Ongoing Horner, McCarthy, Williams debate
Mr Tasslehoff
outnumbered here. So let's get a few things straight to avoid confusion. I'll
actually be responding to a few messages written in the recent debates on
Horner and McCarthy, who do not seem to be popular composers on this message
board.
The main misunderstanding that I think may have come across is that I do
not like John Williams. Quite the contrary, he is my second favorite composer
just barely behind Horner, and of course he deserves all the respect he has
been given. But his style cannot in all honesty be thought of as the root to
base all other music on. I read a message condemning McCarthy's Generations
score for using the main overture for many different characters and scenes.
This would have been a mistake if you classified the score as overwhelmingly
thematic. If you know your John Williams history, and I as a fan do, you know
that thematic scoring is only a style that ol' Johnny brought to popularity in
the 70's, but it is not the only style. The person who wrote that message must
be a huge Williams fan to be so biased. I agree with another person's response
that the main theme is perfect for bringing the two generations together in the
movie and providing a common link between the two captains. And it is quite
possibly the most beautifully heroic theme I have ever come across. Somebody
also made light of the fact that I named Generations as the best soundtrack
ever as well as my favorite score. This is only logical though. Who here
would do otherwise; it would merely be a confusing contradiction.
Now for Horner. It pains me to see that my favorite composer is so
disliked among my fellow collectors. The main complaint seems to be that he
recycles his scores, using the same styles and building on previous themes.
Though this may sometimes be true, I think we should look at things to scale
here. This tendency would have to be much more prevailent to hamper enjoyment
of his music. It is not as if he is using the same exact themes, note for
note, in any two scores, with the exception of sequels such as Search for
Spock. I think we can mostly agree that, like Williams, he has produced film
scores completely unique from those of all other composers. If you do get
bored from his music, it is probably because you don't particularly enjoy his
style, which is quite alright. I have heard complaints in a previous debate
that listeners grow bored from what they claim is deja vu in the Indiana Jones
Trilogy under the composition of Williams, though I most certainly don't share
this opinion. So Horner has a tendency to recycle, but Williams has a tendency
to slow things down for long periods in a score (Or was everyone on the edge of
their seats while listening to the first few minutes of Return of the Jedi?).
While this may be a good habit for keeping focus on the movie, it certainly
doesn't make for a great musical piece when listened to without the movie,
which is just what we score collectors do.
What I am getting at (yes, I am pretty sure I had a point here somewhere)
is that this is all just a matter of opinion and taste, not bad on any side,
just inherently different. Horner produces music that never fails to move me.
And I have never heard such a beautiful theme as the Generations Overture. I
have only been taking part in rooting for my favorite. It has apalled me to
see that, on this message board, instead of discussing the great things film
composers have accomplished, we seem to be arguing over their weaknesses. If I
have seemed at all biased against Mr. Williams, it is only a product of my
tendency to defend the underdog. If someone were badmouthing Williams and
heaping praises on Horner or McCarthy, I am certain I would be on Johnny's side
(The Empire Strikes Back is in my opinion the most articulate musical work ever
created). All composers have their own special styles and talents that others
lack, and I was only jumping to defend two of my favorites. The only advice I
can give to a prospective collector is to totally forget about the movie while
listening to its soundtrack, and enjoy the music for its own merit alone.
Otherwise, we're only arguing over what the movie and score combined can
provide, instead of the score on its own. If this or any other message has
offended anyone, I sincerely apologize for my rash statements. I would not
like to receive the angry responses I got before. I thank everyone for their
time.
-- Properly Chided, Tasslehoff Burrfoot, Hero of the Lance
M.R.E.
Actually, "thematic scoring" as you you call it existed long before Mr.
Williams ever scored a second of music for a film... as for its being the
"only style", well, it's certainly one of the most effective methods.
> If you know your John Williams history, and I as a fan do, you know
> that thematic scoring is only a style that ol' Johnny brought to
popularity in
> the 70's, but it is not the only style.
The complaint about Horner, at least on my part, is NOT that he recycles
"HIS" scores... that's the whole complaint! He recycles OTHER PEOPLE'S
scores! And when he's not recycling, his harmonic processes are so ordinary
as to be totally banal. If you're satisfied by the equivalent of a pop song
played by an orchestra (and badly orchestrated at that) then so be it. But
DON'T tell me that he's better than John Williams, who has explored every
facet of the harmonic/orchestral pallet in his various soundtracks.
> Now for Horner. It pains me to see that my favorite composer is so
> disliked among my fellow collectors. The main complaint seems to be that
he
> recycles his scores, using the same styles and building on previous
themes.
Using note for note like in Deep Impact / Titanic you mean?
Rather unrelated for a thematic similarity, no?
> It is not as if he is using the same exact themes, note for note, in any
two scores, with the
> exception of sequels such as Search for Spock.
No, I certainly don't agree with you there. Williams has produced unique
soundtracks (and some clunkers, I'm not close minded to it), but Horner's
"pop music" harmonies are far from unique. I get bored from his music
because it has no more interest for me than the latest Brittany Speares
(spelling) album has. Oh, and as so often stated in other posts... for music
to be unique, it has to actually come from the composer, not be a quote from
someone else!
> I think we can mostly agree that, like Williams, he has produced film
> scores completely unique from those of all other composers. If you do get
> bored from his music, it is probably because you don't particularly enjoy
his
> style, which is quite alright.
I guess some of us have longer attention spans. Actually, I WAS on the edge
of my seat.
> So Horner has a tendency to recycle, but Williams has a tendency
> to slow things down for long periods in a score (Or was everyone on the
edge of
> their seats while listening to the first few minutes of Return of the
Jedi?).
> While this may be a good habit for keeping focus on the movie, it
certainly
> doesn't make for a great musical piece when listened to without the movie,
> which is just what we score collectors do.
Except you didn't word it that way, you said that Horner would beat out
Williams hands down, any day, he was far superior, etc...
> What I am getting at (yes, I am pretty sure I had a point here somewhere)
> is that this is all just a matter of opinion and taste, not bad on any
side,
> just inherently different. Horner produces music that never fails to move
me.
And I agree with you here, I rather LIKED the main theme from Generations...
I just thought the rest of the soundtrack was boring.
> And I have never heard such a beautiful theme as the Generations Overture.
I
> have only been taking part in rooting for my favorite.
Great things: Alexandre Nevsky, Scott of the Antarctic, Schindler's List...
Notice? Not a single Horner score! But then, that's my learned opinion.
> It has apalled me to see that, on this message board, instead of
discussing the great things film
> composers have accomplished, we seem to be arguing over their weaknesses.
And here you go jumping to another extreme musical opinion! I LIKE ESB, but
it's a film soundtrack for God's sake... step back, take a deep breath, go
out and buy yourself a couple of classical CDs, and learn to appreciate
truly great art.
> (The Empire Strikes Back is in my opinion the most articulate musical work
ever
> created).
[Now, if you had said "... most articulate musical work for the cinema ever
created..." I would have said "hey, that's your opinion" and that's about
it!]
--
Michel R. Edward, Compositeur
Montréal, Québec
<<Music hath charms to soothe the savage breast>>
Jaquandor
>discussing the great things film
>> composers have accomplished, we seem to be arguing over their weaknesses.
>
>And here you go jumping to another extreme musical opinion! I LIKE ESB, but
>it's a film soundtrack for God's sake... step back, take a deep breath, go
>out and buy yourself a couple of classical CDs, and learn to appreciate
>truly great art.
Ummmm....you lost me here, fully and totally. I find that Williams' TESB score
is a towering achievement of music, and I frequently listen to it as such. It
is, to me, truly great art, as much so as, say, the Rachmaninov Second
Symphony.
I have always viewed film music as music, and I approach scores in precisely
the same way as I do classical works. To intimate that film scores are by
nature "lesser" works is a very elitist position, inmy opinion. (Yes, I know
that you openly admitted being a musical snob in a previous post, but I didn't
interpret that to mean that the sun shines less brightly on film scores.
Perhaps I read you incorrectly in that last post?)
--
The preceding views have been Revealed as the Divine Will of GOD, obtained
through meditation and ritual sacrifice upon a moonlit altar of blood-soaked
granite. Thus sayeth I.
-Jaq.
James Southall
> note, in any two scores,
But this is exactly the point: he DOES use themes, note for note, in two (or
more) scores, and worse he quote the music of others, note for note.
> with the exception of sequels such as Search for Spock.
Have you heard Romeo and Juliet by Prokofiev?
> I think we can mostly agree that, like Williams, he has produced film
> scores completely unique from those of all other composers.
I disagree that either Horner or Williams has ever produced a score that is
completely unique from all other composers. They're talented gentlemen, but
originality is not a quality I would associate with either. Please tell me
a score by one of them that is "completely unique from all other composers".
James
Mr Tasslehoff
Williams -- I hate to state the obvious, but Star Wars
Thomas Müthing
> I disagree that either Horner or Williams has ever produced a score that is
> completely unique from all other composers. They're talented gentlemen, but
> originality is not a quality I would associate with either. Please tell me
> a score by one of them that is "completely unique from all other composers".
In Williams' case I'd say "The Missouri Breaks", at least it's different from
all HIS other works. It's also unlistenable... ;=)
I agree Horner's rampant plagiarism of other people's music (BTW: the Romeo and
Juliet note-for-note quote is AFAIR from "Death of Tybalt") and his own is
impossible to ignore, much less to excuse.
Thomas
Mr Tasslehoff
it out for you. I never said Williams invented thematic scoring, merely that
he brought to popularity a few years ago. And I particularly resent the
statement saying "here you go jumping to another extreme musical opinion."
That's just what it was, an opinion. How can you criticism someone for a
statement that he explicitly says is his own personal opinion? May I suggest
that you read slower in order that we may avoid future pointless
misunderstandings.
-- Righteously Indignant, Tasslehoff Burrfoot, Hero of the Lance
Mr Tasslehoff
discussion on film scores. With all this classical talk floating to the
surface, I must have been gravely mistaken.
-- Tasslehoff Burrfoot, Hero of the Lance
Thomas Müthing
> Horner -- Krull
> Williams -- I hate to state the obvious, but Star Wars
Both of these (hey, I like KRULL a lot!) are almost totally derivative. In the
original STAR WARS score, Williams more or less quotes from Korngold,
Herrmann, Stravinsky and God knows who else, plus much of his orchestration
apes Prokofiev's popular 5th Symphony.
You should really open up to classical music!
Thomas
Mr Tasslehoff
offer a proper rebuttal, but I currently own neither of these, so I have no
basis for argument.
I do, however, have a basis for your second challenge:
Horner -- Krull
Williams -- I hate to point to the obvious, but Star Wars
Mr Tasslehoff
scoring, for it has a feel all its own. I am quite histrionic you should know.
Mr Tasslehoff
>original STAR WARS score, Williams more or less quotes from Korngold,
>Herrmann, Stravinsky and God knows who else
Very well then, since I am not familiar with the classics, tell me where
Jurassic Park came from. And you still have not explained Krull, which I am
sure is impossible.
InstntGuts
What?
