John Williams Syndrome
Matthew Bonness
"Stargate" completely ripped off a motive from
the last movement of Bruckner's 4th Symphony.
Cretinous bastards - I was wondering why I liked
the music in that movie so much that I was
humming it afterwards.
-Matt
Chang Wu Ji
other people's music. Listen to the Star Wars theme, it is a variation of the
heroic Siegfried from Wagner's Ring Cycle. I can name numerous instances where
he shamlessly copied off his predecessors, but I won't here.
M. Matthew Phelps
All this discussion of John Williams' compositions seems to me unwarranted.
After all, one has to ultimately look at this: why does John Williams write
the music he does?
More often than not it is for a film score. Therefore, what is to say that
this music must be decidedly new material? A few examples come to mind.
There has been discussion in this group on using original music in films.
This is fine, except that sometimes the original music isn't quite right for
the film. So, it needs to be altered, bringing the second example: using
altered music, or arrangements, in films. Here, take the Warner Brothers
cartoons, such as 'The Rabbit of Seville' or any of the similar selections,
where no one can say it is 100% Rossini, but it has the same feel.
John Williams is a master at what he does for the music industry. He was won
many awards for his contributions. The discussion here then seems futile,
becuase we are not discussing his music, but where he gets the ideas for his
music. The music the John Williams uses is for the purpose of adding depth
to the film. In my opinion, the easiest way for him to do this is to use
themes that are already familiar to the listener. If, in Star Wars, a theme
comes along that reminds you of Wagner, you immediately get the feelings put
in by Wagner, but also that feeling applied to the film for an even greater
effect.
If you don't like his music, then don't listen to it. If you don't like his
methods, that's not your, or my, issue to take up.
Matthew.
--
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| M. Matthew Phelps | "I am a musician... that explains everything" |
| Eastman School of Music | -- Gustav Mahler |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
Rick Hayward
Nothing cretinous about it - unless Bach, Mozart & Beethoven (amongst
others) were cretins. As they say, imitation is the sincerest form of
flattery.
RH
Rick Hayward, Wakefield, West Yorkshire
rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk
Chancellor Ross Wyman
You'll notice that most movie soundtracks "borrow" themes and ideas from
classical music. While this is a testament to classical music and just
how great it can be to evoke images, I often get upset when composers
just blatantly rip off a theme. I personally am more impressed with a
movie composer when they actually slip in a fragment or even a whole
musical idea from another composer and do it in a way that it's only
detectable to the person who is paying attention. One example was the
jazz soundtrack on "Malcolm X". When Malcolm X went to Mecca, you could
hear Branford Marsalis playing his sax and he slipped in a quote from
Tchaikovsky's "Arabian Dance" from the Nutcracker. While this is not a
full-blown orchestral score, it was subtle enough to lend a character to
the scene that was being played out on the screen. However, I am always
upset hearing the famous "Mars" ostinato rhythm in John William's "Star
Wars". It just annoys me because it is such an obvious plagarism. As
for David Arnold's "Stargate" soundtrack, it uses that Bruckner theme
without slapping you in the face with it like other movie composers do.
As for one last example, listen to "The Hudsucker Proxy". It's all based
on themes by Khatchaturian. Probably not one original note in there and
Carter Burwell takes credit for the score. However, he does do some
really good arrangements and the score is actually quite fun. At least
he comes clean in his liner notes by admitting to ripping off
Khatchaturian. I wish more film composers would follow his lead.
--
___________________________________________________________________________
|
| Chancellor Ross Wyman
|
"I am no stranger to pain, | The George Washington
But I am no lover of pain either." | University
|
| cha...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
|
___________________________________________________________________________
Richard L. Kaye
as quiet and unassuming a gentle man (the space is intentional) as John
Williams.
Nick Vaccaro
<rap...@mit.edu> wrote:
> Yeah, John Williams is not so much a great composer as a great borrower of
> other people's music. Listen to the Star Wars theme, it is a variation of the
> heroic Siegfried from Wagner's Ring Cycle.
Huh, on another group I saw people saying that the main theme from Star
Wars was ripped off from music of Korngold. I have seen people accuse
Williams of plagiarizing from Mahler, Wagner, Stravinsky, Holst, Handel
(?), Mussorgsky and many more. Some of these criticisms are obviously
valid in certain cases, but when people can't even decide where a
particular theme is plagiarized from, it makes me wonder....
Nick
Rob Holzel
: Yeah, John Williams is not so much a great composer as a great borrower of
: other people's music. Listen to the Star Wars theme, it is a variation of the
: he shamlessly copied off his predecessors, but I won't here.
Except John Williams didn't write the music for Stargate, David
Arnold did.
Rob
David Sherman
creatively from other sources.
An original orchestral piece the length of a feature film score could
take anywhere from months to a year to compose and orchestrate. film
composers get nowhere near that kind of time to create a score.
The composer is one of the last people to be brought in in the sequence
of creating a film. The music is one of the last things to be recoreded
before the film is put in the can. The producers and directors are
staring hard deadlines in the face after having shooting delays, contract
disputes, and everything that can and often does go wrong. So by the
time they are ready to record the score there isn't much time left.
A composer has to be prepared to spit out a large score sometimes in as
little as a month or less. There literally is no time to think. So,
you have to be ready with a "repertoire" of music that you can "plug"
into any given situation.
Call it stealing if you want. But if you don't do it in some instances,
you won't be able to complete the job.
Sorry to burst bubbles about film composers (that is if there were any to
burst here) but that's how the music biz works.
Tom Yamartino
Speaking of TV and movie composers borrowing ...
Anybody remember the theme from 'Dynasty', by Conti (of 'Rocky' fame)?
Brahms Symphony #1, slow movement.
Of course, Brahms did some borrowing of his own a little later in that
Symphony!
Tom Yamartino
It's easy to slam John Williams, but I go a little easier on
him since I heard the 'Schindler's List' theme. That's a real beauty.
Any suggestions on where that came from???
^^^^
Bill Finn
>
>You'll notice that most movie soundtracks "borrow" themes and ideas from
>classical music.
Using the term 'most movie soundtracks' may be a bit of a stretch.
I do hear obvious rip-offs in various scores (unfortunately). But I
also hear an incredible amount of original music as well in others.
Almost no composer begins from point zero - they all have frames of
reference - other composers and music they admire. As their music
matures, these influences become submerged in the composers own
esthetic. Unfortunately, there are those who work in film who choose
expedience over art. There are also many wonderful composers, from
Miklos Rozsa, Bernard Herrmann and Franz Waxman through Alex North,
Jerry Goldsmith and Elliot Goldenthal.
And ripping off someone else's music certainly isn't isolated to just
film scores. You can also find it in opera, ballet and the concert
hall asa well. In other words, it's in the man or woman, not in the
art form itself.
Bill.
Joebnut
Williams rips off somebody, and i think it's Brahms, but I'm not sure.
Anyone know?
be...@mi.rulimburg.nl
>Speaking of TV and movie composers borrowing ...
>Anybody remember the theme from 'Dynasty', by Conti (of 'Rocky' fame)?
>Brahms Symphony #1, slow movement.
Is that by Bill 'Name-that-tune' Conti - the one that did some fine
Tchaikovski-lifting for The Right Stuff?
berry.
David Brooks
I'm not suggesting John Williams lifted it, consciously or unconsciously,
but its first phrase is identical to a bridge passage near the beginning of
Mahler's 8th symphony.
--
David Brooks, Manager, Quality Engineering dbr...@x.org
X Consortium <URL:http://www.x.org/people/dbrooks/>
Commit planned giving and daily acts of compassion.
Len Fehskens
>
>I'm not suggesting John Williams lifted it, consciously or unconsciously,
>but its first phrase is identical to a bridge passage near the beginning of
>Mahler's 8th symphony.
>--
This reminds me that last night watching Time Bandits, I was surprised by the
soundtrack's liberal borrowing from Mahler's 6th Symphony.
len.
Roger Hecht
score recording of Korngold's "Kings Row" or the right Korngold disk from RCA
series of great film composers (there were 2 devoted to Korngold). Play the
opening to "Kings Row." This is a great party trick for me, i.e., play the
Korngold, ask people who wrote the music. They always answer John Williams.
Incidentally, Kings Row is a trememdous score, almost operatic in nature.
Mr. Mike
No, no ... you have it all wrong! The beginning of Kings Row is like Star
Wars. On the other hand, Williams is supposed to have ripped off Death
and Transfiguration for the love theme in Superman... ";-/
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out my home page: http://mindlink.net/a4369/mq.html -- Included is
stuff about the X-Files, Beach Boys, Hawaii Five-O, Frank Zappa and more!
Mike Larke
My favorite:
The A flat section of the Passepied from Suite Bergamasque by Debussy
measure before "cedez" for 4. Surely the inspiration for
a memorable transition melody in Carousel's "You'll Never Walk Alone".
Rogers and Gershwin were certainly John Williams wanna-be's at times.
(Quite a LOT of times I would say.) Hey, I don't blame 'em, would
probably have done the same myself, late at night at ye olde Manhattan
apartment, show opens in 6 weeks etc., 6 dry Martinis did not do the
trick . . .
Still, a ripoff IS a ripoff, even if the 'ripped-off' is 6 foot under
for some time.
Mike
Richard L. Kaye
of music, conscious and unconscious, from one source to the
music of another composer. Mostly it is inconsequential,
whether it is Handel tightening up music by Telemann, or
the famous comparison of "E Lucevan le Stelle" with
"Avalon." The Dies Irae sequence from the plainchant Mass
for the Dead and a tune called La Folia have been used over
and over again by composers for more than 200 years. We
seem to be taking John Williams to task more for his
prominence than for his doing something that no other
"honest" composer would do. Honest, it isn't so. How many
of you are truly outraged when you hear an unauthorized
rendition of the copyrighted song "Happy Birthday"? Was
Beethoven a "rip-off" artist because he used "The Bear Went
Over the Mountain"? Did Tchaikovsky sin by using the
Marseillaise or the Imperial Russian National Anthem? Is
Puccini blamed for using the Star Spangled Banner? Who claims
authorship of the music of :"America," "God Save the King,"
or "Heil dir im Siegerkranz"? Who "ripped-off" whom with
"A-B-C-D-E-F-G", "Baa, Baa, Blacksheep," "Twinkle, Twinkle
Little Star"? Mozart? He thought he was writing variatiions
on "Ah, vous dirais-je, Maman."
