises his scores a great deal. Furthermore, please note as to the purposes between Mahler and Williams. Mahler's instrumental balances are a often a nightmare. Williams' are very logical, and when you see his score, you can tell what he is trying to do, balanced symmetry seems to be what he after. Mahler on the other hand, his balances are all whacked, that the players have to keep adjusting all the time. Plus, Williams doesn't use unnecessary risks because he wants to make sure the players learn their part very quickly. Hence, you don't see much parallel double stops on his string parts, he would divide the strings. Whereas there are a great deal of them in classical scores.

All composers after Rimsky are influenced by his orchestration. Williams' orchestration are clean and straightforward, but they're in no wise plain. Williams' has his techniques that others hardly used at all. Such as, Williams' use of timpani are almost as a melodic instrument. Rimsky's timpani parts are nothing like Williams'.

Another example. In E.T. in full tutti, Williams uses pizzicato bass while having the other lower voices carry the bass. Nobody does that. Not that I've seen. Nobody does pizzicato bass in full fortissimo tutti, why? Because they're affraid that the bass pizzicatos won't come through.

Anyway, I think your commentaries are mainly experimental in nature. What I mean by that is, you're not careful as to how you evaluate a composer. To explain he doesn't use this technique or that technique, and especially since the techniques mentioned are, for the most part, rare occurances of usefullness, and/or are mainly for effects, then it's not a good argument at all.

Mahler never did strict counterpoint, because he didn't know how to, and maybe we can think he is not good? No, he has a language of his own.

Please don't think this is an argument against you, just more of an explanation that your definitions are misplaced as to what a great composer is.

But then again, everything is just subjective, anyway. Afterall, can anyone really name a composer to be the greatest? To me, I can, but it's only my personal feeling.

[Rogue_Leader 2]

McCartney has also touched more lives than John Williams.

Ummmm considering the DOZENS of HIGHLY successful films William's has scored I wouold say it is the other way around. McCartney is past his time. Williams lasted alot longer than he did.

[Akipk 0]

Also, could someone please cite an augmented 6th chord in JW music; I just haven't found one yet, although it should be full of them. Also looking for phrygian cadence and altered 251 cadence using a neapolitan (seeing as he was jazzy, this should be very, very common).

I think there would be one in that cloud city thing I mentioned. Ummm, what does augmented 6th chords have anthing to do about jazz? Jazz consists of tritone substitues, seventh chords, progressions and swing feel etc, augmented 6ths are there but they are actually a classical tradition.

Also, thematically, Williams has extreme symmetry. His themes are almost always in measures evenly divisible by two. Composers have almost always used irregular thematic constructs. Could someone point out a JW theme of irregular construct?

John Williams has composed many works and hundreds of themes, not all of them will be evenly constructed, I can't find any of his scores at hand at the moment, but they should be there. Is extreme symmetry a bad thing when the audience likes it though?

Ask who likes to listen to Webern? I am musically literate and stuff, and I analyse and all that stuff, but I'm also able to let go and listen to my favourite composer, and Webern gives me a headache. Although I do love Schoenberg.

I should add that John Williams music is full of non standard harmonies and chromatisism, and he also utilises atonalism, if you listen more, and less anaytlically, you may be able to find it. Jsawruk, you seem like a bundle of nerves to me, you really need to kick back, chill out, have a drink and listen to his music while lying down and staring at the ceiling or reading a book or something, and get out of the whole analytical process.

Who decides who is the greatest composer, the critics or the audience?

The answer is easy, who pays the bills?

~Akipk, who loves and sings every note she writes.

[PetePan 163]

Harmonically, Williams is still 19th century. He does not use modality, free chromaticism/12-tone, alternate scales (octatonic particularly, but I think he has done whole tone stuff), polytonality, polymodality, rapid modulations, functionless harmony (simultinaities), non equal tempered tunings, non-triadic harmonic units (quintal chords, quatral chords, cluster chords), extended triadic units (9ths, 11ths, 13ths).

Also, could someone please cite an augmented 6th chord in JW music; I just haven't found one yet, although it should be full of them. Also looking for phrygian cadence and altered 251 cadence using a neapolitan (seeing as he was jazzy, this should be very, very common).

I guess when you use all this non-triadic, functionless harmonic units, and polyholymoly etc., you get music like this:

resonant evil IV by Jeremy Sawruk

[PetePan 163]

Jsawruk,

The post above is meant as a joke, look at the

I liked some of the samples on that page.

At least your music is getting attention here!

[jsawruk 0]

Melodically, Williams tends to use periods almost exclusively and disregards the sentence form of melodic construction. If anyone could give an example of a theme where Williams uses sentence construction, please give an example.

Please explain in real musical terms, not in metaphoric language. Also give examples. Your explanation are often too general.