How about Khatchaturian's "Gayneh" Ballet suite showing up in "Aliens,"
"Patriot Games," "Project X," (and possibly others I've missed?) How about
Horner reusing, note for note, 30 seconds of action music from "Star Trek II"
in "Cocoon" (an act that jolted my mood right out of the movie during a
climactic part of the film.) Horner's lifting of themes from "Alexander
Nevsky," the Lt. Kije suite, Carl Stalling, Shostakovich, Richard Strauss,
William Schumann, Goldsmith..? The list goes on and on.
I like much of Horner's music -- when he's good, he's great -- but when he's
being bad, he's one of the most shameless appropriators of other peoples' music
in the entire film industry.
-- Jon
Bruno Galeron
I don't know Mr Tasslehoff but don't be too hard with him. It seems that he
has just begun to explore the fantastic world of film music... and this is a
long and unexpected journey.
I remember my early film music collector's days and how excited I was
whenever I would buy a new soundtrack. Then I had the chance to meet other
collectors who taught me alot. And I still have much more to learn.
So help Mr Tasselehoff to discover all the classic scores he doesn't know
yet.
Here are some scores you might enjoy Mr Tasselehoff :
Alexander Nevsky - Pokofiev (1939)
Ivan the Terrible - Prokofiev (1942)
The Ten Commandments - Bernstein (1956)
Ben-Hur - Rozsa (1959)
The Magnificent Seven - Bernstein (1960)
The Fall of the Roman Empire - Tiomkin (1964)
Lawrence of Arabia - Jarre (1965)
The Godfather - Rota (1972)
The Wind and the Lion - Goldsmith (1975)
The Omen - Goldsmith (1976)
Conan the Barbarian - Poledouris (1981)
Legend - Goldsmith (1985)
The Mission - Moriconne (1986)
Dances with Wolves - Barry (1990)
Tombstone - Broughton (1993)....
... and many, many others.
I have chosen some of the most accessible scores, in my opinion.
But this is just a beginning !
Regards
Bruno Galeron
InstntGuts
<Horner -- Krull
<Williams -- I hate to point to the obvious, but Star Wars>
Well, I think "Krull" is arguably one of Horner's best scores, but it owes more
than a passing nod to Holst's Planets suite, and especially Richard Strauss's
Alpine Symphony.
As for "Star Wars," it's a clear homage to the Golden Age scores of the 40s-50s
(it's still a fantastic score, BTW) -- but have you ever heard Korngold's main
title to "King's Row?"
-- Jon
James Southall
> Williams -- I hate to state the obvious, but Star Wars
Star Wars is the most derivative score in history. It steals directly from
Korngold, Holst and Herrmann, and there are clear parallels with Wagner,
Rozsa, Prokofiev, and others.
Krull - Prokofiev, Rota, ...
J R Laredo
score: that was his intention. Just as the movie was an homage to
buckle-swashing movies of the past, so too was the score.
"James Southall" <ja...@moviewave.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8n6udu$fsr$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
J R Laredo
as KING'S ROW, and it was done that way on purpose. The first of many "in
joke homages" in the music.
"InstntGuts" <instn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000813152053...@ng-cq1.aol.com...
> <I do, however, have a basis for your second challenge:
> <Horner -- Krull
Mr Tasslehoff
>has just begun to explore the fantastic world of film music... and this is a
>long and unexpected journey.
>
Thanks for the defense, but I feel like such a neophyte now. Whatever, I know
what I like, and I shall keep sticking up for my favorites. I can lose nothing
but my pride, and I'm not attached to it.
-- Disenchanted, Tasslehoff Burrfoot, Hero of the Lance
Ryan Keaveney
Mr Tasslehoff wrote:
> What I am getting at (yes, I am pretty sure I had a point here somewhere)
> is that this is all just a matter of opinion and taste, not bad on any side,
> just inherently different. Horner produces music that never fails to move me.
Actually the arguments against James Horner's music are based on facts -
the music itself. There's very little to do with opinions, feelings,
gut instincts, the prickly hairs on the back of your neck.
Now go buy ON THE BEACH by Christopher Gordon!
--
Ryan
http://www.klaatumedia.com
"If you're not going to kill me, I have things to do." Julie, DARKMAN
Mr Tasslehoff
classics. Another situation where my age has me at a disadvantage. When I
started collecting, I never went earlier than Star Wars on purpose. I can't
start from modern day music and work my way back all the way to the beginnings
of orchestra. In other words, if I am too eclectic, I'll be broke, plain and
simple. I have enough trouble keeping tabs on new scores coming out.
In defense of all contemporary composers, they are a little late in the
game, a couple centuries in fact. We are talking about one vein of music,
orchestra, that has lasted for centuries, whereas others die out as fads come
and go and new generations with new tastes are born. So you can expect all
composers to take a little from the past. But that isn't shameful, but a good
way to pay homage to those classic composers of the past which you all so
admire. I'll bet in two more centuries, all composers of orchestra will be
plagiarists.
And I have seen many, many of the older movies and listened to the
accompanying music, and, frankly, I haven't heard anything better than The
Cowboys, by good old John Williams. But, hey, that's just my taste. I know, I
know, us damn kids these days.
So I have no basis for most of the arguments here, because I am not well
versed in the classics. Oh well, darn. I think I'll go enjoy my music instead
of argue about it. Until next time, long live James Horner, hee hee.
-- Tasslehoff Burrfoot, Hero of the Lance
Jostein Hakestad
"Thomas Müthing" <tmue...@t-online.de> skrev i melding
news:3996DEFC...@t-online.de...
>
> Both of these (hey, I like KRULL a lot!) are almost totally derivative. In
the
> original STAR WARS score, Williams more or less quotes from Korngold,
well, I think that's intentional on William's part.
> Herrmann, Stravinsky and God knows who else, plus much of his
orchestration
> apes Prokofiev's popular 5th Symphony.
Can't remember hearing any Herrmmann quotes, though. But with the millions
of notes of classical music that has been written in history, some film
music is bound to have similarities, whether it is intentional or just
coincidence.
>
> You should really open up to classical music!
>
These things should be given time. He likes film music better than classical
(based on the amount of classical music he has heard). I also have trouble
opening up to classical music. I mean, I like it, but not as much as film
music. MY opinion is that film music is just as much an art form as
classical music. Maybe I'm not mature enough to fully understand classical
music. If so, maybe I will appreciate it better in a few years. But for now,
film music is what I like the most.
--
Jostein H
Jostein Hakestad
>
> In Williams' case I'd say "The Missouri Breaks", at least it's different
from
> all HIS other works. It's also unlistenable... ;=)
I listened to some sound clips, but nooooo more. I love Williams' music, but
that one is just the pits.
[...]
--
Jostein H
Nicolai P. Zwar
practically a smooth blend of various classical styles. Listen to Holst
"The Planets" and see how STAR WARSY it sounds. This is not at all a
critique of Williams, on the contrary, a completely new and music
historically independant score would have been a failure. The music was
supposed to sound like the old Korngold swashbuckler music. Just because
a composer sounds here and there like another composer does not at all
meant that the composition is a lesser one. Many more people listen to
Rachmaninoff than to Cage. That doesn't change the fact that Cage may
have been the most original composer of this century, whereas
Rachmaninoff was firmly rooted in the romanticism of a century earlier.
Truly original composers (of this century I would especially name
Schönberg and Cage as innovators) are usually not the most popular ones.
To my ears, KRULL owes quite a bit to Mahler and Strauss... does that
make me enjoy KRULL any less? Not at all. It is a strikingly good score,
powerful, melodic, dramatic. Mahler's own music is full of references
and borrowed themes. Richard Strauss recycled his own music, not to
mention the fact that his sound was inspired by Richard Wagner. You can
here Beethoven in Brahms, Debussy in Ravel, Mahler in Berg, Copland in
Bernstein (both Elmer and Leonard)... even Haydn in Prokofieff. That's
the history of music.
--
Nicolai P. Zwar
send spam to: NPZ...@aol.com
send e-mail to: nicola...@pironet.de
M.R.E.
Mr Tasslehoff said:
> (The Empire Strikes Back is in my opinion the most articulate musical work
ever
> created).
And my repsonse was:
> And here you go jumping to another extreme musical opinion! I LIKE ESB,
but
> it's a film soundtrack for God's sake... step back, take a deep breath, go
> out and buy yourself a couple of classical CDs, and learn to appreciate
> truly great art.
I admit that saying "TRULY GREAT ART" may have been overly strong and
somehow condescending, and for this I apologise... HOWEVER,
The REASON for my response was as follows:
"...THE most articulate musical work EVER created..."
This is what I consider an "extreme musical opinion".
It places The Empire Strikes Back above hundreds of other works of far
greater merit.
Can you truly say that this soundtrack is a more "articulate musical work"
than, say, J.S.Bach's B minor Mass? or the 9th symphony of Beethoven? or
Strawinski's Rite of Spring? Works over which these particular composers
agonized. Works which so profoundly affected the repertoire.
I NEVER said I thought "classical" music was better or in any way
superior... but to affirm that this particular soundtrack, or ANY film
soundtrack is "THE most articulate musical work EVER created" is saying a
great deal... and it is a pretty dramatic assertion.
My reason for believing such is that film music "in and of itself" is
incomplete without the film for which it was intended. I know some people
dissagree. I myself LOVE listening to E.T. or Schindler's list, without the
film. And yes these are soundtracks I love and will defend to my last breath
(we ALL have our favourites, don't we).
But I think that, like ballet music, part of its essence is missing when
it's taken out of the context of its film.
And I believe this of even such works as those I quoted (ie: Prokoviev's
Alexandre Nevski, Vaughan Williams' Scott of the Antarctic)... great
classical works adapted from the film soundtracks of these composers. But
then again, the composers did not simply line up the cuts from the film
soundtrack to make these works, they had to cut and paste and rearrange and
recompose to GIVE these works their "articulate"-ness.
Which doesn't mean that some exerpts of film music (or ballet, or anything
else) do not have inherent "greatness"...
Whenever I have had the opportunity, I've always taught my classes that some
of the finest music of this century is to be found in film music, and I
don't just mean the "classic" soundtracks.
I believe that many John Williams, Jerry Goldsmith (and others') scores
contain the finest music of this century. Often film soundtracks contain the
most cogent use of 20th century compositional techniques. And quite often
they simply contain some of the most beautiful themes written in the last
100 years! (step aside Rachmaninov)
So, I'm a snob... I don't care for James Horner's simplistic pops
harmonies...
But NO ONE can accuse me of belittleing film music.
My growing collection of film soundtracks certainly puts the lie to that
accusation.
M.R.E.
> Please tell me a score by one of them that is "completely unique from all
other composers".
Close Encounters of the Third Kind... usage of compositional techniques
never done by anyone else (yes techniques used by others, but never
juxtaposed in the way Williams did so).
M.R.E.
BTW, if you LIKE film music, you'll probably LIKE his music... it's sure a
great way to start up. Try his 2nd and 3rd piano concertos.
Also try Dmitri Schostakowitch... another great influence on film composers
who wrote fun action-packed music, with great "chase scene"-like music. The
Scherzo from his 10th symphony is probably the best "Action" music ever
written (my opinion, of course).
"Mr Tasslehoff" <mrtass...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20000813135612...@ng-cd1.news.cs.com...
JJ Hinrichs
you are making too much sense, Nicolai. You actually know your music
history and have formed an educated opinion.
stop showing everyone up.