Come on. Please get off John Williams' case. If you
want to vilify someone, try Stravinsky. As each of his
important compositions came near the end of its US Copyright,
he issued new orchestrations and registered new copyrights
for what was essentially the same music all over again.
RLK
David Cleary
: Throughout the history of music there have been borrowings
One composer said (I'm pretty sure it was Stravinsky, but am not
absolutely sure on this) "Good composers borrow. Great composers steal."
Being a composer, I do this myself. The only crime IMHO is stealing from
bad music. Which leads to what I call "Gwiazda's corollary" to the above
statement: "I only steal from the best" (named after a composer friend
of mine who said this one day).
As RLK noted above, stealing good ideas and material is a time-honored
tradition among composers. Besides the examples cited above, look at
"parody masses" by Josquin. Look at "cantus firmus" pieces by Bach. Look
at Stravinsky's "Pulcinella" and other middle-period pieces. Grand theft
examples all. And some great pieces resulted. And this is not just
limited to music; Shakespeare stole most all the plots for his tragedies
(in many cases from "Plutarch's Lives").
Personally, I have no problem with Stravinsky's reissuance of new
orchestrations for new copyrights on old pieces. He had to make a buck off
his music and found a new legal wrinkle on a way to do it. The copyright
law has been changed since his time and now provides much longer coverage
of musical compositions (the composer's life span plus a number of years
after that, I think 50 or 75 years). If I'm not mistaken, the pieces
Stravinsky did this with were going to go into public domain at the time
under the copyright law then in existence--all while he was still alive.
Is that fair? Not IMHO, at least.
Given the rip-off of Schubert and some other composers at the hands of
unsavory publishers and the general rip-off of composers from pirated
editions in previous centuries, I have no problem with composers trying to
keep as much money for themselves off their music as they can--if it's
done legally and ethically.
Hope this helps.
Dave
David J. Wallace
Bach. Look
You mean chorale-based cantatas? Do they call those "cantus
firmus" pieces
now?
I think he was talking about the pieces based off the pitches B-A-C-H,
etc...
Dave Dalle
Anyone see the movie "Crimson Tide"? the score was a complete rip-off from
"Star Wars"! I found that funny. The problem is not with Williams basing
his whole career on ripping-off the classical repertoire. The problem is
that he (and most other film composers) create cruddy music with it. Sure
Bach transcribed other's concertos, but he improved them.
Sure the music for "Star Wars" is great, but don't ever try to place
Williams on the same level of other composers, even if all his material
was 100% original.
Dave
--
The wonderful thing about Tiggers, Is Tiggers are wonderful things
Their Tops are made of rubber, and their bottoms are made out of springs
They're bouncy, trouncy, bouncy, flouncy, fun fun fun fun fun!
But the most wonderful thing about Tiggers is, I'm the only one!
Matthew H. Fields
and
G dO La D B E Re G...
We called that soggietto calvatto when I was in school.
Jeffrey Jullich
> One composer said (I'm pretty sure it was Stravinsky, but am not
> absolutely sure on this) "Good composers borrow. Great composers steal."
The original quote was about poets, not composers. It was T.S. Eliot who
said "Good poets borrow. Great poets steal."
If Stravinsky took credit for the line, it was just his kleptomania
flaring up again.
Matthew H. Fields
David Cleary <dcl...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Richard L. Kaye (rk...@world.std.com) wrote:
>: Throughout the history of music there have been borrowings
>: of music, conscious and unconscious, from one source to the
>: music of another composer. Mostly it is inconsequential,
>: of you are truly outraged when you hear an unauthorized
>: rendition of the copyrighted song "Happy Birthday"? Was
I actually did my homework on that. The copyright is held by Summy
Birchard which was bought out by what's ultimately now Warner Chappel.
Some restaurant chains got in substantial hot water over the song
in the '70's, apparently, and there was a landmark case over it
in 1935 which led to its copyright registration in the first place.
It's scheduled to go public domain about 2010, my contacts at ASCAP say.
I got written permission before sharing around copies of my 5-movement
chamber symphony based on it (the original was a 1-page piano song;
my score is more like 60 pages).
[...]
>: Beethoven a "rip-off" artist because he used "The Bear Went
>: Over the Mountain"? Did Tchaikovsky sin by using the
>: Marseillaise or the Imperial Russian National Anthem? Is
We're treading on originality issues here. Since you crossposted
to rec.music.compose, well, for a composer, the tricky issue is to avoid
medleyitis, the condition of tending to string together popular tunes
without doing much to them, thus creating something that will be
perceived as a "collection of tunes the band played that night".
>: Puccini blamed for using the Star Spangled Banner? Who claims
Tomlinson's drinking song---always a favorite...
>: Come on. Please get off John Williams' case. If you
Hmmm, I haven't heard much about JW in rm.compose, mostly "good for him
that he's so successful".
>: want to vilify someone, try Stravinsky. As each of his
>: important compositions came near the end of its US Copyright,
>: he issued new orchestrations and registered new copyrights
>: for what was essentially the same music all over again.
This practice essentially helped stimulate the reform in the Berne
Convention. Copyright is the author's for life---and then 50 years,
for works created after '78.
>One composer said (I'm pretty sure it was Stravinsky, but am not
>absolutely sure on this) "Good composers borrow. Great composers steal."
Yup, and I'll be darned if I can remember the poet he was quoting.
Stravinsky himself got into trouble over publishing his Birthday
Variations without permission.
>Being a composer, I do this myself. The only crime IMHO is stealing from
>bad music. Which leads to what I call "Gwiazda's corollary" to the above
>statement: "I only steal from the best" (named after a composer friend
>of mine who said this one day).
Hmmm, bad music, as in L'homme arme? Uhhh...
Mr. Mike
>Anyone see the movie "Crimson Tide"? the score was a complete rip-off from
>"Star Wars"! I found that funny. The problem is not with Williams basing
>his whole career on ripping-off the classical repertoire. The problem is
>that he (and most other film composers) create cruddy music with it. Sure
>Bach transcribed other's concertos, but he improved them.
>Sure the music for "Star Wars" is great, but don't ever try to place
>Williams on the same level of other composers, even if all his material
>was 100% original.
What kind of drugs were you smoking before you saw "Crimson Tide"? The
score for this film was by Hans Zimmer and had no resemblance to Star
Wars whatsoever!! ";-0
John Ladasky
David Cleary <dcl...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>One composer said (I'm pretty sure it was Stravinsky, but am not
>absolutely sure on this) "Good composers borrow. Great composers steal."
No, I said this, and that chiseler Stravinsky stole it from me.
:^)
--
Unique ID : Ladasky, John Joseph Jr.
Title : BA Biochemistry, U.C. Berkeley, 1989 (Ph.D. perhaps 1998???)
Location : Stanford University, Dept. of Structural Biology, Fairchild D-105
Keywords : immunology, music, running, Green
Grgy
Inferior poets imitate, mature ones steal
David Cleary
originally appeared only in rec.music.classical. But I figured I could use
some bolstering from fellow composers for my original post, so I put it in
this group as well. There have been a series of threads in
rec.music.classical grousing about J. Williams's "originality," and I
finally got annoyed enough to respond. Figured there was no point
getting into a tussle without reinforcements.
Matthew H. Fields (fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
: David Cleary <dcl...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
: >"parody masses" by Josquin. Look at "cantus firmus" pieces by Bach. Look
: You mean chorale-based cantatas? Do they call those "cantus firmus" pieces
: now?
Yeah, that's what I meant--such as the chorale tune harmonizations in the
Bach/Riemenschneider 373 chorales culled from cantatas. I haven't heard
them specifically referred to as "cantus firmus" pieces, but IMHO they
are--they just have the cantus firmus in the soprano instead of an inner
voice as usually happened in Medieval/Renaissance music.
Hope this clarifies.
Dave
Timothy Kelly
I wish that more composers had true John Williams Syndrome.
Mr. Williams is the Beethoven of the 20th century, heck hes more
popular than Beethoven or any other instrumental composer past or
present.
He uses and shows that he has mastered all the composers skills,
melody, harmony, counterpoint, theme and variation, orchestration
colors, etc that elevate composing to an art.
In the past 20 years, he has put together a body of film scores that
can stand against any symphonys or concertos ever written. And I'm sure
the best is yet to come from his imagination.
He is the greatest living composer, and maybe the best of all time.
Happy Holiday Composing
Timothy Kelly
MidiVox
--
MidiVox-Worlds 1st Voice to Midi Converter. Real Time. No Delays.
Hum a Bass, Croon a Sax, Scat a Horn, Scream a Guitar, Rap some
Drums, Sing a Cello.
Become a Human Sequencer, Human Vocoder, Human Breath Controller.
AES "Best in Show." EM "Editors Choice." " MidiVox Roars."
Keyboard.
Dave Dalle
> Hi All,
> I wish that more composers had true John Williams Syndrome.
> Mr. Williams is the Beethoven of the 20th century, heck hes more
> popular than Beethoven or any other instrumental composer past or
> present.
> He uses and shows that he has mastered all the composers skills,
> melody, harmony, counterpoint, theme and variation, orchestration
> colors, etc that elevate composing to an art.
> In the past 20 years, he has put together a body of film scores that
> can stand against any symphonys or concertos ever written. And I'm sure
> the best is yet to come from his imagination.
> He is the greatest living composer, and maybe the best of all time.