These are real musical terms, and are difficult to explain here. Please reference them in a music dictionary. They are forms of melodic construction that have been used regardless of style. You will find sentences and periods in just about every composer's music from Bach to Boulez.

If you expect him to use it all the time, then ask yourself, which composer uses all of the musical techniques ever developed? And when you realize that none of them have, following your rules of engagement, it means that none of them are really any good.

No, but compared to what is possible, he still uses only a fraction of what is out there (about 50%). A film composer should have an unlimited musical vocabulary ideally, even more so than a regular composer. And yes, no composer does EVERYTHING, but a larger musical vocabulary is almost synonymous with greatest in the world of musicology.

Also, you mentioned that you think he has done whole tone stuff, well, I'm surprised you only think. Because he uses pentatonic all the time.

Pentatonicism is generally regarded as not being that great compared to other scales because any idiot can write pentatonic music no problem. This does not mean that it should be avoided however; every composer has used pentatonicism (except maybe the Webern-ites). It is extremely useful in certain situations and it sells, sells, sells. There are entire cultures which only use pentatonicism, and if everything was pentatonic, everyone would enjoy everything. Excessive use, however, becomes monotonous, dulls down the effect when used, and even lacks the tension required of most music (particularly if using an anhemitonic pentatonic scale).

Also, could someone please cite an augmented 6th chord in JW music; I just haven't found one yet, although it should be full of them. Also looking for phrygian cadence and altered 251 cadence using a neapolitan (seeing as he was jazzy, this should be very, very common)

Neapolitan 6th? There's no magic in such thing. All it is, a minor subdominant relation, patterned after the IInd degree. Another word a substitute for II in the cadence. This is just nothing more than a 6-4 chord. How can you say that he never used it, when there are several variations for the Neapolitan 6th? Since every 6th chord of a major triad can imitate the function of  the Neapolitan 6th when using the church modes. Furthermore, you don't cram every possible chord in a piece of music, even for jazz. Everything are used in context.

A neapolitan nothing more than a 6-4 chord? Hmm, 6-4 has to do with inversion, and a neapolitan is most frequently in 6 position. And, the neapolitan is not a 6-4 chord because it implies a different tonal region. And not every chord can imitate the function of an N6 (or any Neapolitan for that matter): it is used as a dominant preparation by moving up to the fifth of the dominant and moving down to it's root.

If you've studied Close Encounters, his "atonal" stuff have no metric time of notes, telling the string players to just play the notes that are written, in any way they want, without timing. So, the entire string 60 plus section, each of them doing different things.

Really? Where?

[JoeinAR 1,949]

McCartney has also touched more lives than John Williams.

Ummmm considering the DOZENS of HIGHLY successful films William's has scored I wouold say it is the other way around. McCartney is past his time. Williams lasted alot longer than he did.

William, I am sorry to say, you have no idea what you are talking about.

[jsawruk 0]

Jsawruk,

The post above is meant as a joke, look at the    

I liked some of the samples on that page.  

At least your music is getting attention here!

Yes, and this is good. There is no such thing as bad publicity

Also, you picked on of my atonal pieces, but failed to show that almost all of my pieces are tonal (!). Listen to the guitar pieces to hear what I'm talking about.

[jsawruk 0]

Also, could someone please cite an augmented 6th chord in JW music; I just haven't found one yet, although it should be full of them. Also looking for phrygian cadence and altered 251 cadence using a neapolitan (seeing as he was jazzy, this should be very, very common).

I think there would be one in that cloud city thing I mentioned. Ummm, what does augmented 6th chords have anthing to do about jazz? Jazz consists of tritone substitues, seventh chords, progressions and swing feel etc, augmented 6ths are there but they are actually a classical tradition.

I never linked augmented 6th chords with jazz. I was referring to their classical use. The 251 progression is what in the above is "jazzy", as all of jazz is literally based on it, just as 50's rock is based on 16451. However, A6+ chords are used in jazz from time to time.

I am really starting to hate Williams' music simply because none of you will allow me to love it. Part of my love for a piece of music is my ability to tear it apart and realize everything that it is, complete with whatever flaws or greatness it may possess. But no, I guess that I CAN'T learn from my favorite composer because I CAN'T analyse it. :cry:

Why is this so important anyway? Why are you all after me? Am I not entitled to my own opinions? Can I not like JW as much as I do, and yet realize that there are those who are better and more skilled than he is, even though I like them less? Can I not analyse music?

The whole board is out to get me, particularly the site admin, who I think is trying to kill me :cry: :cry: :cry:

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

[PetePan 163]

Also, you picked on of my atonal pieces, but failed to show that almost all of my pieces are tonal (!). Listen to the guitar pieces to hear what I'm talking about.

I know, I listened to other pieces too.