JJ
Jaquandor
>BTW, if you LIKE film music, you'll probably LIKE his music... it's sure a
>great way to start up. Try his 2nd and 3rd piano concertos.
>Also try Dmitri Schostakowitch... another great influence on film composers
>who wrote fun action-packed music, with great "chase scene"-like music. The
>Scherzo from his 10th symphony is probably the best "Action" music ever
>written (my opinion, of course).
Prokofiev and Shostakovich? Oh, come on!! He should start with Berlioz.
Everybody knows that!! :)
I came to classical through Berlioz, especially the Symphonie Fantastique
first, followed by Harold in Italy and The Damnation of Faust. Then I heard
Romeo et Juliette, and I've been a Berlioz freak even since.
--
The preceding views have been Revealed as the Divine Will of GOD, obtained
through meditation and ritual sacrifice upon a moonlit altar of blood-soaked
granite. Thus sayeth I.
-Jaq.
Jaquandor
>Mr Tasslehoff said:
>> (The Empire Strikes Back is in my opinion the most articulate musical work
>ever
>> created).
>
>And my repsonse was:
>> And here you go jumping to another extreme musical opinion! I LIKE ESB,
>but
>> it's a film soundtrack for God's sake... step back, take a deep breath, go
>> out and buy yourself a couple of classical CDs, and learn to appreciate
>> truly great art.
>
>I admit that saying "TRULY GREAT ART" may have been overly strong and
>somehow condescending, and for this I apologise... HOWEVER,
And I probably overreacted a tad. Whoopsee....
>The REASON for my response was as follows:
>
>"...THE most articulate musical work EVER created..."
>
>This is what I consider an "extreme musical opinion".
>It places The Empire Strikes Back above hundreds of other works of far
>greater merit.
>Can you truly say that this soundtrack is a more "articulate musical work"
>than, say, J.S.Bach's B minor Mass? or the 9th symphony of Beethoven? or
>Strawinski's Rite of Spring? Works over which these particular composers
>agonized. Works which so profoundly affected the repertoire.
Actually, I would claim just that, but that's just me.
>I NEVER said I thought "classical" music was better or in any way
>superior... but to affirm that this particular soundtrack, or ANY film
>soundtrack is "THE most articulate musical work EVER created" is saying a
>great deal... and it is a pretty dramatic assertion.
>
>My reason for believing such is that film music "in and of itself" is
>incomplete without the film for which it was intended. I know some people
>dissagree. I myself LOVE listening to E.T. or Schindler's list, without the
>film. And yes these are soundtracks I love and will defend to my last breath
>(we ALL have our favourites, don't we).
>
>But I think that, like ballet music, part of its essence is missing when
>it's taken out of the context of its film.
Gotta disagree here, but I seem to be in a minority on this point.
>And I believe this of even such works as those I quoted (ie: Prokoviev's
>Alexandre Nevski, Vaughan Williams' Scott of the Antarctic)... great
>classical works adapted from the film soundtracks of these composers. But
>then again, the composers did not simply line up the cuts from the film
>soundtrack to make these works, they had to cut and paste and rearrange and
>recompose to GIVE these works their "articulate"-ness.
>
>Which doesn't mean that some exerpts of film music (or ballet, or anything
>else) do not have inherent "greatness"...
>
>Whenever I have had the opportunity, I've always taught my classes that some
>of the finest music of this century is to be found in film music, and I
>don't just mean the "classic" soundtracks.
>
>I believe that many John Williams, Jerry Goldsmith (and others') scores
>contain the finest music of this century. Often film soundtracks contain the
>most cogent use of 20th century compositional techniques. And quite often
>they simply contain some of the most beautiful themes written in the last
>100 years! (step aside Rachmaninov)
>
>So, I'm a snob... I don't care for James Horner's simplistic pops
>harmonies...
I'm not the biggest Horner fan either, but he has written some mighty fine
stuff. Along with some sheer crap.
>But NO ONE can accuse me of belittleing film music.
>My growing collection of film soundtracks certainly puts the lie to that
>accusation.
That's great. Your post read somewhat differently, though. Back to the music!
M.R.E.
as a teen I was looking for more "exciting" music, and the piquant harmonies
of the film soundtracks was exactly what I was looking for at the time:
not too modern for my still under-developed musical taste, and not too
traditional...
I had a teen's limited attention span! Don't we all go through that phase?
That's the only reason I was suggesting these slightly more modern works as
starters...
(Likewise if I were to suggest a first opera, I'd pick something with action
and very varied music, like a Puccini.)
I remember being totally blown away by Close Encounters.
The mix of the totally atonal stuff with the incredibly lyrical parts was
such a revelation to me.
That's not an easy mix to find in modern classical music.
Probably one of the reasons I love Jerry Goldsmith's soundtracks so much:
the perfect mix of harsh modern harmonies and lyrical quasi-romantic
harmonies.
Oh, and an aside :-)
... I have one guilt pleasure... the soundtrack to Bicentennial Man
<gasp>
yes! a James Horner soundtrack.. and probably his most "pop"-harmony one at
that!
Dunno why, but it brings tears to my eye every time... and no snide remarks
about tears of pain!
I do try not to confuse "liking something" with "its being good".
--
Michel R. Edward, Compositeur
Montréal, Québec
<<Music hath charms to soothe the savage breast>>
"Jaquandor" <jaqu...@aol.comREMOVE> wrote in message
news:20000814082013...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
James Southall
> score: that was his intention. Just as the movie was an homage to
> buckle-swashing movies of the past, so too was the score.
Believe me, I am in awe of Williams's achievements with his scores for the
Star Wars series. But they are - let's face it - pastiche. Wonderful,
wonderful pastiche. But still pastiche.
> "James Southall" <ja...@moviewave.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:8n6udu$fsr$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > Horner -- Krull
James Southall
all
> other composers".
>
> Close Encounters of the Third Kind... usage of compositional techniques
> never done by anyone else (yes techniques used by others, but never
> juxtaposed in the way Williams did so).
Well, I guess that's quite a good example. There are aspects of it that are
unique.
Mr Tasslehoff
>music is bound to have similarities, whether it is intentional or just
>coincidence.
You said it exactly as I was thinking it. I completely agree. Despite its
complexity, there is only so much you can do with an orchestra and still sound
good. Not to say that the amount of good music is running out, but
contemporary composers do have their work cut out for them
>Maybe I'm not mature enough to fully understand classical
>music. If so, maybe I will appreciate it better in a few years.
I think you are on to something here. Given my newness to film music (I
started only six years ago), my collection needs to be given a reasonable
amount of time before it expands to new horizons. And you are right. I like
classical sounds, but prefer film scoring.
Mr Tasslehoff
note, there is only so much you can do with an orchestra and still sound good.
If I were a fan of the classics, I think I would enjoy hearing old styles
recycled into modern scores. Kind of a nostalgia sort of thing, but that's
just me.
-- Tasslehoff Burrfoot, Hero of the Lance
Mr Tasslehoff
But you seem to be missing a few words. Empire was "IN MY OPINION" the most
articulate. What is wrong with extreme musical opinions if that is all they
are, opinions? I also notice your constant reference to Horner's compositions
as "pop music" (yes I am defending him again, he IS my favorite). You must be
a little old if you know that little of pop culture. I, on the other hand, as
a young individual can enlighten you on this, and tell you that his music
sounds absolutely nothing like pop music. Trust me. I have considerable
experience in listening to both, though for the past few years I have
completely nullified my interest in the latter. Frankly, I do not see how you
could relate anything performed by an orchestra to pop culture.
Mr Tasslehoff
>>it's taken out of the context of its film.
>
>Gotta disagree here, but I seem to be in a minority on this point.
I disagree strongly as well. Half the soundtracks I have come from movies I
haven't seen more than once, nor have I at all cared to do so. Truth be told,
I enjoy the music tenfold when NOT accompanying the movie. (I have always
thought that some movies have the music volume too low relative to the sound.
Sometimes, you can't even hear a trace of the best musical pieces during loud
action scenes.)
-- Tasslehoff Burrfoot, Hero of the Lance
Mr Tasslehoff
music in the past couple of decades, I'll take a dip into the classics, if for
nothing else than to have an idea what you're all talking about.
JJ Hinrichs
and Alfred Schnittke made his living by incorporating older styles into
his modern harmonies.
very interesting composer I think everyone should check out.
but of course, you said "if I were a fan of the classics"...
JJ
Mr Tasslehoff wrote:
Here is a voice of reason that even I missed at first. As I said in an earlier
note, there is only so much you can do with an orchestra and still sound good.
If I were a fan of the classics, I think I would enjoy hearing old styles
recycled into modern scores. Kind of a nostalgia sort of thing, but that's
just me.
-- Tasslehoff Burrfoot, Hero of the Lance
Mr Tasslehoff
into classical yet is because I haven't been exposed to it much, since I
already have my hands full and pockets empty collecting soundtracks. When a
friend had me listen to "Ode to Joy," I thought it was absolutely marvelous, so
maybe someday... But for now my tastes lean heavily toward film scores more
than anything else.
Oliver J. Hanau
>>> But I think that, like ballet music, part of its essence is
>>> missing when it's taken out of the context of its film.
> I disagree strongly as well. Half the soundtracks I have come from
> movies I haven't seen more than once, nor have I at all cared to do
> so.
How many of the soundtracks are from movies you haven't seen at all, if I
may ask? If the answer is "hardly any" or "none", the original point still
stands. While I'm not sure I share all of Michel's implications, it is true
that most film music gains a whole new dimension once you've seen the scenes
it's meant to accompany. (To some people, at least, but I'll get to that in
a moment.)
My favourite example for this is "Indy's Very First Adventure" from the
"Last Crusade" score, the beginning of which I often had to fast-forward
through before I had seen the movie. Now, I just love it because is
perfectly evokes that "Utah feeling," for lack of a better term.
In regards to this, I have a theory that the film music crowd (as
represented on this newsgroups) is separated into two groups: those that
listen to the music purely on its own merit, mainly because it is basically
the only contemporary orchestral music produced, and those who see film
music as a very important part of that particular form of storytelling
called "motion pictures." And just like you could read a good screenplay
for its part in the final result, you can listen to the score on its own.
(Given that it's music and how strong an influence music can have on our
emotional state, listening to the music is usually far more, well,
effective.) So far, I haven't gotten anyone to agree or even disagree on
this, however.
> Truth be told, I enjoy the music tenfold when NOT accompanying the movie.
Of course you can enjoy the music more when there's no dialogue and sound
effects on top of it. I don't think Michel was saying you need to have the
movie right there with the music, just that you have to know the movie to
fully appreciate the music. (I haven't seen "Superman" in over fifteen
years, so just reading the liner notes of the two-disc re-release made me
enjoy the score far more than I ever have. That, and maybe that there was a
certain coherence lacking in the previous release and the Varese
re-recording.)
> (I have always thought that some movies have the music volume too low
> relative to the sound. Sometimes, you can't even hear a trace of the
> best musical pieces during loud action scenes.)
One terrible example the springs to mind is the new Special Edition mix of
"The Return Home" from "Star Wars"; the fantastic dramatic buildup in the
middle of the track is almost totally obscured by the sound of the 'land
speeder' now.