Is this to be taken as sarcasm? I find it hard to read it in any other way.
kl...@grove.iup.edu
>In article <4bs8kj$i...@ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
>>> "parody masses" by Josquin. Look at "cantus firmus" pieces by
>> Bach. Look
>>
>> You mean chorale-based cantatas? Do they call those "cantus
>> firmus" pieces
>> now?
>>
>>
>>etc...
>
>and
>G dO La D B E Re G...
>We called that soggietto calvatto when I was in school.
>
I wish I could dig up my old music history notes on this and see what it was
called, but I believe this stems from a Renaissance-era practice of taking the
vowel sounds of phrases and names and such, using the solfege equivalent of
those vowel sounds, and thus coming up with a nice tune on which to base a
piece. (It wasn't called soggieto calvatto as I recall; if someone knows the
name of that particular practice post it and jar my memory.)
Unfortunately if you do that with "Bach" all you get is "la" which makes for a
rather dull melody. :)
further and further off topic we go...
dan m
Mike Starke
>Hi All,
> I wish that more composers had true John Williams Syndrome.
> Mr. Williams is the Beethoven of the 20th century, heck hes more
>popular than Beethoven or any other instrumental composer past or
>present.
One doesn't have to lose their critical listening skills in order to
admire a composer's work. John Williams has nothing in common with
Beethoven as far as I can judge. If he is remembered at all it will be
because of what he has contributed to films and the interest in
film music as a result of the fine work he has done in that area.
> He uses and shows that he has mastered all the composers skills,
>melody, harmony, counterpoint, theme and variation, orchestration
>colors, etc that elevate composing to an art.
I've always heard he composes in piano score and sends the music
out for orchestration. Is this true? I view John Williams more as
technician than an artist. Nothing wrong with that, but I just
don't hear the artist's self exspression in what I have heard so far.
He's very good at "pulling the strings" and making things happen in
the listener's mind. He knows all the tricks.
> In the past 20 years, he has put together a body of film scores that
>can stand against any symphonys or concertos ever written. And I'm sure
>the best is yet to come from his imagination.
> He is the greatest living composer, and maybe the best of all time.
I'm sure your trumpeted, unqualified opinion will stir many to
respond. But the above is flatly untrue. Any work of Aaron Copland
carries far more weight than anything *yet* written by John Williams.
I like Williams' stuff too, but I don't think orchestras will be
playing it 100 years from now. (If orchestras will still be around)
His stuff is good like Pink Floyd's is good. But not that good. :)
> Happy Holiday Composing
> Timothy Kelly
> MidiVox
Ditto
Mike Starke
=====================================
Taedet caeli convexa tueri
VIRGIL, Aeneid, Book IV
Home Page
A collection of my music:
http://www.prs.net/starke.html
=====================================
Matthew H. Fields
Hmmm, only thing handy is a tertiary source:
Grout 3rd Ed 1980, p.195 para 2:
Josquin's Masses illustrate many of the techniques and devices that
were commonly used in the sixteenth century. The theme of the Mass
<i>Hercules dux Ferrariae</i> offers an example of what the sixteenth
century called a <i>soggietto cavato</i>,<foot id=5> a "subject [or
theme] carved out" of a word or sentence by letting each vowel indicate
a corresponding syllable of the hexachord, thus:
H e rc u l e s d u x F e rr a r i e
- - - - - - - -
re ut re ut re fa mi re
D C D C D F E D
ff.5:
The <i>soggietto cavato</i> is not peculiar to the sixteenth century.
One need only recall the many pieces written on the theme B-A-C-H
(B-flat, A, C, B natural)---for instance Liszt's organ fantasia. The
supplement to a special number of the Paris <cite>Revue Musicale</cite>
for October, 1922, is entitled: "<i>Homagge a Gabriel Faure; Sept
pieces de piano sur le nome de Faure: F fa, A la, U sol, R re, E mi,
par Louis Aubert, Georges Enesco, Charles Koechlin, Paul Ladmirault,
Maurice Ravel, Roger-Ducasse, Florent Schmitt.</i>"
Agnes Bruneau
must rush to the defense of the departed Igor Stravinsky in that it was
TOTALLY his right to register and copyright new arrangements of his already
protected works. U.S. Copyright Law grants all rights of reproduction,
recording, arranging, performing, etc. to the copyright owner and creator
of the music. Composers get ripped off on a daily basis and most depend on
income from royalties to put food on their tables (only the minority claim
big money from royalties). John Williams or Edward E. Neumann have every
right to do as they will with public domain music where the copyrights have
expired.
D.L. Meth c/o
Agnes Bruneau
Richard L. Kaye
Stravinsky's right to rearrange his own music, let me
point out that he was the only significant composer who
consistently took this course.
William J. Karzas
L. Kaye) wrote:
And he did it for economic reasons, to renew expiring copyrights, not
because he had second thoughts.
--
Bill Karzas wjk...@pacificnet.net
wjk...@alumni.caltech.edu
ah...@lafn.org
I. Neill Reid
> Without at all disagreeing with your posting about
> Stravinsky's right to rearrange his own music, let me
> point out that he was the only significant composer who
> consistently took this course.
George Frideric Handel? And he didn't draw the line at re-arranging
just his own music (fine job he did too).
Neill Reid - i...@dowland.caltech.edu
>
>
Matthew H. Fields
Richard L. Kaye <rk...@world.std.com> wrote:
> Without at all disagreeing with your posting about
> Stravinsky's right to rearrange his own music, let me
> point out that he was the only significant composer who
> consistently took this course.
Not including Bach, Beethoven (op.14 string quartet, anybody?),
Monteverdi (Orpheus Vespers, anybody?), etc., etc., etc.
Dave Dalle
> In article <6SG5wwpQ...@world.std.com>, rk...@world.std.com (Richard L. Kaye) writes...
>> Stravinsky's right to rearrange his own music, let me
>> point out that he was the only significant composer who
>> consistently took this course.
>
> just his own music (fine job he did too).
Stravinsky composed in an era that held originality as one of the highest
attributes of serious music, unlike Bach and Handel. You have to consider
how socially acceptable the recycling or borrowing of material is in any given
period. Personally, I don't have a problem with it, as long as it produces
something better.
Jeremy Cook
in rec.humor.funny where it belongs! Your subtle, understated yet
essentially rapier-like wit will be fully appreciated there!
--
Jeremy Cook
R and J Smith
'mid...@ix.netcom.com (Timothy Kelly)' wrote:
>He is the greatest living composer, and maybe the best of all time.
Park" and the Indiana Jones flicks are fabulous!
Jane
DGOO...@argonet.co.uk
> Without at all disagreeing with your posting about
> Stravinsky's right to rearrange his own music, let me
> point out that he was the only significant composer who
> consistently took this course.
Ravel rearranged most of his piano music for orchestra, Britten rearranged
several of his early piano pieces and Liszt rearranged his trancendental studies
twice, to name but a few.
IMO these are all significant composers but as this is backed up by many
respected works of musical literature, don't take my word for it ;-)
Dan
--
/=================================/==============================/
/Be not angry that you cannot make/ Daniel Goodger. /
/others as you wish them to be. / DGOO...@argonet.co.uk /
/=================================/==============================/
Rick
>I like Williams' stuff too, but I don't think orchestras will be
>playing it 100 years from now. (If orchestras will still be around)
>His stuff is good like Pink Floyd's is good. But not that good. :)
>Mike Starke
John Williams writes successful music for the cinema. But like most
cinematic music it takes the rear seat to the screen action,
even though it provides the real umph to the movie on a more
subliminal level. Were his music seriously proposed for concerts, it
would probably be consigned to pops events, which is where it
seems to show up.
As to whether it is 'good' that is a value judgement that each person
listening to it will make up for themself, if they are at all inclined
to judge it. Meanwhile, it sure keeps him in a comfy lifestyle. :)
Rick S
Richard L. Kaye
Stravinsky. I was not at all writing about a composer's
right to re-publish his own music in a different version.
We have been richly rewarded over the years by re-used
versions of compositions which have become new and different
works. What I was writing about was Stravinsky's re-scoring
his own music for the purpose of obtaining a further
extension of US copyright - which another poster correctly
pointed out as being entirely within his legal right. But
for the most part these re-scorings did little to enlarge
the body of Stravinsky's music available to concert
audiences; for the most part they SOUND quite like the
originals.
Mr. Mike
article which was pointed out by a friend of mine:
----------
Lawrence Morton. "Footnotes to Stravinsky Studies: `Le Sacre du
Printemps'". *TEMPO*, No. 128 (March, 1979), pages 9-16.
In the article, Morton puts the various tunes as they appear in this
anthology next to the themes from The Rite Of Spring. They are not just
close, they are identical, many of them and, as I remember, I don't think
there was a single theme in the Rite which was not from this book.
Matthew H. Fields
Mr. Mike <a02...@giant.mindlink.net> wrote:
>In the article, Morton puts the various tunes as they appear in this
>anthology next to the themes from The Rite Of Spring. They are not just
>close, they are identical, many of them and, as I remember, I don't think
>there was a single theme in the Rite which was not from this book.
The book in question is Rimsky's 1001 Russian Folk Tunes, and this applies
not only to Rite but also to Petruchka, and, to a lesser extent, Firebird.
You can hear different treatments of the same themes in, e.g., the works
of Balakiriev.
Rick
I missed your original post. However, I agree with your assessment,
and your history is sound <g>
What Stravinsky did to 'change' his music to extend copyright
coverage reminds me of a little joke Josquin des Prez played on
performers. I forget the name of the piece, but it is written in
dotted values throughout, making it appear like it is in triple
'meter'. IOW, one expects a lilting piece, looking only at one's
own part (which is how it was done back then). But when one *hears*
the piece, one 'gets' the joke: it comes off as a very square
piece, plugging along in duple pulses (everyone singing the equivalent
of dotted quarter-notes throughout)! I guess the connection is in
how visual appearance of the score can be illusory - an advantage
when one wants to demonstrate to the Copyright Office a 'legitimate
revision' or to a group of musicians when one wants to play a practical
joke on them!
Rick St. Clair
Barb McFalls
writes:
settle for so little? Does classical music now depend on whether or
not there's a lot of screen action to accompany it?
Matthew H. Fields
music-on-a-shoestring intrinsically have different goals from
music-as-showstopper. Personally, I find the scores of e.g. Jaws or
the Star Wars trilogy dramatically odd and totally unsatisfying
without the movies, but well-integrated into the finished
collaboration.
Attacking them because they don't work excerpted from the finished
multimedia product is a lot like arguing the validity of seconda
prattica counterpoint in isolated measures, with neither the context
of whole madrigals nor the text (alla Artusi). The fact that
Palestrina wrote music with texts that satisfies without the text,
like the fact that Prokofiev and Schoenberg and others wrote music
for film that works without the film, is really a separate issue.
Finally, the original attack was on the order of "is this what
classical music has sunk to---John Williams?" Regardless of what
I think of Williams' music, his mannerisms really represent just one
of many many approaches to art today, and at least he embraces some
of the traditional crafts of this art (e.g. counterpoint).
Matt
Matthew H. Fields
Barb McFalls <cric...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Does this mean our societ has sunk to the point where we're willing to
>settle for so little? Does classical music now depend on whether or
>not there's a lot of screen action to accompany it?
I think it's not useful to lump Williams's filmscores with "classical"
music. Perhaps to compare them with Korngold.
David Cleary
: fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields) writes:
: >In article <4cikm1$s...@ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
: Korngold was a "classical" composer too whatever that means.
Yes. He wrote both film music and "classical" (i.e "concert") music. But
IMHO the intent of these two musics is not the same. IMHO, film music and
"classical" music are not the same thing. Film music does sound like
"classical" music sometimes, though.
The Moody Blues sometimes sound like classical music, too ("Days of Future
Past" for example). But just because they sound like "classical" music
doesn't mean they are.
: William
: Walton and Serge Prokofiev wrote classic film scores; would you then
: eliminate Alexander Nevsky and Lt. Kije from the lists of classical music?
No, because Prokofiev took the film-score music he wrote and decided to
present it as "classical" music. IMHO the music to "Alexander Nevsky"
became "classical" music when Prokofiev decided to present it in that
form--and not until then.
Does John Williams present his movie scores as "classical" music? I'm not
aware of it if he does. Though I understand JW also writes concert music.
Hope this helps.
Dave
Jeff Harrington
This John Williams adulation is amazing.... Face it, his materials are
second rate. It's his orchestrations that blow people away - and these
are done by somebody else!
We are just that desparate for new classical music with some thrills....
It's out there people... It really is... it might not be recorded yet, but
it's out there...
Jeff Harrington "Art does not make peace...
je...@parnasse.com That is not its business...
http://www.parnasse.com Art is peace." -- Robert Lowell
Mr. Mike
>This John Williams adulation is amazing.... Face it, his materials are
>second rate. It's his orchestrations that blow people away - and these
>are done by somebody else!
An "orchestrator" can be someone who improves the score, but more
likely is just someone who works from the composer's original sketches
(with all instrumentation defined) and writes everything out "the long way".
What evidence do you have that Williams' orchestrators are the ones
responsible for his success?
Jeff Harrington
: rus...@shellx.best.com (Jeff Harrington) writes:
: >This John Williams adulation is amazing.... Face it, his materials are
: >second rate. It's his orchestrations that blow people away - and these
: >are done by somebody else!
: An "orchestrator" can be someone who improves the score, but more
: likely is just someone who works from the composer's original sketches
: (with all instrumentation defined) and writes everything out "the long way".
: What evidence do you have that Williams' orchestrators are the ones
: responsible for his success?
It's purely visceral speculation on my part. I just think it's his
blaring horns and his Ravel-like string effects, etc... which give his
music that oomph which people get oof on...
As I said, the tunes are pretty ordinary, if not downright second rate.
It's those spectacular climaxes and effects. If you've heard his bassoon
concerto, recently premiered by the BSO? it was pretty ordinary stuff.
Anyway, I would be hard on him even if he was the orchestrator. I just
don't like cheese - by itself... ;-)
James C Liu
>James C Liu (jl...@world.std.com) wrote:
>: fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields) writes:
>: >I think it's not useful to lump Williams's filmscores with "classical"
>: >music. Perhaps to compare them with Korngold.
>: Korngold was a "classical" composer too whatever that means.
>Yes. He wrote both film music and "classical" (i.e "concert") music. But
>IMHO the intent of these two musics is not the same. IMHO, film music and
>"classical" music are not the same thing. Film music does sound like
>"classical" music sometimes, though.
>The Moody Blues sometimes sound like classical music, too ("Days of Future
>Past" for example). But just because they sound like "classical" music
>doesn't mean they are.
These comparisons and definitions don't strike me as particularly
helpful. What is classical music? That's not a question I particularly
feel like addressing, but I'm not sure that the borders should be set
so tightly. See below for more comments.
>: William
>: Walton and Serge Prokofiev wrote classic film scores; would you then
>: eliminate Alexander Nevsky and Lt. Kije from the lists of classical music?
>No, because Prokofiev took the film-score music he wrote and decided to
>present it as "classical" music. IMHO the music to "Alexander Nevsky"
>became "classical" music when Prokofiev decided to present it in that
>form--and not until then.
I see, so calling it makes it so. So if it isn't called classical
music, it isn't classical music? What about Beethoven's incidental music
to the plays that he accompanied? They certainly weren't conceived of as
independent concert entities, more like colorful interludes to accompany
the texts by Collin or Goethe. They are now played in concert settings,
but were they in his time? And if not, then are "Prometheus" and "Egmont"
not to be counted as classical music? This is where I would make the
point that setting divisions like this are not helpful, and that examining
film scores in comparison with one another (or with incidental music to
stage plays), as suggested, may still be of use.
>Does John Williams present his movie scores as "classical" music? I'm not
>aware of it if he does. Though I understand JW also writes concert music.
Williams has conducted excerpts from his film scores in Boston Pops
concerts. You will have to tell me if this counts as classical music or
not. He does write concert music, much of which is not particularly
special, but that's another story.
--
/James C.S. Liu "Take my word for it, the silliest woman can
jl...@world.std.com manage a clever man, but it needs a very
Boston, Massachusetts clever woman to manage a fool."
-- Rudyard Kipling, _Three Tales from the Hills_
Richard L. Kaye
century. If you don't believe me, listen to his opera,
"Das Wunder der Heliane" on DECCA 436 636-2.
Rob Holzel
: James C Liu (jl...@world.std.com) wrote:
: : William
: : Walton and Serge Prokofiev wrote classic film scores; would you then
: : eliminate Alexander Nevsky and Lt. Kije from the lists of classical music?
: No, because Prokofiev took the film-score music he wrote and decided to
: present it as "classical" music. IMHO the music to "Alexander Nevsky"
: became "classical" music when Prokofiev decided to present it in that
: form--and not until then.
Then what have you to say about music for ballet? It also accompanies
a visual art.
By your logic, only a suite from Swan Lake would qualify as "classical
music".
The more you attempt to argue your point the more weak it becomes.
Rob
Cry me a river...
On 6 Jan 1996, Jeff Harrington wrote:
> It's those spectacular climaxes and effects. If you've heard his bassoon
> concerto, recently premiered by the BSO? it was pretty ordinary stuff.
I heard his concerto. Wasn't terribly impressed. Kept waiting for his
finale, the "Indiana Jones" theme. Didn't have a lot of depth to it...
Chris
John Ladasky
John <zo...@astro.ocis.temple.edu> wrote:
>: Does John Williams present his movie scores as "classical" music? I'm not
>
>Wars, Superman, etc., as "classical music" at concerts, and so have many
>other orchestras. So I guess Williams is as "classical" as Prokofiev
>and Korngold...
>
>As James says, "whatever that means."
To these folks, "classical music" would seem to mean, "music per-
formed by an orchestra." I guess that's as good a definition as any.
--
Unique ID : Ladasky, John Joseph Jr.
Title : BA Biochemistry, U.C. Berkeley, 1989 (Ph.D. perhaps 1998???)
Location : Stanford University, Dept. of Structural Biology, Fairchild D-105
Keywords : immunology, music, running, Green
John
To straighten up this on-going "orchestration" misconception...
Williams doesn't "give it all to someone else" to orchestrate.
He maps out the orchestration and gives it to an orchestrator to fill
in the details, write it out "long-hand." the "sound," the concept, is
still his --well, his and the director's.
And by the way,this is standard practice in Hollywood. Even venerated
"classical" composers who worked in Hollywood did it. It's done that
way becauwse of the time-pressure factor...film scores are one of the last
elements to be put in a film, and composers usualy have only a couple
weeks to a couple months to write them. There's no time to orchestrate
every bar personally.
John
Albert
"classical" music that meets some broad standard of purity, is that
it tends to be academically driven. Therefore, it is more concerened
with experimentation than complete sound. This of course is not
one hundred percent true, yet the patronage for the "serious" writers
frequently is academia. Some one like John Williams cpmes along
with some listenable melodies and sweeping harmonies, and people
who tend to not be on this newsgoup buy them up.
I myself do not purchase his works, but I can identify with the
frustration on the part of the listener of concert music who is asked to
undergo an onslought of dissonance. Now I happen to like Bartok and Shostacovich
as well as other composers that are too wild for many listeners. This music
had to grow on me so to speak. Many listeners will not take that path.
Can we fault them for their subjectivity? There may even be a physicalogical
point in which dissonace is more than grating: it could be depressing
on a physical level.
Matthew H. Fields
Albert <10251...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>had to grow on me so to speak. Many listeners will not take that path.
>Can we fault them for their subjectivity? There may even be a physicalogical
>point in which dissonace is more than grating: it could be depressing
>on a physical level.