As I didn't want to participate in this discussion while it was still rather
heated, I never got around to say these four little things:
Pop harmonies or not, I too think that James Horner composes marvelous stuff
when he sets his mind to it. But it is a fact that he recycles his music
and heavily leans on other people's music too. (I'm quite partial to his
"Aliens" score, but "Ripley's Rescue" is taken verbatim from one of his
earlier scores -- "Wolfen," I think --, and the beautiful Main Titles simply
*are* Khachaturian's Gayane Ballet Suite, as I was shocked to find out when
my father gave me his "2001" soundtrack album. I still enjoy the "Aliens"
album, but I think one should know -- or at least make up one's own mind --
what is "ripped-off" and what isn't.)
Staying with Horner, I very strongly recommend his score to "Casper".
Somewhat childish and over-the-top, yes, but given the film's
tongue-in-cheek approach, it is perfectly matched. Plus, it contains one
*really* wonderful theme, and the CD is 70-odd minutes long, 65+ minutes of
which are score.
You said you purposely didn't go back farther than "Star Wars" with the
scores you buy. Do yourself a favour, extend that by two years and get
"Jaws". (Personally, I'd recommend the old re-recorded album, but the new
original recording is great as well, and probably gives you better
value-for-money, length-wise.)
And finally, no, James Horner cannot whoop John Williams' ass any day. Just
my personal opinion, of course. <g>
Oliver.
M.R.E.
I'm not preaching, just answering your question :-)
what I mean by "pop" sounding is a little technical, so a little hard to
explain.
[sorry if what follows sounds pedantic... just writing it in everyday terms]
in music, one builds harmony from chords, which are made up usually of 3 or
more notes.
-In "pop" music, these chords are usually restricted to a certain "class" of
chord. ie: major/minor chords and 7th chords. (note I said "usually"... of
course there are exceptions)
"Pop" music in this case is not in reference to the STYLE known as "pop"...
it's an abreviation for "popular"... ie: "NOT-classical".
important note: almost ALL popular music, from 50's through to the oh-oh's
varied styles, comes down to 3 or 4 chords, used in very traditional
progressions. That's not a put-down...it's just a simple truth, which
doesn't take anything away from the qualities of popular music.
-The parts that I suspect you like in Krull (and the parts I like in Battle
Beyond The Stars!) use more complex harmony. Harmony that includes chords
and chord progressions (that's a series of chords) NOT usually found in
"pop" music. That was why I suggested you try out the couple of classical
works I did. These were the works, with strange harmonies and all, that
excited my ears as a teen... I was TIRED of Mozart and HIS use of the
classical equivalent of "pop" harmony (yes, there's an equivalent...
probably why some people find "classical" music boring).
What I don't care for in many of Horner's soundtracks, and mostly in his
recent ones, is his use of these "pop" harmonies... in other words, he uses
harmony that is too simple for the medium. This is really only my opinion...
but I'd rather listen to Cocoon than Titanic any day.
It's the same criticism I'd have of John Barry's music. I LOVE the
soundtrack to Somewhere in Time... but the orchestration and some of the
harmonic progressions are banal.
Before answering this post, please reread it, and take into consideration
that I'm not blasting anyone, just trying to clear the air... there are many
misconceptions about film music, classical music and "pop" music... and
often they are not helped by "fuzzy" terminology.
Why do I think it isn't a good idea to have extreme musical opinions?
I think that when you say "such and such is definate" you close yourself off
to exploration. I know you're probably the person here who's most
open-minded about discovering new music (I'm NOT being sarcastic)... but
with limited experience, you shouldn't be forming opinions that define
limits yet.
50 soundtracks isn't really very much in terms of music... when you have
hundreds of them and have added some classical music to your repertoire,
you'll be in a better position to define the limits of your musical world.
(yes, yes, I know, he may not WANT to expand, and I'm not forcing him to
either... it's just a very friendly suggestion from a fellow film-score
lover)
I came to film music from a serious background in classical music. I guess
that might make a difference from, say, someone for whom film music is the
first real exposure to orchestral music.
P.S. I have the following Horner soundtracks:
Aliens
An American Tail I & II
Bicentenial Man
Cocoon
Deep Impact
The Land before Time I
StarTrek II & III
Titanic (both versions)
Willow
and I've probably forgotten some on vinyl...
P.P.S. I'm in my mid thirties and do the "club scene"... so, while
definately not an expert, I'm pretty up-to-date on "pop culture" :-)
"Mr Tasslehoff" <mrtass...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20000814122752...@ng-cf1.news.cs.com...
Mr Tasslehoff
everyone else, and I am already enlightened. However you characterize Horner's
work, I like it. As I said in countless other notes, contemporary composers
are at a disadvantage, considering the thousands upon thousands of orchestral
themes and melodies that have already been taken. You have to expect some
borrowing from past compositions, and from what I have read in other readers'
responses, just about all composers do it to some extent. And to totally
create a new style by no means makes it sound good. As for recycling his own
sounds, I think that is completely his right. You also should note that Horner
is one of the busiest of film scorers; considering the sheer volume of music he
has had to produce, can you blame him so much?
>In regards to this, I have a theory that the film music crowd (as
>represented on this newsgroups) is separated into two groups: those that
>listen to the music purely on its own merit, mainly because it is basically
>the only contemporary orchestral music produced, and those who see film
>music as a very important part of that particular form of storytelling
>called "motion pictures."
I am both of these. Ever since I started collecting, I have stuck by the
personal belief that scores can be enjoyed perfectly fine on their own, but a
film without its original music component is very much handicapped (Just
imagine watching the Battle of Hoth without the Imperial March in the
background). In response to your question, I have indeed heard a few scores
without seeing the movie first, and I enjoyed them then as much as I do now.
But that's just me. As I said to someone else, I think, I do not picture the
movie in my head AT ALL while I am listening to my CD's. Instead I let the
music kind of splice with my own deranged imagination to produce a totally new
story that runs through my mind, complete with characters, battles, conflict,
etc. Reading over this, I see now how inane it sounds, but I highly suggest to
anyone reading this to try it once with a good score or two. It is quite
exhilarating.
>James Horner cannot whoop John Williams' ass any day.
As a final statement, the above quote was kind of an extreme form of what I
actually said (I make a habit never to curse), but I do sincerely apologize for
whatever statement it was. My only defense is that it was said during the heat
of battle while the fiery debate was at its peak, and I seemed to be the only
one on Horner's side. Just my compassion for the underdog and my own love of
his music. I'll say brash things like that from time to time. Just pay them
no heed. Or send me a complaint and I will readily offer a cool headed
apology. Well, long live James Horner, and may Jerry Goldsmith be made king of
the world someday... Hee hee.
-- Tasslehoff Burrfoot, Hero of the Lance
Mr Tasslehoff
opinion of what I have heard so far. I am here partly for an outlet to talk
about film scores (there aren't many people my age who are into this kind of
music) and partly for suggestions.
>in other words, he uses
>harmony that is too simple for the medium.
I am not really sure what "simple" constitutes, but his themes give me more
enjoyment than most others I have heard. What can I say? It really gets my
blood pumping. Since you have Willow (my personal favorite Horner score) you
must admit that Madmartigan's theme, especially as played in "Escape From The
Tavern," really has an edge to it. And don't even get me started on Willow's
theme. Unbelievable.
>but I'd rather listen to Cocoon than Titanic any day.
>
I was never interested in Titanic either, perhaps, because my entire generation
suddenly got on the film scoring bandwagon with this mediocre (my opinion)
score, when there was much better stuff out there, and they hadn't even heard
really good James Horner. What I am wondering is why, if you dislike it, I
find that it appears in your collection. Personally, I only buy scores that I
think are phenomenal.
>I know you're probably the person here who's most
>open-minded about discovering new music (I'm NOT being sarcastic)
Wow. I appreciate the compliment, and I daresay you are probably not far from
the truth.
As a final word, I am detecting a very slight note of condescension in
everyone's replies to me, as if I were born yesterday. And that is quite
natural. Please do not think I am angered. I highly respect my elders, and
everyone else for that matter. Not to brag, but I am not the average product
of generation X culure. In all honesty, I am quite intelligent and very much
the intellectual, which I believe is called "nerd" by my esteemed peers. More
acurately I am a Star Trek nerd, not the computer kind, but I digress. My 52
scores weren't bought on passing fancy after I watched a good movie. I do
research on music, for I am always looking to expand my extremely select group.
I search the internet for more scores associated with a composer I have just
gotten into, which is now the case with James Newton Howard. I have probably
intently listened to the music of more rented movies than you all have
previously thought, by far. If I have such a small collection, it is only
because I am very picky. So, while I am sure most of you have much more
experience than I, my opinion isn't just made on a whim.
Enough of that nonsense, here is my Horner list:
The Land Before Time
Glory
Braveheart
An American Tail
An American Tail: Fievel Goes West
Legends Of The Fall (you MUST check this one out, trust me)
Star Trek II -- The Wrath Of Khan
Star Trek III: The Search For Spock
Willow
*note* Krull will soon be added to that list, as it is currently on order
-- Tasslehoff Burrfoot, Hero of the Lance
PS -- I am apalled that you actually attend "the club scene." I hope you read
books to counterbalance such mind numbing nonsense.
M.R.E.
> >In regards to this, I have a theory that the film music crowd (as
> >represented on this newsgroups) is separated into two groups: those that
> >listen to the music purely on its own merit, mainly because it is
basically
> >the only contemporary orchestral music produced, and those who see film
> >music as a very important part of that particular form of storytelling
> >called "motion pictures."
I'm not exactly sure what is meant by
"...mainly because it is basically the only contemporary orchestral music
produced..."
Could the original poster respond?
if I may... there's PLENTY of contemporary orchestral music produced which
has nothing to do with film music.
as to the rest of this post...
Like you, I listen to film scores without imagining any particular part of
the film.
As a matter of fact, I usually read while listening to movie scores... and
usually sci-fi at that! So there are sometimes some clashes between the
original intent of the music and what my mind is putting it to :-)
Oliver J. Hanau
> Thanks for the input, really, but it is the same tired stuff I am
> getting from everyone else, and I am already enlightened. However
> you characterize Horner's work, I like it. As I said in countless
> other notes, contemporary composers are at a disadvantage, considering
> the thousands upon thousands of orchestral themes and melodies that
> have already been taken.
I didn't want to start the debate all over again; I just wanted to point
out that I too once defended Horner (not in this newsgroup, just to myself)
until I heard certain examples that made me change my mind. That said, I'll
let this topic rest.
> I am both of these. Ever since I started collecting, I have stuck
> by the personal belief that scores can be enjoyed perfectly fine on
> their own
I'm sure many can; certainly the great ones. There's just this nagging
feeling of possibly not being able to apprectiate the full greatness of
certain cues. But that is very probably just me.
> but a film without its original music component is very much
> handicapped
Without question.
> In response to your question, I have indeed heard a few scores
> without seeing the movie first, and I enjoyed them then as much
> as I do now.
I should have mentioned that; a lot of scores do not gain anything when I
finally see the movie ("The Perfect Storm" and "The Phantom" come to mind).
> As I said to someone else, I think, I do not picture the movie in
> my head AT ALL while I am listening to my CD's.