Umm, the late Nicolas Slonimsky collected quotes to that effect pertaining
to Beethoven and lots of other "universally appreciated" -- presently
successfully marketed--composers, in N.S.'s book "Lexicon of Musical
Invective". He limited his sights to Beethoven and later composers, but
I daresay the findings would apply to earlier musicians as well.
It's fascinating the sheer range of musics that, over time, have been
called "A sterile algebra", "unnatural", "physically abusive", etc.
John
This is too good to pass up....
David Cleary (dcl...@fas.harvard.edu) wrote:
: James C Liu (jl...@world.std.com) wrote:
: : fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields) writes:
: : >In article <4cikm1$s...@ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
: : >Barb McFalls <cric...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: : >>Does this mean our societ has sunk to the point where we're willing to
: : >>settle for so little? Does classical music now depend on whether or
: : >>not there's a lot of screen action to accompany it?
: : >I think it's not useful to lump Williams's filmscores with "classical"
: : >music. Perhaps to compare them with Korngold.
: : Korngold was a "classical" composer too whatever that means.
: Yes. He wrote both film music and "classical" (i.e "concert") music. But
: IMHO the intent of these two musics is not the same. IMHO, film music and
: "classical" music are not the same thing. Film music does sound like
: "classical" music sometimes, though.
: : William
: : Walton and Serge Prokofiev wrote classic film scores; would you then
: : eliminate Alexander Nevsky and Lt. Kije from the lists of classical music?
: No, because Prokofiev took the film-score music he wrote and decided to
: present it as "classical" music. IMHO the music to "Alexander Nevsky"
: became "classical" music when Prokofiev decided to present it in that
: form--and not until then.
: Does John Williams present his movie scores as "classical" music? I'm not
: aware of it if he does. Though I understand JW also writes concert music.
: Hope this helps.
No, it doesn't. John Williams has many times presented the music from Star
Wars, Superman, etc., as "classical music" at concerts, and so have many
other orchestras. So I guess Williams is as "classical" as Prokofiev
and Korngold...
As James says, "whatever that means."
John
: Dave
Simon Gray
> I myself do not purchase his works, but I can identify with the
>frustration on the part of the listener of concert music who is asked to
>undergo an onslought of dissonance. Now I happen to like Bartok and
>Shostacovich
>as well as other composers that are too wild for many listeners.
Bartok & Shostakovich, wild ????
--
Simon Gray
David Cleary
: >James C Liu (jl...@world.std.com) wrote:
: >: fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields) writes:
: >: >I think it's not useful to lump Williams's filmscores with "classical"
: >: >music. Perhaps to compare them with Korngold.
: >: Korngold was a "classical" composer too whatever that means.
: >Yes. He wrote both film music and "classical" (i.e "concert") music. But
: >IMHO the intent of these two musics is not the same. IMHO, film music and
: >"classical" music are not the same thing. Film music does sound like
: >"classical" music sometimes, though.
: >The Moody Blues sometimes sound like classical music, too ("Days of Future
: >Past" for example). But just because they sound like "classical" music
: >doesn't mean they are.
: These comparisons and definitions don't strike me as particularly
: helpful. What is classical music? That's not a question I particularly
: feel like addressing, but I'm not sure that the borders should be set
: so tightly. See below for more comments.
I'm not going to attempt an all-encompassing definition, either. I'll
stick to this case-by-case, thanks. Do you think the Moody Blues "Days of
Future Past" is classical music? I don't. Is a Muzak strings-and-horns
arrangement of "Strangers in the Night" classical music? I don't think so,
myself.
There are examples of film music that use pop-sounding stuff exclusively
(one example being "Car Wash," if I remember correctly). Film music IMHO is
film music, whether it is scored for orchestra and sounds like a 19th
century symphony or is scored for a rock combo and sounds like disco. IMHO
intent is important here. How film music may be used subsequently is another
question IMHO.
: >: William
: >: Walton and Serge Prokofiev wrote classic film scores; would you then
: >: eliminate Alexander Nevsky and Lt. Kije from the lists of classical music?
: >No, because Prokofiev took the film-score music he wrote and decided to
: >present it as "classical" music. IMHO the music to "Alexander Nevsky"
: >became "classical" music when Prokofiev decided to present it in that
: >form--and not until then.
: I see, so calling it makes it so.
In this isolated case--the Prokofiev--I'll say yes. Again, I'd prefer to
discuss this on a case-by-case basis, myself.
: So if it isn't called classical
: music, it isn't classical music?
I'm not going to get that general, thanks. If you want to generalize
further, that's up to you.
: What about Beethoven's incidental music
: to the plays that he accompanied? They certainly weren't conceived of as
: independent concert entities, more like colorful interludes to accompany
: the texts by Collin or Goethe. They are now played in concert settings,
: but were they in his time? And if not, then are "Prometheus" and "Egmont"
: not to be counted as classical music?
That's a really tough question. One could perhaps argue that listeners
experienced the music and text separately in these cases--thus the
parallel between movie music and the other elements of the movie cannot be
so clearly drawn, integration of movie music to the movie's other elements
being likely a more complete phenomenon. But I'm not sure what to think in
this specific example.
Did Beethoven sanction performing excerpts from "Egmont" and "Prometheus"
in concert settings? If so, IMHO such excerpts would be "classical music,"
regardless of the original performing intentions. I said the same thing
about "Alexander Nevsky" above.
: This is where I would make the
: point that setting divisions like this are not helpful, and that examining
: film scores in comparison with one another (or with incidental music to
: stage plays), as suggested, may still be of use.
No argument here in comparing film scores to each other if one wants, I
guess. But much of the criticism I've seen of Williams's film scores
states that they steal wholesale from "concert music" examples like
Richard Strauss's "Death and Transfiguration." That's IMHO a different
type of comparison. These other types of comparisons can be tougher to
justify convincingly, IMHO partially because the intent of the two musics
might be perceived differently.
And the whole question of "stealing" is a different matter yet.
: >Does John Williams present his movie scores as "classical" music? I'm not
: >aware of it if he does. Though I understand JW also writes concert music.
: Williams has conducted excerpts from his film scores in Boston Pops
: concerts. You will have to tell me if this counts as classical music or
: not.
I'll pass on that question, thanks.
: He does write concert music, much of which is not particularly
: special, but that's another story.
Everyone's mileage varies, of course. I'm not commenting because, among
other things, I haven't heard much of his concert music.
Thanks for responding.
Dave
David Cleary
: This is too good to pass up....
Indeed.
: David Cleary (dcl...@fas.harvard.edu) wrote:
: : Does John Williams present his movie scores as "classical" music? I'm not
: : aware of it if he does. Though I understand JW also writes concert music.
: : Hope this helps.
: No, it doesn't. John Williams has many times presented the music from Star
: Wars, Superman, etc., as "classical music" at concerts, and so have many
: other orchestras.
I've heard these examples played in orchestral "pops" concerts. Are you
saying all "pops concert" music is "classical music?" Including Leroy
Anderson's "The Typewriter," arrangements of music by the Beatles,
Broadway show medleys, and "Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer" in
pops-concert singalongs? I'm not prepared to make that claim, myself.
Are you saying anything played by a symphony orchestra is "classical music?"
What about Muzak or the Moody Blues example in earlier postings?
Got examples of John Williams's *film score* music being presented in
*non-pops* concerts by established orchestras alongside full performances
of, say, Beethoven's 5th Symphony, Brahms's Violin Concerto, and the like?
If so, give specific examples--orchestra, dates, etc. Maybe you do indeed
have specific examples. If so, great--IMHO your argument could get very
convincing. I'm not aware of any, myself.
: So I guess Williams is as "classical" as Prokofiev
: and Korngold...
Which Williams examples are you using? I didn't say that Williams never
writes "classical" music (he has written concerti meant purely for concert
performances, for example). Feel free to cite any quote of mine you find
that clearly says otherwise.
Dave
Keith Wiley
> "classical" music that meets some broad standard of purity, is that
> it tends to be academically driven. Therefore, it is more concerened
> with experimentation than complete sound. This of course is not
> one hundred percent true, yet the patronage for the "serious" writers
> frequently is academia. Some one like John Williams cpmes along
> with some listenable melodies and sweeping harmonies, and people
> who tend to not be on this newsgoup buy them up.
There's at least some overlap. I bought a Star Wars trilogy soundtrack
cassette...and I'll even go as far as to say that I *like* John Williams
(oh the horrors. What a naive little musician-wannabe I must be). Why
does he get such a bad rap anyway. His music sounds cool, end of story.
As a musician, I appreciate cool-sounding music. To hell with theory
unless it works. For Bach it works. For other people it doesn't but
they're more respected than John Williams because their strict
musicians. No one even cares what music sounds like in the academic
circle. They're soo concerned about wheter or not it breaks a rule. I
think everyone is forgetting that music is a listening art, not an
analytical structure.
. . .. ... ..... ........ ............. .....................
.. ... ..... ....... ........... ............. .................
. .. .... ........ ................ ................................
Keith Wiley, Electrogenetic Engineer *
University of Maryland at College Park * * * * * *
email: kei...@wam.umd.edu *** ** * * ** *
world wide web: http://www.wam.umd.edu/~keithw * ** ** ***
Albert
to all of this. I noticed that my point about who was
doing the "serious" writing, and what motivated the composer was ignored.
In a manner similar to the pop star looking for a new angle or hook
that has little to do with the sound of the music, academic music
plays to the taste of the few. Twelve tone systems, John Cage
piano watching, along with myriad other local debuts in America
Europe, and Japan, are driven by the angle, the newness, the hook.
As to what kind of product emerges from such a system; who
can say? Is it any less forced than when the Prince wanted a new
piece for the wedding of his cousin on Sunday? I imagine a lot of
work was churned out in times past for reasons not primarily driven
by musical inspiration per se. I will not argue now is worse than then.
I am only saying much of what we hear is not driven by inspiration.
Rather, it is the product of an institutional vapidity that drives
to the forfront the novel, the unique, the experimental, without regard
to the way such innovations sound.
se...@acay.com.au
Try this simple test. Listen to the star wars soundtrack everyday for a week and see if you don't want to
trash the thing by the end. It's BORING.
T.J. Hull
> As I infered, there is an element of subjectivity
>to all of this. I noticed that my point about who was
>doing the "serious" writing, and what motivated the composer was ignored.
>In a manner similar to the pop star looking for a new angle or hook
>that has little to do with the sound of the music, academic music
>plays to the taste of the few.
Huh? I won't question you if you make these statements:
Pop writers tend to look for large audiences
Academic composers tend to look for (or attract) small audiences
Both pop and academic composers tend to look for new sounds
Is that what you mean?
> Twelve tone systems, John Cage
>piano watching, along with myriad other local debuts in America
>Europe, and Japan, are driven by the angle, the newness, the hook.
Several types of twelve-tone music are now venerable, yet still being
produced. How can this be?
>I am only saying much of what we hear is not driven by inspiration.
>Rather, it is the product of an institutional vapidity that drives
>to the forfront the novel, the unique, the experimental, without regard
>to the way such innovations sound.
Again, these statements are not exclusive, nor do they follow. "Novel"
sounds are most likely to require inspiration.
A reviewer of Beethoven during his younger years would say verbatim
what you said above. Is this not strange? Why won't you allow the
possibility of craft? Why don't you think composers write music the
way they do, because they *want* to, and because they like how it
sounds?
TJH
Ryan M. Hare
: No one even cares what music sounds like in the academic
: think everyone is forgetting that music is a listening art, not an
: analytical structure.
I have never seen anyone criticize John Williams's compositional craft.
You are setting up a straw man. What everyone is questioning is his
originality, or lack thereof, and how well his music works outside the
cinematic environment.
Ryan Hare
rh...@u.washington.edu
David Cleary
: David Cleary (dcl...@fas.harvard.edu) wrote:
: : James C Liu (jl...@world.std.com) wrote:
: : : William
: : : Walton and Serge Prokofiev wrote classic film scores; would you then
: : : eliminate Alexander Nevsky and Lt. Kije from the lists of classical music?
: : No, because Prokofiev took the film-score music he wrote and decided to
: : present it as "classical" music. IMHO the music to "Alexander Nevsky"
: : became "classical" music when Prokofiev decided to present it in that
: : form--and not until then.
: Then what have you to say about music for ballet? It also accompanies
: a visual art.
Music for ballet is normally heard live under concert presentation
circumstances ("concert music," yes?), and is specifically conceived to be
given in these situations. So is opera. Film score music (except in the
rare circumstances when it is performed live and "on the spot" to a silent
movie) is not, nor was it intended to be in its original conception. IMHO
that makes a big difference and can override the question of whether or
not the music accompanies a visual art.
I'm sure the next post from someone will be, "What about the live
orchestral performance of the movie score to Abel Gance's silent movie
'Napoleon' that accompanied showings of the movie and was given at
selected movie theatres a few years ago. Is that classical music?" Or
someone else will say, "What about Stravinsky's work 'The Flood?,' which
was originally meant to be shown on television?" And someone else will
bring up Disney's movie "Fantasia." I'll save you folks the time now and
say "I don't know for certain," given the extreme difficulty of clearly
pigeonholing these specific situations. I did the same in my reply to one
of James Liu's examples. One might perhaps come up with a convincing
argument either way in such cases. I'm not saying every example anyone can
think up can be clearly categorized, nor am I trying to do so. IMHO many
examples can be and some others can't.
I'm sticking to this case-by-case, OK folks? If you all have a problem
with that, feel free to pass on my responses.
: By your logic, only a suite from Swan Lake would qualify as "classical
: music".
Only if we agree that the implied assumption in your post ("music
accompanying a visual art form is not classical music") is the overriding
basis for my argument. I'm not saying that.
: The more you attempt to argue your point the more weak it becomes.
Again, only if you want to extend the argument to an all-encompassing,
black-and-white definition. I'm not prepared to do so, at least not at
this time. Are you? IMHO, some examples are just much clearer than others.
There's an assumption being made here that a broad theory must be
presented that can account for any and all variations before doing any
discussion of this issue. I'm not buying into this assumption, though I
would indeed be interested in refining my argument further or exploring
alternate arguments that truly work better. In essence, what I'm trying to
do is set out something that *can* answer these questions more
clearly--and I'll gladly discuss the matter seriously in this forum or via
private email. So far, with the exception of James Liu, no one who has
responded to my posts seems interested in much beyond taking
self-congratulatory potshots.
If you really feel a broad theory is absolutely necessary before further
discussion, please be prepared to explain why.
Dave
David Cleary
: What has intention or presentation to do with anything? What happened
: to quality, pure and simple.
Are you saying that "classical music" encompasses a quality issue? If so,
I don't agree. IMHO there is (for example) bad "classical music" and good
"popular music." For my personal taste, J. Stamitz wrote poor-quality
"classical music" (the four or so examples I've heard, anyway--concerti and
symphonies specifically) and The Beatles wrote great "popular music." And
I'll take The Beatles over Stamitz any day. But IMHO as great as most of
The Beatles's music is, it isn't "classical music."
IMHO "great," "good," "fair," and "poor" aren't the sole province of any
particular genre, but rather can (and do) cross into any genre.
BTW, if anyone wants to suggest a good piece by Stamitz, I'll gladly give
it a try. I'm happy to give a shot at changing my mind about any
composer.
: Try this simple test. Listen to the star wars soundtrack everyday for
: a week and see if you don't want to
: trash the thing by the end. It's BORING.
Different strokes for different folks, as the old Sly and the Family Stone
song says. Myself, I'm not so sure I'd want to listen to *anything*
constantly for a week--IMHO there's too much good music out there to just
concentrate on one thing.
Thanks for writing.
Dave
eric enstols c.
ley <kei...@wam.umd.edu> writes:
> cassette...and I'll even go as far as to say that I *like* John Williams
> (oh the horrors. What a naive little musician-wannabe I must be). Why
> does he get such a bad rap anyway. His music sounds cool, end of story.
> As a musician, I appreciate cool-sounding music. To hell with theory
> unless it works. For Bach it works. For other people it doesn't but
> they're more respected than John Williams because their strict
> think everyone is forgetting that music is a listening art, not an
> analytical structure.
Hear hear. Couldn't agree more.
Judging music is kind of like government. You can either have
an aristocracy of critics or a democracy of all listeners.
I guess the same goes for films, books, and many other things.
Ellen B. Edgerton
: What has intention or presentation to do with anything? What happened to quality, pure and simple.
: trash the thing by the end. It's BORING.
Well, so are a lot of the classical warhorses that we're supposed to all be
so awestruck by.
It's sad that John Williams is the frequent target of the tiresome "film
music is too derivative/inferior" threads that pop up on r.m.c. from time
to time. While I'm not a big fan of his, he gets way more shit from the
supposedly knowledgeable than he deserves.
Renee KC
feel compelled to offer my observations.
I have been fortunate to have worked with some of the worlds most
"important" conductors and musicians-- and-very few reach the musical
heights that John does throughout his concerts. That also includes his
music. It is not only craft that sets him apart, it is his communication
in the most visceral way, both in his conducting and in his music. Do we
compare Bach to Mozart to Gershwin to Cole Porter? They were all great,
and very different sorts of music.(By the way, in terms of baton
technique, he is not great,but the orchestra sounds just fantastic with
him as their conductor.
Mr. Mike
>It's sad that John Williams is the frequent target of the tiresome "film
>music is too derivative/inferior" threads that pop up on r.m.c. from time
>to time. While I'm not a big fan of his, he gets way more shit from the
>supposedly knowledgeable than he deserves.
Compared to some other soundtrack composers, John Williams is actually a
pretty talented guy (not to say that he isn't talented, period). He's
also an excellent arranger and studio musician as some of his earlier
recordings will demonstrate (he played on Henry Mancini's Peter Gunn as
pianist, for example).
James C Liu
>James C Liu (jl...@world.std.com) wrote:
>: These comparisons and definitions don't strike me as particularly
>: helpful. What is classical music? That's not a question I particularly
>: feel like addressing, but I'm not sure that the borders should be set
>: so tightly. See below for more comments.
>I'm not going to attempt an all-encompassing definition, either. I'll
>stick to this case-by-case, thanks. Do you think the Moody Blues "Days of
>Future Past" is classical music? I don't. Is a Muzak strings-and-horns
>arrangement of "Strangers in the Night" classical music? I don't think so,
>myself.
>There are examples of film music that use pop-sounding stuff exclusively
>(one example being "Car Wash," if I remember correctly). Film music IMHO is
>film music, whether it is scored for orchestra and sounds like a 19th
>century symphony or is scored for a rock combo and sounds like disco. IMHO
>intent is important here. How film music may be used subsequently is another
>question IMHO.
What is it, then, about the "intent" of a piece that makes it classical,
if (going back to the original example) sound, constructive device, and
leitmotiv-style development aren't enough? No, I agree that Eric Clapton or
the Moody Blues or whomever playing with an orchestra behind them doesn't
necessarily make them "classical" music, but I would hold that making
finer distinctions between popular entertainment and art music is bound to
lead you into a trap sooner or later. Composers of times past were certainly
not above pandering to the masses, and turned out popular tunes along with
so-called "classical" music. Furthermore, the constructions, orchestrations,
and emotions of the art-music tradition have been used to illustrate any of
a number of non-musical arts, such as stage plays and ballets. If they
happen to be popular pieces that were not presented in concert halls (a
setting that didn't exist as we think of it today anyway), why does that not
make it classical music?
>: So if it isn't called classical music, it isn't classical music?
>I'm not going to get that general, thanks. If you want to generalize
>further, that's up to you.
>: What about Beethoven's incidental music
>: to the plays that he accompanied? They certainly weren't conceived of as
>: independent concert entities, more like colorful interludes to accompany
>: the texts by Collin or Goethe. They are now played in concert settings,
>: but were they in his time? And if not, then are "Prometheus" and "Egmont"
>: not to be counted as classical music?