I don't go, "ah, here the shark comes out of the water, and ... now, Quint
shoots the harpoon" either, but I like to have considered the placement of
the cues at least once. My personal enjoyment of "Casper" and "Batman
Returns" has increased significantly since I sat down with the CDs and the
videos
one night.
> Instead I let the music kind of splice with my own deranged imagination
> to produce a totally new story that runs through my mind, complete with
> characters, battles, conflict, etc.
I have to admit that most of the time, I listen to my score CDs while doing
something else, mostly reading or writing. I try to take the time to listen
to every score at least once without distractions (other than a booklet
discussing the cues, perhaps), but I often lack the time.
>> James Horner cannot whoop John Williams' ass any day.
> As a final statement, the above quote was kind of an extreme form
> of what I actually said (I make a habit never to curse), but I do
> sincerely apologize for whatever statement it was.
No apology necessary. Your postings that followed that statement fully
"rehabilitated" you by giving the whole thing context. (And sorry if I made
your statement seem more crass than you actually put it, I was just too lazy
to search for your exact phrasing in my messages.)
Oliver.
Mr Tasslehoff
>"rehabilitated" you by giving the whole thing context. (And sorry if I made
>your statement seem more crass than you actually put it, I was just too lazy
>to search for your exact phrasing in my messages.)
Good to hear it. And I don't blame you for losing the original message at all.
Sometimes this newsgroup, with all its messages and replies and rebuttals, can
seem a bit confusing. In any case it was nice to have an intelligent exchange
of ideas (I rarely have the opportunity to share my thoughts with others on
soundtracks). And I would like to let every reader know that, no matter the
wide range of mostly negative and indignant responses I received, it was nice
to be the center of attention for a while. I believe some famous person once
said that there is no such thing as bad exposure, or something like that. Oh
well, so who is your favorite composer? (I am assuming you have one; if not
nevermind me.)
Jostein Hakestad
"Mr Tasslehoff" <mrtass...@cs.com> skrev i melding
news:20000815090629...@ng-cr1.news.cs.com...
[...]
> Legends Of The Fall (you MUST check this one out, trust me)
Horner's best of the 90's. Phenomenal score!
--
Jostein H
Jerry Brown
wrote:
>When a
>friend had me listen to "Ode to Joy,"
As used in 'A Clockwork Orange', 'Die Hard', and countless others.
Actually, my first exposure to it was during 'Help!'.
>I thought it was absolutely marvelous, so
>maybe someday... But for now my tastes lean heavily toward film scores more
>than anything else.
Classical score albums can be a good introduction to various
composers; '2001' and 'Rollerball' were mine.
Jerry Brown
--
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
Forrest
>I appreciate your suggestions. I must say perhaps the only reason I am not
>into classical yet is because I haven't been exposed to it much, since I
>already have my hands full and pockets empty collecting soundtracks.
>But for now my tastes lean heavily toward film scores more
>than anything else.
You want to hear Bruckner's 6th, preferably the out-of-print Dohnanyi
version. Try your library.
"Hey--it's Lawrence of Arabia! Er...no! Yes! No!"
Oliver J. Hanau
> Oh well, so who is your favorite composer? (I am assuming you have
> one; if not nevermind me.)
I hate to be so generic, but it's John Williams, and it was his music that
got me into film scores in the first place (guess which one).
Something else: Do you have a composer you don't like although you
"should?" I have that with Bernard Herrmann.
Oliver.
Oliver J. Hanau
> I'm not exactly sure what is meant by
> "...mainly because it is basically the only contemporary
> orchestral music produced..."
I'm afraid you understood it, and I was just wrong. (I assume that you know
far more on the subject than I do.)
> if I may... there's PLENTY of contemporary orchestral music produced which
> has nothing to do with film music.
Oh. I was under the impression that this had more or less been "replaced"
by film scores. Would it change anything if I changed "produced" to
"released" (i.e. put out on generally available CD)?
Or maybe "contemporary" is the whole problem; I'm still trying to deal with
seeing a 10+ volume György Ligeti CD series a while ago. (For anyone who
likes Ligeti, nevermind me, I'm not important, I don't even like Bernard
Herrmann, but ... how anyone can enjoy Ligeti judged by what is on the
"2001" soundtrack is beyond me.)
Oliver.
Mr Tasslehoff
>
>Horner's best of the 90's. Phenomenal score!
I fully agree, truly his best recent work. I just love track 8 "The Changing
Seasons, Wild Horses, Tristan's Return." So many different emotions displayed
in one grand track, and all of them beautiful.
Mr Tasslehoff
>got me into film scores in the first place (guess which one).
Not generic at all, he is one of my favorites as well. As for who got me
started on film scores, it wasn't Williams or Horner or Goldsmith,
surprisingly. I was instead enthralled by the music from Independence Day, by
David Arnold. I actually bought the CD before the movie came out, since back
then I was really into aliens and the paranormal, you know, X-Files kind of
stuff. But when I heard the beautiful sounds an orchestra could make, I
immediately started collecting, and Braveheart followed soon after ID4.
-- Tasslehoff Burrfoot, Hero of the Lance
M.R.E.
There's plenty of "contemporary" classical music. ie: music that is destined
fot eh concert hall (as opposed to for a film).
May I suggest a few listenings?
Ligeti is considered a "great composer of the 20th century", BUT, there's
lots more to the 20th (and soon the 21st) century than his music.
John Williams, yes the film composer, is also a composer of music for the
concert stage.
John Corigliano (of Altered States and The Red Violin fame) is primarily a
composer of concert works.
Either of these composers' concert works are ample proof that "new music"
for the concert stage is alive and vibrant.... and not necessarily
"Ligety-sounding" :-)
Many of their works are readily available at your local record store.
As well, there are many more contemporary composers, with styles as varied
as John Rutter (British, VERY lyrical, a friend once referred to it as
"sounds like a film score!"), through Corigliano (American, swinging back
and forth between violently modern and sweetly lyrical), to some of the more
"difficult" composers (there are so many it's hard to select an example).
BTW, I happened to LOVE the Lux Aeterna of Ligety used in 2001.
--
Michel R. Edward, Compositeur
Montréal, Québec
<<Music hath charms to soothe the savage breast>>
"Oliver J. Hanau" <o...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:8ndhgq$860bo$2...@ID-35218.news.cis.dfn.de...
Jostein Hakestad
"Oliver J. Hanau" <o...@gmx.net> skrev i melding
news:8ndhgp$860bo$1...@ID-35218.news.cis.dfn.de...
[...]
>
> Something else: Do you have a composer you don't like although you
> "should?" I have that with Bernard Herrmann.
>
Leonard Rosenman.
--
Jostein H
Colin Broom
Nicolai P. Zwar <NPZ...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3997C5A4...@aol.com...
> You know, nothing is created out of a vacuum. Williams STAR WARS is
> practically a smooth blend of various classical styles. Listen to Holst
> "The Planets" and see how STAR WARSY it sounds. This is not at all a
> critique of Williams, on the contrary, a completely new and music
> historically independant score would have been a failure. The music was
> supposed to sound like the old Korngold swashbuckler music.
Nicolai is entirely correct. A quote from Williams on the composing of the
Star Wars:
"George felt that since the picture was so original and so highly different
in all its physical orientations - creatures unknown, places unseen, and
noises unheard of - that the music should be on a fairly familiar emotional
level. He didn't want electronic or concrete music. Rather, he wanted a
dichotomy to his visuals, an almost 19th century romantic, symphonic score
against these yet unseen sights... and I think his instincts were correct.
This established the stylistic direction I went to in Star Wars, which is
first, tonal, and second, orchestral. It is all acoustic and natural."
A historically independent score would not only have been inappropriate, it
would have been entirely impossible.
It is a simple fact that every composer is influenced by the music that has
gone before him/her. Our chords are inevitably coloured by the chords of
the past. Most composers readily accept and acknowledge this, for it is not
their influences, but how they respond to and deal with those influences
that makes us want to listen to their music, and see it as distinct from
those earlier influences. Louis Andriessen once said "we write music about
the music that we love".
Each composer takes on board what he/she has learnt from others, steers by
the light of those who have gone before them (as others may eventually steer
by their music) and creates something which is in some ways original, just
as it is derivative in others. The derivative/original balance of the music
is determined by the imaginative vision of the composer.
Such a phenomenom is not limited to music, nor indeed even art. Isaac
Newton once said "If I have seen further, then it has been by standing on
the shoulders of giants".
The basic building blocks of music don't really change that much, but the
hands that build do. No one would criticize an architect as being
unoriginal because he didn't invent the bricks! It would be equally
ridiculous to criticize on composers for responding to and utilising the
influences that they feel upon them in a creative fashion.
I have recently been listening to Don Davis' score to 'The Matrix', a score
which I am more than well aware is VERY influenced by the music of the
minimalist composers, specifically John Adams (e.g. 'Harmonielehre', 'Shaker
Loops'). This doesn't stop me enjoying it, in fact I may even enjoy it more
if I can trace the influences; it can be a fascinating journey to trace
music back to the earlier and earlier still influences, and one which one
shouldn't be afraid to embark upon for fear of spoiling the music that one
loves, for it is more likely to enhances one's understanding of that music
and where it sits in the whole history of music.
So, enjoy 'Krull', enjoy 'Star Wars', and accept or ignore the history
stretching out behind them, as is your wont. Just don't let your listening
habits get too comfortable; don't let a groove become a rut! ;-)
Regards,
Colin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
Colin Broom, composer
e-mail: colin.broom@Cb7#9strath.ac.uk
(To reply, omit the Cb7#9 chord from the e-mail address)
TEL: +44 (0141) 562 7968
MBL: +44 07803 782 755
Invention Ensemble: www.strath.ac.uk/Other/invention-ensemble
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
Just because
> a composer sounds here and there like another composer does not at all
> meant that the composition is a lesser one. Many more people listen to
> Rachmaninoff than to Cage. That doesn't change the fact that Cage may
> have been the most original composer of this century, whereas
> Rachmaninoff was firmly rooted in the romanticism of a century earlier.
> Truly original composers (of this century I would especially name
> Schönberg and Cage as innovators) are usually not the most popular ones.
> To my ears, KRULL owes quite a bit to Mahler and Strauss... does that
> make me enjoy KRULL any less? Not at all. It is a strikingly good score,
> powerful, melodic, dramatic. Mahler's own music is full of references
> and borrowed themes. Richard Strauss recycled his own music, not to
> mention the fact that his sound was inspired by Richard Wagner. You can
> here Beethoven in Brahms, Debussy in Ravel, Mahler in Berg, Copland in
> Bernstein (both Elmer and Leonard)... even Haydn in Prokofieff. That's
> the history of music.
> --
> Nicolai P. Zwar
>
> send spam to: NPZ...@aol.com
> send e-mail to: nicola...@pironet.de
>
Nicolai P. Zwar
that sound like an oxymoron or what?) music (Inlcuding Györgi Ligeti).