>That's a really tough question. One could perhaps argue that listeners
>experienced the music and text separately in these cases--thus the
>parallel between movie music and the other elements of the movie cannot be
>so clearly drawn, integration of movie music to the movie's other elements
>being likely a more complete phenomenon. But I'm not sure what to think in
>this specific example.
>Did Beethoven sanction performing excerpts from "Egmont" and "Prometheus"
>in concert settings? If so, IMHO such excerpts would be "classical music,"
>regardless of the original performing intentions. I said the same thing
>about "Alexander Nevsky" above.
But excerpts from "Egmont" and "Prometheus" are performed now in concert
halls alongside symphonies and concerti and other so-called classical pieces.
We have made them classical music, and the style and modus operandi of these
pieces are the same as those of the symphonies. I still fail to see what
it is that sets these apart as non-classical pieces.
More examples? How about ballets, which were intended to be presented
as music to accompany dance? Is it not classical music if you're watching
people dance to it, while the same pieces become classical music if they're
excerpted (chopped up and presented in bleeding chunks is how I prefer
to think of it) in a concert hall? And opera? Are text and music separate
experiences here? (They are for most of us who don't speak Italian or
German ...)
>Everyone's mileage varies, of course. I'm not commenting because, among
>other things, I haven't heard much of his concert music.
You're not missing much, believe me. And please keep in mind, this is
not intended as a defense of John Williams (who has his moments, but they're
limited moments) nor as an attack. My funamental point is that the lines
of distinction are blurrier than you might think. Regards,
--
/James C.S. Liu "There is always enough to go around -- enough
jl...@world.std.com to keep, enough to reward with, enough to be
Boston, Massachusetts stolen -- as long as you first get it all."
-- Anonymous
Tim Clarke
Hollywood work. Are there any books/newsgroups/FAQs/etc. available on
the subject?
Thanks,
Tim
James C Liu
>Music for ballet is normally heard live under concert presentation
>circumstances ("concert music," yes?), and is specifically conceived to be
>given in these situations. So is opera. Film score music (except in the
>rare circumstances when it is performed live and "on the spot" to a silent
>movie) is not, nor was it intended to be in its original conception. IMHO
>that makes a big difference and can override the question of whether or
>not the music accompanies a visual art.
Whoa, whoa, wait a minute. What are "concert presentation circumstances?"
If you mean a situation where you're ushered into a dark room, are expected
to be quiet, and then have your ears tickled or challenged or whatever by
music, there's a problem. Silent films are presented with a pit orchestra
in a quiet, dark room, just as operas are (supposed to be) presented with
a visual drama occurring as the main focus of the action, with pit orchestra
in the background, or the way Beethoven's theater pieces were set up in
similar circumstances. What, then, is the difference?
I know I already posted a reply, but I think I'm beginning to see what
you're getting at (though I still disagree with the premise).
>There's an assumption being made here that a broad theory must be
>presented that can account for any and all variations before doing any
>discussion of this issue. I'm not buying into this assumption, though I
>would indeed be interested in refining my argument further or exploring
>alternate arguments that truly work better. In essence, what I'm trying to
>do is set out something that *can* answer these questions more
>clearly--and I'll gladly discuss the matter seriously in this forum or via
>private email. So far, with the exception of James Liu, no one who has
>responded to my posts seems interested in much beyond taking
>self-congratulatory potshots.
Aw, shucks.
>If you really feel a broad theory is absolutely necessary before further
>discussion, please be prepared to explain why.
Well, the very real problem is that if something is rejected out of hand
as not being classical music, it then becomes all too easy (as several of
us have done) to come up with counter-examples. The point is that if one
is going to claim that something is or isn't a classical piece which sits
somewhere in the grey zone, one will have to come up with a reasonable
defense as to why it is or isn't classical, and such a defense usually has
to have some quality of generalizability.
Kronos Quartet plays a mean "Purple Haze," btw ...
James C Liu
>In article <4cv5vu$g3c$4...@mhafn.production.compuserve.com>,
>Albert <10251...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
... to speak nothing of great film composers like Herrmann and Korngold,
who used dissonant, chromatic, and impressionistic techniques to
unforgettable effect ...
Ellen B. Edgerton
There is a film music newsgroup, rec.music.movies; also several websites,
including http://www.filmmusic.com. There is also a LISTSERV mailing
list at FILM...@iubvm.ucs.indiana.edu.
Jeff Harrington
: Well, the very real problem is that if something is rejected out of hand
: as not being classical music, it then becomes all too easy (as several of
: us have done) to come up with counter-examples. The point is that if one
: is going to claim that something is or isn't a classical piece which sits
: somewhere in the grey zone, one will have to come up with a reasonable
: defense as to why it is or isn't classical, and such a defense usually has
: to have some quality of generalizability.
Categorizing pieces serves no useful purpose, my problem with hacks like
John Williams competing with me for concert performances is that it
serves to demonstrate how little we can discern as a society the true
qualitities which set apart musics. Williams' music has no
inevitability; his forms are derivative and often medleyish. The
momentum he generates is small-scale, local. Really high quality art
music, whether it's jazz, rock or classical - is high quality from
beginning to end. There are surprises... it's a real journey, not just a
bunch of pretty moments. His music isn't even art, I'd say. It's closer
to Lawrence Welk, where it's ultimately commentary on high quality art at
the service of commerce. He takes no risks with the listener in terms of
spending momentum points to get a bigger bang down the road. Can you
think of one moment in a JW score when there's just one note being held -
with the audience in rapture of expectation?
: Kronos Quartet plays a mean "Purple Haze," btw ...
White bread for the masses. Give Jimi the props... Voodoo Child Return
(Part 2?) is the greatest piece of emusic heard yet. Cosmically
spiritual without any cloying gimmicks; natural in its execution like a
Heifetz Bach Prelude...
Jeff Harrington "Art does not make peace...
je...@parnasse.com That is not its business...
http://www.parnasse.com Art is peace." -- Robert Lowell
James C Liu
>What has intention or presentation to do with anything? What happened to
>quality, pure and simple.
Okay. Define quality, and then tell me why a quality popular piece isn't
classical music or why a mediocre piece written in 1784 is.
>Try this simple test. Listen to the star wars soundtrack everyday for a
>week and see if you don't want to trash the thing by the end. It's BORING.
As opposed to, say, the "Four Seasons?" I'm pretty sick of it by now,
and haven't even listened to it every day for a week ...
Jeff Harrington
: In article <4dbqut$f...@shellx.best.com>,
: Jeff Harrington <rus...@shellx.best.com> wrote:
: >Categorizing pieces serves no useful purpose, my problem with hacks like
: >serves to demonstrate how little we can discern as a society the true
: >qualitities which set apart musics. Williams' music has no
: >inevitability; his forms are derivative and often medleyish. The
: >momentum he generates is small-scale, local. Really high quality art
: >music, whether it's jazz, rock or classical - is high quality from
: >beginning to end. There are surprises... it's a real journey, not just a
: >bunch of pretty moments. His music isn't even art, I'd say.
: Great art is overrated. Don't linger too long over your book of ABC's.
: The library awaits.
Nah... great art is underrated. Don't linger too long over any text.
Life awaits - and is contained - within the love and splendor of great
music.
Ellen B. Edgerton
Jeff Harrington <rus...@shellx.best.com> wrote:
>Ellen B. Edgerton (ebed...@gamera.syr.edu) wrote:
>Nah... great art is underrated. Don't linger too long over any text.
>Life awaits - and is contained - within the love and splendor of great
>music.
>
Life awaits and is contained >beyond< the splendor of great music. Great
music is the door, not the destination.
Jonathan Wiener
A recent book on this subject is Listening to Movies by Fred Karlin,
published by Schirmer Books. For more information:
http://www.mcp.com/mlr/schirmer/featured.html
Ellen B. Edgerton
Hack
> Categorizing pieces serves no useful purpose, my problem with hacks like
> John Williams competing with me for concert performances is that it
> serves to demonstrate how little we can discern as a society the true
> qualitities which set apart musics.
So here's a philosophical question:
If you had to choose between one of these two curses, which would
you pick?
A) To have all your music be forever loved by professional critics
and hated by everyone else.
B) To have all your music be forever hated by professional critics
and loved by everyone else.
And why?
--------------
It if were my choice, I would pick the latter -- if only so that
more people would experience it.
I believe the most important role of critics is to reflect the
tastes of some segment of society, but if critics ever get to the
point of reflecting no one but critics themselves, then they have
outlived their usefulness.
Craig Weston
>So here's a philosophical question:
>
>If you had to choose between one of these two curses, which would
>you pick?
>
>A) To have all your music be forever loved by professional critics
> and hated by everyone else.
>B) To have all your music be forever hated by professional critics
> and loved by everyone else.
>
Of course, this hypothetical assumes that professional critics have very
different tastes than "everyone else." It's open to interpretation what
you consider "professional critic" to mean, but I've generally not found
this assumption to be the case--more often than not "professional critics"
such as (newspaper music writers) tend to follow trends in audience taste
fairly faithfully.
The hack who writes for the Seattle Times wrote the following in eulogizing
Steven Albert (who had done a stint as Composer in Res there):
"He bravely stuck with tonality when it was hopelessly out of fashion."
A fair, if not informative statement, I thought. But I couldn't help but
wonder if she would someday eulogize Milton Babbitt with the following
modification of that statement:
"He bravely stuck with serialism when it was hopelessly out of fashion."
My conclusion: If serialism is back in fashion when it comes time for MB to
be eulogized, yes, she (and her ilk) will make a statement like that. If,
however, as is more likely, serialism is still "hopelessly out of fashion"
when that time comes, no such statement will be made by "professional critics."
__________________________________________________________________
|Craig Weston--Assistant Professor of Music Theory, Composition, |
| & Electronic/Computer Music, Iowa State University|
| |
|e-mail: cwe...@iastate.edu |
|WWW: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~cweston/homepage.html |
|________________________________________________________________|
David Cleary
: >Music for ballet is normally heard live under concert presentation
: >circumstances ("concert music," yes?), and is specifically conceived to be
: >given in these situations. So is opera. Film score music (except in the
: >rare circumstances when it is performed live and "on the spot" to a silent
: >movie) is not, nor was it intended to be in its original conception. IMHO
: >that makes a big difference and can override the question of whether or
: >not the music accompanies a visual art.
: Whoa, whoa, wait a minute. What are "concert presentation circumstances?"
: If you mean a situation where you're ushered into a dark room, are expected
: to be quiet, and then have your ears tickled or challenged or whatever by
: music, there's a problem. Silent films are presented with a pit orchestra
: in a quiet, dark room, just as operas are (supposed to be) presented with
: a visual drama occurring as the main focus of the action, with pit orchestra
: in the background, or the way Beethoven's theater pieces were set up in
: similar circumstances. What, then, is the difference?
: I know I already posted a reply, but I think I'm beginning to see what
: you're getting at (though I still disagree with the premise).
As I stated in my original post (which was cut from your reply) I don't
have a good answer to the "silent movie" example, nor to the example of
"Fantasia," nor to "The Flood." They're very difficult examples to
pigeonhole clearly. IMHO some examples are easier than others to
categorize.
Regarding the silent film example, one could perhaps argue that live
presentations involving pit orchestras exist in examples that seem not to
be "classical music" (live vaudeville acts or Broadway shows, for
example). But then one could perhaps argue back that pit orchestras occur
in opera which seems to be "classical music." A tangled jungle of
arguments here. The question is whether there is a set of assumptions that
can clearly categorize these examples. Perhaps there isn't.
: >There's an assumption being made here that a broad theory must be
: >presented that can account for any and all variations before doing any
: >discussion of this issue. I'm not buying into this assumption, though I
: >would indeed be interested in refining my argument further or exploring
: >alternate arguments that truly work better. In essence, what I'm trying to
: >do is set out something that *can* answer these questions more
: >clearly--and I'll gladly discuss the matter seriously in this forum or via
: >private email. So far, with the exception of James Liu, no one who has
: >responded to my posts seems interested in much beyond taking
: >self-congratulatory potshots.
: Aw, shucks.
Well, as stated earlier, intent does make a difference..... :)
I'm always happy to engage in a well-meant discussion.
: >If you really feel a broad theory is absolutely necessary before further
: >discussion, please be prepared to explain why.
: Well, the very real problem is that if something is rejected out of hand
: as not being classical music, it then becomes all too easy (as several of
: us have done) to come up with counter-examples. The point is that if one
: is going to claim that something is or isn't a classical piece which sits
: somewhere in the grey zone, one will have to come up with a reasonable
: defense as to why it is or isn't classical, and such a defense usually has
: to have some quality of generalizability.
OK. What I'm trying to do here is find a way to approach the "gray
zone"--to approach such a definition via the back door by defining the
easier examples and then trying to tackle the tougher examples by refining
the argument. Some examples are pretty easy IMHO; Beethoven's 5th is
indeed classical music and R.E.M.'s "The one I love" isn't. Do you
disagree? The question is, how far can this be applied?
Perhaps such an attempt is not worth approaching at all. But I wouldn't
mind trying, especially since I've waded this far into the issue. The
question of classical vs. non-classical IMHO is an interesting one.
I don't really want to say "this example is and this example isn't--I
don't know why." I'd like to come up with something more concrete. Maybe
that's possible, maybe not. But there's no reason not to try IMHO.
Thanks for replying.
Dave
Jeff Harrington
: Jeff Harrington <rus...@shellx.best.com> wrote:
: >Ellen B. Edgerton (ebed...@gamera.syr.edu) wrote:
: >Nah... great art is underrated. Don't linger too long over any text.
: >music.
: >
: Life awaits and is contained >beyond< the splendor of great music. Great
: music is the door, not the destination.
No door, no destination... All is music. Some music helps in this
realization.
And uh.......
Erorppn Xrzavgm
|> >If you had to choose between one of these two curses, which would
|> >you pick?
|> >A) To have all your music be forever loved by professional critics
|> > and hated by everyone else.
|> >B) To have all your music be forever hated by professional critics
|> > and loved by everyone else.
|> Of course, this hypothetical assumes that professional critics have very
|> different tastes than "everyone else." It's open to interpretation what
|> you consider "professional critic" to mean, but I've generally not found
|> this assumption to be the case--more often than not "professional critics"
|> such as (newspaper music writers) tend to follow trends in audience taste
|> fairly faithfully.
I'd say a "professional critic" is anyone who as part of their paid profession
has to make a judgement about your work. This would include reviewers, music
historians (except those who are purely analytical and do not compare "merits"
of various musicians), recording label producers, and in general a very large
portion of the music industry and academia.
By everyone else, other than the obvious lawyers, doctors, sanitation workers,
etc, performers and composers might also be included, as long as their occupation
does not involve having to make a systematic judgement about music not immediately
related to them. As long as they're paid only to perform/compose...not to tell
people about their judgement of Stravinsky.
Ellen B. Edgerton
Jeff Harrington <rus...@shellx.best.com> wrote:
>
>No door, no destination... All is music. Some music helps in this
>realization.
>
"All is music," indeed.
You know, it's funny, but I think we are not really disagreeing on
anything except perhaps our understanding of what actually is musical.
David Sherman
>Categorizing pieces serves no useful purpose, my problem with hacks like
>John Williams competing with me for concert performances is that it
>serves to demonstrate how little we can discern as a society the true
>qualitities which set apart musics <snip>
Do I detect a small chip on your shoulder Jeff?
John
: James C Liu (jl...@world.std.com) wrote:
: : Well, the very real problem is that if something is rejected out of hand
: : as not being classical music, it then becomes all too easy (as several of
: : us have done) to come up with counter-examples. The point is that if one
: : is going to claim that something is or isn't a classical piece which sits
: : somewhere in the grey zone, one will have to come up with a reasonable
: : defense as to why it is or isn't classical, and such a defense usually has
: : to have some quality of generalizability.
: Categorizing pieces serves no useful purpose, my problem with hacks like
: John Williams competing with me for concert performances is that it
: serves to demonstrate how little we can discern as a society the true
: qualitities which set apart musics. Williams' music has no
: inevitability; his forms are derivative and often medleyish. The
: momentum he generates is small-scale, local. Really high quality art
: music, whether it's jazz, rock or classical - is high quality from
: beginning to end. There are surprises... it's a real journey, not just a
: bunch of pretty moments. His music isn't even art, I'd say. It's closer
: to Lawrence Welk, where it's ultimately commentary on high quality art at
: the service of commerce. He takes no risks with the listener in terms of
: spending momentum points to get a bigger bang down the road. Can you
: think of one moment in a JW score when there's just one note being held -
: with the audience in rapture of expectation?
: : Kronos Quartet plays a mean "Purple Haze," btw ...
: White bread for the masses. Give Jimi the props... Voodoo Child Return
: (Part 2?) is the greatest piece of emusic heard yet. Cosmically
: spiritual without any cloying gimmicks; natural in its execution like a
: Heifetz Bach Prelude...
: Jeff Harrington "Art does not make peace...
: je...@parnasse.com That is not its business...
: http://www.parnasse.com Art is peace." -- Robert Lowell
Gods, so often when you post, Jeff, you sound so jealous that the world is
having the audacity to listen to music other than YOURS. Grow up. You
aren't owed an audience.
John
Jeff Harrington
: "All is music," indeed.
That's taste and if you like John Williams than you have bad taste - in
my opinion. There's just too much music that is of high quality,
Tanieev, Miaskovsky, Clementi, Cherubini, Kallinikov, and unappreciated
to waste an instant listening to his drivel. We do not have an infinite
amount of time to appreciate *these* musics after all....
I just think people are getting suckered out of this need for a visceral
classical experience. There is good viscreal new classical music out
there!
Jeff Harrington
: >Categorizing pieces serves no useful purpose, my problem with hacks like
: >John Williams competing with me for concert performances is that it
: >serves to demonstrate how little we can discern as a society the true
: >qualitities which set apart musics <snip>
: Do I detect a small chip on your shoulder Jeff?
To: dshe...@panix.com (David Sherman)
Subject: Re: John Williams Syndrome
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical,rec.music.compose
In article <4djc12$s...@panix2.panix.com> you wrote:
: In <4dbqut$f...@shellx.best.com> rus...@shellx.best.com (Jeff Harrington) writes:
: >Categorizing pieces serves no useful purpose, my problem with hacks like
: >John Williams competing with me for concert performances is that it
: >serves to demonstrate how little we can discern as a society the true
: >qualitities which set apart musics <snip>
: Do I detect a small chip on your shoulder Jeff?
Moi? :)
I really am just astonished that people can take him, that's
all. I think it says a lot. Face it, do you think Shaw would have been
as kind as I have? He would have roasted the guy. We have no - I repeat
no - competent classical music critical capacities as a society. We just
want a tune and a smile. That ain't art. Art means something. Art is
competent. It takes the listener on a trip besides the one they think
they're going on! William's music is the Norman Rockwell music of our
time. A shtick.
Again, Williams' materials are third rate, his orchestrations are
bombastic and derivative, his forms are (to be kind) medleys, he builds no
expectations for development, he takes no chances. He's the Madonna of
classical music.
And anybody who knows me, knows that I'm not one to go on and on about
how contemporary composers are screwed because the public is a bunch of
sheep. I firmly believe that we composers dropped the ball in the 60's
and 70's through overuse of systems and processes at the service not of
art, but of academic careerism.
And I just know that there's good music out there (besides mine) that
people could be enjoying rather than wasting their time on Williams.
Myaskovsky, Kallinikov, Ivanovs....
And I promise, sheesh, that I'll never mention that I'm a composer again
when talking about contemporary music. ;-)