I would like to point out that not all orchestral classical concert
compositions of today are dry and abstract sound experiments. And while
a lot of it may be rather unmelodic and atonal this is by no means true
for all of it. Take the late Alan Hovhaness, his music is full of color,
sweeping melody, drama... very filmic. Roberst Simpson wrote some
gripping symphonies, if you like high charged action "space music" you
may want to give his No. 5 a try. And Oliver Messiaen wrote some very
interesting stuff, incorporating lots of intereting orchestral effects
(including imitated bird songs). There is music of such diverse
composers as Avro Pärt, Harrison Birtwistle, Philip Glass, Alfred
Schnittke, Henri Dutilleux, Henryk Gorecki, Wojchiech Kilar, Krzystof
Penderecki, Karlheinz Stockhausen (well, okay, wait, his music is really
odd), Aulis Sallinen, Pierre Boulez (okay, not your first choice when
you're on the search for a good tune to hum), Toru Takemitsu. The list
goes on, these are just a few samples of what comes to mind when
thinking about contemporary classical music.
For anybody interested: try to pick up any symphony by Alan Hovhaness
and let your prejudices about modern music being dry and austere be
washed away.
-
M.R.E.
but would be hard-pressed to refer to it as "music of today".
a lot of it is actually at least 50 years old! not a reccomendation for
someone wanting to know what's being written NOW.
:-)
People like Boulez and Stockhausen are really still trapped in the 50's,
with their very dry post-serialist style. Thank God so many of the other
"experimenters" of the 40-60's decided to return to more "melodic-based"
music (like Penderecki).
You left out John Adams and Steve Reich... whom I much prefer to Philip
Glass ;-)
"Nicolai P. Zwar" <NPZ...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:399BA9E6...@aol.com...
Nicolai P. Zwar
>
> I like much of your list...
> but would be hard-pressed to refer to it as "music of today".
> a lot of it is actually at least 50 years old! not a reccomendation for
> someone wanting to know what's being written NOW.
> :-)
Well, okay, but in classical music time goes by slower than in pop
music. I actually purposely included as "music of today" the last fifty
years or so.
> People like Boulez and Stockhausen are really still trapped in the 50's,
> with their very dry post-serialist style.
Well, I don't know if I would agree with the word "trapped". Stockhausen
seems to live completely in his own world anyway. And I would believe
that unlike the music of the many dry-to-the-bone serialist composers of
the 1950, Pierre Boulez' music has actually a chance to be remembered
and performed in years to come. Despite its serial heritage it is often
makes for very imaginative and startling listening experiences. There's
more to Boulez' music than just cut out twelve tone rows.
> Thank God so many of the other
> "experimenters" of the 40-60's decided to return to more "melodic-based"
> music (like Penderecki).
> You left out John Adams and Steve Reich... whom I much prefer to Philip
> Glass ;-)
Many people do. I would put them on the same level though. But that's
just me. :)
--
Colin Broom
M.R.E. <leco...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:E19n5.1148$Dm4....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> I like much of your list...
> but would be hard-pressed to refer to it as "music of today".
> a lot of it is actually at least 50 years old! not a reccomendation for
> someone wanting to know what's being written NOW.
Well, how about adding Michael Gordon, Heiner Goebbels, David Lang, Julia
Wolfe, Michael Torke and Steve Marltand to the list (to name a few)? Also,
despite many of the composers Nicolai mentioned have been around since the
'50s or '60s, most of them are still going strong now, therefore their later
music could indeed serve as a recommendation for what is going on now.
> People like Boulez and Stockhausen are really still trapped in the 50's,
> with their very dry post-serialist style.
I wouldn't say they were necessarily trapped at all. Composers like Boulez
and Stockhausen are incredibly intelligent individuals who make certain
choices (as do most composers) in their music. We may not like those
choices (I'm not much of a Boulez fan), but I don't think that we should
therefore assume that they were incapable of having made other choices.
Incidentally, where would you say 'Stimmung' fits under the umbrella
description of "very dry post-serialist style"?
Thank God so many of the other
> "experimenters" of the 40-60's decided to return to more "melodic-based"
> music (like Penderecki).
Penderecki did indeed move to a more melodic (and more tonally orientated)
style. Nevertheless, that doesn't at all diminish the validity of those
earlier pieces (e.g.' - 'Threnody for the victims of Hiroshima'). In fact,
there is good evidence to support that these "avante garde" (for wont of a
better phrase)pieces and many of the techniques employed therein have had an
influence on film music (and not just because of their use in 'The Shining'
and other Kubrick films. Even John Williams' music occasionally shows an
awareness of the music of Penderecki and others (listen to 'In the Idol's
Temple' from Raiders of the Lost Ark and compare some of the string effects
with Penderecki's 'Thenody..')
> You left out John Adams and Steve Reich... whom I much prefer to Philip
> Glass ;-)
Indeed. Adams' music in many ways is probably the closest to film music of
the three (I say this in full knowledge of Glass's film scores), both with
his massive orchestrations, and as the composer who really brought a sense
of the dramatic back into minimalism. I would say Glass has a sense of the
grand ('Kundun' is a fine example), but his music seldom follows the
dramatic contours of the movie. As I said in another post, it's uncanny to
compare the soundtrack to the Matrix with parts of Adams' 'Harmonielehre' or
'Shaker Loops'.
Mr Tasslehoff
>gone before him/her. Our chords are inevitably coloured by the chords of
>the past. Most composers readily accept and acknowledge this, for it is not
>their influences, but how they respond to and deal with those influences
>that makes us want to listen to their music, and see it as distinct from
>those earlier influences. Louis Andriessen once said "we write music about
>the music that we love".
>
>Each composer takes on board what he/she has learnt from others, steers by
>the light of those who have gone before them (as others may eventually steer
>by their music) and creates something which is in some ways original, just
>as it is derivative in others. The derivative/original balance of the music
>is determined by the imaginative vision of the composer.
>
>Such a phenomenom is not limited to music, nor indeed even art. Isaac
>Newton once said "If I have seen further, then it has been by standing on
>the shoulders of giants".
>
>The basic building blocks of music don't really change that much, but the
>hands that build do. No one would criticize an architect as being
>unoriginal because he didn't invent the bricks! It would be equally
>ridiculous to criticize on composers for responding to and utilising the
>influences that they feel upon them in a creative fashion.
Beautiful. Someone finally spoke the thoughts I no longer had the
strength to put into words myself. I have probably gained infamy around here
for defending James Horner. And I don't care if he takes ideas from earlier
composers; what he is doing is making such great music more available. How
could any collector in their right mind be against this? Someone told me that
the music from Star Trek II was derived from an earlier composition. Now just
think about this: I am fairly certain I would never have been exposed to the
style if it had not shown up in Khan. My point is that the act of borrowing
from past musical works spreads that music's particular magnificence to a much
wider audience, myself included. Older styles should be used by film composers
in some cases to try to get the point of a scene or character across, if
nothing else.
As for Horner recycling his own music, I am so very glad he does.
Otherwise I would have been stuck with merely not even an hour's worth of the
type of music found on Wrath of Khan. Instead I found the same style on Search
for Spock and Krull, but they are each entirely stunning in their own right,
and they each have their own personal feel to them. He has mixed the old and
not-so-old with his own completely original styles to create moods that went
perfectly with the movies they were made for (Spock's theme, used heavily and
beautifully in Star Trek III, comes to mind; it was perfect for the tragic
Vulcan).
If he does it a little overly much, well, what can I say? No one is
perfect, even, it pains me to say it, composers. They all have their little
weaknesses, though they shouldn't be crucified for them. I can imagine that
Horner's particular weakness suggests that he lives in a world of his own,
looking to the past for inspiration, much like (though I make the comparison
humbly) myself (I am currently a history major). Speaking of college, I am
trying to sign up for Music Apprecitation, just for all of you, my new friends.
It is devoted to the lives and styles of some of the most famous classical
composers, historic and modern, and it is also handy for checking off another
art requirement, hee hee. THEN I'll be in a much better position to debate on
the "film music vs. classical" debates. But, for now, I think the above
argument will do just fine.
Nicolai P. Zwar
>
> I like much of your list...
> but would be hard-pressed to refer to it as "music of today".
> a lot of it is actually at least 50 years old! not a reccomendation for
> someone wanting to know what's being written NOW.
Actually, I just re-read my posting and checked the completely arbitrary
and in no way comprehensive (I just wrote a few names at random that
sprang to my mind) list and I find very little of it is actually at
least fifty years old.
Who was on the list?
Ligeti, Hovhaness, Simpson, Schnittke, Messian, Pärt, Birtwistle, Glass,
Schnittke, Dutilleux, Gorecki, Kilar, Boulez, Stockhausen... actually,
all of these composers are still alive or have died less than a few
years ago. Practically all of the composers on my list have actively
contributed compositions to the repertoire within the last twenty years
or so.
M.R.E.
Of course, most of those composers are still alive, and a few have only died
recently.
What I should have said was that most of them, however, are a product of the
mid 20th century.
The following is only my opinion, but to get a true "feel" for what is being
composed at a given time, one should seek out composers who are a product of
the nearest generation.
I know that means looking at young composers.
But I consider anyone below 50 at a given time to be a product of that
generation.
Dutilleux, Boulez, Stockhausen, Ligeti, Hovahness and Messiaen are more a
product of the early and middle 20th century (most of them are already in
their 70's and 80's).
Glass, Schnittke and Pärt on the other hand fit my (admitedly subjective)
criteria well.
As an example:
I don't think that anyone would have considered Samuel Barber's music "music
of today" in 1981, despite his having just died. He was truly a product of
the first third of the 20th century (despite his having dabbled in
serialism). BTW, he's probably my favourite composer. Sounds SO MUCH like
film music!
"Nicolai P. Zwar" <NPZ...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:399E6F44...@aol.com...
M.R.E.
I'd just like to explain where a bit of the bitterness on my part regarding
older composers comes from. (as well as why I feel they are "trapped" in the
mid 20th century)
Having come up through the university and conservatoire system in the last
15 years, I've had to deal with teachers in their 60's telling me to explore
and experiment. Which is OK. Except when I explore tonality they slapped me
down and told me that was unacceptable.
They then proceeded to push me towards serialism, microtonality, aleatoric
music, etc..
All of which was "experimentation" 40-70 years ago. That's okay, except once
you've got the knack of these techniques, WHY should you continue to use
them is you don't feel they're relevent anymore? Why should tonal music be
considered too "Passé" (out-dated) but none of these techniques are?
So I figure, it they're going to try and be the arbiters of "newness", I
might as well set the bar a little higher (or lower, considering I'm
lowering the age limit!).
And the composers I've studied with are not simply provincial nobodies:
Serge Garant, André Prevost, Gilles Tremblay. Then again... how many of
THEIR CDs are in the top 20!!!!
The best teachers I ever had were young composers (below 50) who were
open-minded and fun. To them, film music was something interesting because
of its blend of styles and harmonic languages. I was actively encouraged to
explore my music's "filmic" (excuse the neologism) qualities.
I'm not sure Boulez would feel very positively toward most movie
soundtracks... considering he once said "before Debussy there was no music",
which he later, in a fit of pretension amended to "before Boulez, there was
no music".
Hope this clears up a little. Doesn't mean I hate these composers, I think I
enjoy almost ANY kind of classical music (except Strauss polkas... and
Helmut Lotti... is that really classical?)
:-)
Smiles to all. (except the shutterbug)
James M. Barry
>Schnittke, Dutilleux, Gorecki, Kilar, Boulez, Stockhausen... actually,
>all of these composers are still alive or have died less than a few
>years ago.
Hovhaness' passing last month saw the end of a life which has had far more
impact than anyone could give him credit for. What a brilliant composer.
As for the others on your list, for sheer outrageousness -- and granted, none
of the composers on my list bat 1000 -- try Louis Andriessen.
Also worth checking out --
Michael Torke (Overnight Mail, Bright Blue Music)
Aaron Jay Kernis (his Symphony In Waves is a none-too-distant older cousin to
Davis' "The Matrix")
Robert Moran (a brilliantly tuneful composer who thrives on complex
counterpoint; a shame that so little of his work is recorded)
Krysztof Penderecki (has written some of the most haunting and unsettling music
of the century)
Conlon Nancarrow (try and find a time signature; I dare you)
Also, even though he passed away almost three decades ago, I (opinion follows)
am convinced that there has never lived a greater orchestrator than Dmitri
Shostakovich. In spite of much of it's being written fifty or more years ago,
his writing remains to me vital and current, no matter how many times I hear
it.
James M. Barry
"Film is a wonderful place for a composer to practice his art; there, he can be
ignored by a much larger audience."
James M. Barry
>Of course, most of those composers are still alive, and a few have only died
>recently.
>What I should have said was that most of them, however, are a product of the
>mid 20th century.
Thomas Ades, anyone? That's about as close as we get without delving into
complete obscurity! =)
Also, I forgot to put the obvious John Adams and John Corigliano on my list.
Nicolai P. Zwar
a lot of sad truth about what you wrote in your posting. You know,
that's the beef I have with much (not all) of the so called academia.
Just think of how many students lost their interest and passion in
music, literature, or art, after they were digested by the university.
Many of the lecturers seem to be happy with a comfortable chair and
preach their own perceptions as the truth of God, and the more you cry
along with them the better your grades. (Disclaimer: No, this is NOT
true for all universities or all lecturers, I know, but it is
nevertheless true all too often.)
"M.R.E." wrote:
> I'm not sure Boulez would feel very positively toward most movie
> soundtracks... considering he once said "before Debussy there was no music",
> which he later, in a fit of pretension amended to "before Boulez, there was
> no music".
Pierre Boulez is actually a very open minded musician and a rather
humorous one at that. He was also the guy who once stated that he
thought it would be a neat idea to blow up all opera houses. While he
has his certainly his own ideas about music, he is very forward looking
and openly encourages younger composers to find their own way, by which
he does NOT mean they should follow in his footsteps. Boulez even likes
rock music.
Nicholas Buenk
"Mr Tasslehoff" <mrtass...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20000813074954...@ng-cc1.news.cs.com...
> OK, time to settle this. It has become horribly obvious that my
views are
> outnumbered here. So let's get a few things straight to avoid confusion.
I'll
> actually be responding to a few messages written in the recent debates on
> Horner and McCarthy, who do not seem to be popular composers on this
message
> board.
> The main misunderstanding that I think may have come across is that I
do
> not like John Williams. Quite the contrary, he is my second favorite
composer
> just barely behind Horner, and of course he deserves all the respect he
has
> been given. But his style cannot in all honesty be thought of as the root
to
> base all other music on.
Why not? it's a perfect style, nothing I don't like about his style.
> I read a message condemning McCarthy's Generations
> score for using the main overture for many different characters and
scenes.
> This would have been a mistake if you classified the score as
overwhelmingly
> thematic. If you know your John Williams history, and I as a fan do, you
know
> that thematic scoring is only a style that ol' Johnny brought to
popularity in
> the 70's, but it is not the only style. The person who wrote that message
must
> be a huge Williams fan to be so biased. I agree with another person's
response
> that the main theme is perfect for bringing the two generations together
in the
> movie and providing a common link between the two captains. And it is
quite
> possibly the most beautifully heroic theme I have ever come across.
Really I thought is was over cheery, corny even, only suitable for the seen
where they are riding horses. Still there are many soundtracks alot worst
and it was good but i think the movie needed something bigger. I liked First
contact which I though was very very good. His music can get annoying in the
episodes, it always sounds the same but the main title for DS9 is good or at
least the concert version played by the city of prague philarmonic.
> Somebody
> also made light of the fact that I named Generations as the best
soundtrack
> ever as well as my favorite score. This is only logical though. Who here
> would do otherwise; it would merely be a confusing contradiction.
> Now for Horner. It pains me to see that my favorite composer is so
> disliked among my fellow collectors. The main complaint seems to be that
he
> recycles his scores, using the same styles and building on previous
themes.
> Though this may sometimes be true, I think we should look at things to
scale
> here. This tendency would have to be much more prevailent to hamper
enjoyment
> of his music. It is not as if he is using the same exact themes, note for
> note, in any two scores, with the exception of sequels such as Search for
> Spock. I think we can mostly agree that, like Williams, he has produced
film
> scores completely unique from those of all other composers. If you do get
> bored from his music, it is probably because you don't particularly enjoy
his
> style, which is quite alright.
I think he does make great themes though not always, and i don't like his
style it it puts me off him. His music also has similar feelings in them and
not more veried like Williams and I get well not bord but fedd up with that.
Nothing he writes is exciting and engerjetic like some of williams music or
brings me to tears like some of williams music. Williams writes better
quality stuff and better themes too.
> I have heard complaints in a previous debate
> that listeners grow bored from what they claim is deja vu in the Indiana
Jones
> Trilogy under the composition of Williams, though I most certainly don't
share
> this opinion.
I expect that in a trilogy though, it's all about the same character ect.
>So Horner has a tendency to recycle, but Williams has a tendency
> to slow things down for long periods in a score (Or was everyone on the
edge of
> their seats while listening to the first few minutes of Return of the
Jedi?).
Well parts of the opening title was good, and the juber the hut (sp?) theme
was great, though that music went well with the atmosphere of the hut, you
can't write a action piece for that scene. And that is one of the reasons
williams origonisms the cd out of the film order so it's all not in one
mood.
> While this may be a good habit for keeping focus on the movie, it
certainly
> doesn't make for a great musical piece when listened to without the movie,
> which is just what we score collectors do.
But the music is composed for the movie not designed to be listened out of
the movie as Williams says.
> What I am getting at (yes, I am pretty sure I had a point here
somewhere)
> is that this is all just a matter of opinion and taste, not bad on any
side,
> just inherently different. Horner produces music that never fails to move
me.
> And I have never heard such a beautiful theme as the Generations Overture.
I
> have only been taking part in rooting for my favorite. It has apalled me
to
> see that, on this message board, instead of discussing the great things
film
> composers have accomplished, we seem to be arguing over their weaknesses.
If I
> have seemed at all biased against Mr. Williams, it is only a product of my
> tendency to defend the underdog. If someone were badmouthing Williams and
> heaping praises on Horner or McCarthy, I am certain I would be on Johnny's
side
> (The Empire Strikes Back is in my opinion the most articulate musical work
ever
> created). All composers have their own special styles and talents that
others
> lack, and I was only jumping to defend two of my favorites. The only
advice I
> can give to a prospective collector is to totally forget about the movie
while
> listening to its soundtrack, and enjoy the music for its own merit alone.
Thats unfare, as it was designed for the movie not the listening experance,
so you can't look down on something for not be good alone if it is the best
thing for the movie.
> Otherwise, we're only arguing over what the movie and score combined can
> provide, instead of the score on its own.
No a good composer composes what the movie needs while making it sound good
alone where posible.
> If this or any other message has
> offended anyone, I sincerely apologize for my rash statements. I would
not
> like to receive the angry responses I got before. I thank everyone for
their
> time.
Nicholas Buenk
> And here you go jumping to another extreme musical opinion! I LIKE ESB,
but
> it's a film soundtrack for God's sake... step back, take a deep breath, go
> out and buy yourself a couple of classical CDs, and learn to appreciate
> truly great art.
>
> > (The Empire Strikes Back is in my opinion the most articulate musical
work
> ever
> > created).
>
> [Now, if you had said "... most articulate musical work for the cinema
ever
> created..." I would have said "hey, that's your opinion" and that's about
> it!]
Now hang on, just because something is from a film doesn't mean it is in any
way pathic, I have enjoyed ESB more then any classical piece and in my
opinion it's the best piece of music ever.
Nicholas Buenk
> Mr Tasslehoff wrote:
>
> >>> But I think that, like ballet music, part of its essence is
> >>> missing when it's taken out of the context of its film.
>
> > I disagree strongly as well. Half the soundtracks I have come from
> > movies I haven't seen more than once, nor have I at all cared to do
> > so.
>
> How many of the soundtracks are from movies you haven't seen at all, if I
> may ask? If the answer is "hardly any" or "none", the original point
still
> stands. While I'm not sure I share all of Michel's implications, it is
true
> that most film music gains a whole new dimension once you've seen the
scenes
> it's meant to accompany. (To some people, at least, but I'll get to that
in
> a moment.)
Doesn't matter, i would enjoy them just as well without seeing the movie. If
they can't stand on there own, how can they be good pieces of music?
Nicholas Buenk
> The proper quote which prompted my comment was as follows:
> Mr Tasslehoff said:
> > (The Empire Strikes Back is in my opinion the most articulate musical
work
> ever
> > created).
>
> > And here you go jumping to another extreme musical opinion! I LIKE ESB,
> but
> > it's a film soundtrack for God's sake... step back, take a deep breath,
go
> > out and buy yourself a couple of classical CDs, and learn to appreciate
> > truly great art.
>
> somehow condescending, and for this I apologise... HOWEVER,
>
> The REASON for my response was as follows:
>
> "...THE most articulate musical work EVER created..."
>
> This is what I consider an "extreme musical opinion".
> It places The Empire Strikes Back above hundreds of other works of far
> greater merit.
> Can you truly say that this soundtrack is a more "articulate musical work"
> than, say, J.S.Bach's B minor Mass? or the 9th symphony of Beethoven? or
> Strawinski's Rite of Spring? Works over which these particular composers
> agonized. Works which so profoundly affected the repertoire.
> I NEVER said I thought "classical" music was better or in any way
> superior... but to affirm that this particular soundtrack, or ANY film
> soundtrack is "THE most articulate musical work EVER created" is saying a
> great deal... and it is a pretty dramatic assertion.
>
> My reason for believing such is that film music "in and of itself" is
> incomplete without the film for which it was intended. I know some people
> dissagree. I myself LOVE listening to E.T. or Schindler's list, without
the
> film. And yes these are soundtracks I love and will defend to my last
breath
> (we ALL have our favourites, don't we).
I disagree, great music stands on it's own as good as any music not designed
to go with something.
> But I think that, like ballet music, part of its essence is missing when
> it's taken out of the context of its film.
>
> And I believe this of even such works as those I quoted (ie: Prokoviev's
> Alexandre Nevski, Vaughan Williams' Scott of the Antarctic)... great
> classical works adapted from the film soundtracks of these composers. But
> then again, the composers did not simply line up the cuts from the film
> soundtrack to make these works, they had to cut and paste and rearrange
and
> recompose to GIVE these works their "articulate"-ness.
>
> Which doesn't mean that some exerpts of film music (or ballet, or anything
> else) do not have inherent "greatness"...
>
> Whenever I have had the opportunity, I've always taught my classes that
some
> of the finest music of this century is to be found in film music, and I
> don't just mean the "classic" soundtracks.
>
> I believe that many John Williams, Jerry Goldsmith (and others') scores
> contain the finest music of this century. Often film soundtracks contain
the
> most cogent use of 20th century compositional techniques. And quite often
> they simply contain some of the most beautiful themes written in the last
> 100 years! (step aside Rachmaninov)
Just this century? I think John Williams and Jerry Goldsmith can compare or
surpass many of the famious classical composers, i'd place I'd place John
Williams as the greatest ever, move over beethoven. And lets not get into
some long debeat over my opinion, ok?
> So, I'm a snob... I don't care for James Horner's simplistic pops
> harmonies...
> But NO ONE can accuse me of belittleing film music.
> My growing collection of film soundtracks certainly puts the lie to that
> accusation.
Musicunite
>surpass many of the famious classical composers, i'd place I'd place John
>Williams as the greatest ever, move over beethoven. And lets not get into
>some long debeat over my opinion,
Oh boy, I know that I shouldn't even touch this one, but, I feel I must.
If you actually believe Williams and Goldsmith are equal or better than Bach,et
al, than obviously, you do not listen to and enjoy classical music, because,
there is NO way you make that comment.
I love Goldsmith too, however, to place him and most film composers in the same
league as the great classical artists is truly laughable.
Nicholas Buenk
"Musicunite" <music...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000911093929...@ng-bj1.aol.com...
And why is that?
Nicholas Buenk
> >surpass many of the famious classical composers, i'd place I'd place John
> >Williams as the greatest ever, move over beethoven. And lets not get into
> >some long debeat over my opinion,
>
> Oh boy, I know that I shouldn't even touch this one, but, I feel I must.
>
> If you actually believe Williams and Goldsmith are equal or better than
Bach,et
> al, than obviously, you do not listen to and enjoy classical music,
because,
> there is NO way you make that comment.
PS I do enjoy Classical music, but not Bach and beethoven so much.
I like Holst, Elgar, Bizet, some of Wagner and Brahms. Though Beethoven has
done some great stuff, i don't know i guess i'm not a fan of his style.
I like John Williams best of all.
KEENAN0928
>Bach,et
>al, than obviously, you do not listen to and enjoy classical music, because,
>there is NO way you make that comment.
Why not? I like Bach, but some of his work is terribly
simplistic......especially compared to something like Planet of the Apes or The
Empire Strikes Back....
Kevin and Faith
KEENAN0928
>> agonized.
I don't think John Williams tossed off ESB in an afternoon.......
Kevin and Faith
Nicholas Buenk
"KEENAN0928" <keena...@gateway.net> wrote in message
news:20000911100536...@ng-cb1.news.gateway.net...
Yeah, there is this view point today that because it's from a film it's got
to be inferior. This whole attitude of "just film music" really annoys me.
BTW I add Tchaikovsky to the list of classical composers I like, he's done
some great themes all nice and brassy like Williams and goldsmiths work :)
Exspecialy finale in Symphony No. 4 and 1812.
Bruno Galeron
> Just this century? I think John Williams and Jerry Goldsmith can compare
or
> surpass many of the famious classical composers, i'd place I'd place John
> Williams as the greatest ever, move over beethoven. And lets not get into
> some long debeat over my opinion, ok?
Why do you think that John Williams is the best composer ever ?
Are you a musican, a conductor, a musicologist or maybe a composer to make
such a comment ? Or is it just your pretty subjective opinion ?
Regards
Bruno Galeron
Bruno Galeron
> PS I do enjoy Classical music, but not Bach and beethoven so much.
> I like Holst, Elgar, Bizet, some of Wagner and Brahms. Though Beethoven
has
> done some great stuff, i don't know i guess i'm not a fan of his style.
> I like John Williams best of all.
It is not because you prefer John Williams to Beethoven that the first is
better than the second !
Regards
Bruno Galeron
Nicholas Buenk
I'm sure he agonised expecialy considering he only had a few months to do it
in. He has said he spends several weeks on each theme trying to get it right
but other parts, the more atmospheric stuff in it he says he could do in a
afternoon. With ESB he had enough time to go over it getting it perfect.
I have a few interviews in mp3..
Nicholas Buenk
"Bruno Galeron" <bruno....@free.fr> wrote in message
news:8pipkq$16n1$1...@news4.isdnet.net...
Opinion, I said it was a opinion, Remember?
M.R.E.
> Why not? I like Bach, but some of his work is terribly
> simplistic......especially compared to something like Planet of the Apes
or The
> Empire Strikes Back....
> Kevin and Faith
You make a comparison borne of ignorance.
Planet of the Apes is a modern (read: atonal) work, who's musical language
can not be compared to the straightforward tonal language of Bach's day.
This does NOT make Bach's music "simplistic".
Obviously, if you compare Goldsmith's POTA to the little keyboard preludes
and fugues back wrote for his children and grandchildren...
But let's get serious.
The B Minor Mass, while tonal and "easy to understand" to our modern ear, is
FAR from being simplistic, and if you view it that way then you have
absolutely no understanding of musical structure.
You cannot compare one composer with another by the use of the harmonic
language, especially if the composers are separated by 200 years. You CAN,
however, say that one form of language appeals to you more so than another
(I myself HATE Hayden... that doesn't mean I think it's lesser music than,
say, Schutz... they're from different periods, and my own taste tends to
avoid the "Classical" period - Mozart, Hayden, early Beethoven, etc... ).
It's completely ridiculous to compare music that is structured, conceived,
and thought-out as concert works with music to accompany film.
In film music there's minimal thematic development.
In film music there's almost non-existant structural development other than
what the film itself forces on the music.
Do not confuse themes and music that you enjoy listening to
----with----
Great works of musical art that have been truly composed as independant
entities.
If your attitude were carried to an exteme one could say:
"I like listening to Brittney Spears' music more than Mozart, so she's a
much greater artist"
Before responding to this post, think about how you would react to the above
statement.
--
Michel R. Edward, Compositeur
Montréal, Québec
<<Music hath charms to soothe the savage breast>>
-remove "spam" for e-mail replies-
Nicholas Buenk
"Nicholas Buenk" <Ni...@NonSPAMtig.com.au> wrote in message
news:DZ5v5.2380$t5....@news1.blktn1.nsw.optushome.com.au...
Ohh and because I think his work combines all the best from music of the
last few hundred years and has lots of feeling, with great melody.
M.R.E.
Actually, he wrote it in about 3 weeks... which is the usualy delay for a
film soundtrack. Not exactly the time to agonize over artistic decisions, is
it?
John Williams spent 2 years working on his violin concerto... I don't think
he put the same work into that as one of his soundtracks. Is it fair to
compare them?
Jaquandor
Well, the comparison is hardly fair. One might listen to TESB with its lush
orchestration and melodies and conclude that it is more complex than, say, any
of Bach's two-part inventions. But the inventions are complex in a completely
different way, because of the depth of counterpoint.
Besides, the musical sensibility of Bach's time is completely different from
the musical sensibility that is behind such works as TESB. Bach tends to be
more concerned with line and with contrapuntal subtlety, and contrast is almost
completely absent. But listen to any of the great masses or perhaps, "The
Passion According to Saint Matthew" and you will hear some of the most
gloriously complex music ever composed.
--
The preceding views have been Revealed as the Divine Will of GOD, obtained
through meditation and ritual sacrifice upon a moonlit altar of blood-soaked
granite. Thus sayeth I.
-Jaq.
Jaquandor
>and thought-out as concert works with music to accompany film.
>In film music there's minimal thematic development.
>In film music there's almost non-existant structural development other than
>what the film itself forces on the music.
>
>Do not confuse themes and music that you enjoy listening to
>----with----
>Great works of musical art that have been truly composed as independant
>entities.
I was agreeing with everything you said, up until this point. Thematic
development is not always a big factor in even some of the greatest classical
works. Many impressionist works, Strauss tone poems, and Gershwin pieces leap
to mind.
And I have to assert that the reasons for a work's genesis have nothing to do
with whether it is a great work or not. I view TESB as a great musical work,
the equal of many works, and that it is a film score means little. There is
some real development that goes on there.
Well said on everything else, though.
Jaquandor
>news:20000911100723...@ng-cb1.news.gateway.net...
>> Works over which these particular composers
>> >> agonized.
>>
>> I don't think John Williams tossed off ESB in an afternoon.......
>> Kevin and Faith
>
>Actually, he wrote it in about 3 weeks... which is the usualy delay for a
>film soundtrack. Not exactly the time to agonize over artistic decisions, is
>it?
Maybe, maybe not. Only John Williams can say.
>John Williams spent 2 years working on his violin concerto... I don't think
>he put the same work into that as one of his soundtracks. Is it fair to
>compare them?
Yes, it is. I can't see where the amount of time spent on the compositional
process has anything to do with it.
I can certainly compare Brahms' First Symphony (twenty years in the making)
with his Second (about a year). Mozart wrote "The Magic Flute" in far less time
than it took Beethoven to write "Fidelio".
Jostein Hakestad
"Nicholas Buenk" <Ni...@NonSPAMtig.com.au> skrev i melding
news:jV4v5.2372$t5....@news1.blktn1.nsw.optushome.com.au...
>
> Now hang on, just because something is from a film doesn't mean it is in
any
> way pathic, I have enjoyed ESB more then any classical piece and in my
> opinion it's the best piece of music ever.
I just have to say this again: I totally agree. ESB is the best piece of
music I have ever heard.
--
Jostein H
Jostein Hakestad
>
>
> Just this century? I think John Williams and Jerry Goldsmith can compare
or
> surpass many of the famious classical composers, i'd place I'd place John
> Williams as the greatest ever, move over beethoven. And lets not get into
> some long debeat over my opinion, ok?
>
I find John Williams' music to be more entertaining than any other music.
But as soon as you even mention this on rec.music.movies, you get shot at.
Why can't people accept this opinion?
--
Jostein H
Jostein Hakestad
"Musicunite" <music...@aol.com> skrev i melding
news:20000911093929...@ng-bj1.aol.com...
>
> Oh boy, I know that I shouldn't even touch this one, but, I feel I must.
>
> If you actually believe Williams and Goldsmith are equal or better than
Bach,et
> al, than obviously, you do not listen to and enjoy classical music,
because,
> there is NO way you make that comment.
>
> I love Goldsmith too, however, to place him and most film composers in the
same
> league as the great classical artists is truly laughable.
>
No, saying what YOU just said is LAUGHABLE.
By saying what you said, you deny us to have our own opinion on the matter,
because YOU feel that we are not "educated" enough.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
--
Jostein H
Jostein Hakestad
"Bruno Galeron" <bruno....@free.fr> skrev i melding
news:8pipkq$16n1$1...@news4.isdnet.net...
>
>
> Why do you think that John Williams is the best composer ever ?
>
> Are you a musican, a conductor, a musicologist or maybe a composer to make
> such a comment ? Or is it just your pretty subjective opinion ?
>
What kind of a silly question is that?
WHY ON EARTH do you have to be a musician, conductor or a musicologist to
voice your opinion here on rec.music.movies?
This is getting out of hand. It saddens me greatly that people like me, who
do not have an education in music, are not welcome to write their opinions
on this newsgroup.
--
Jostein H
Bruno Galeron
DZ5v5.2380$t5....@news1.blktn1.nsw.optushome.com.au...
So... I am sorry !
Regards
Bruno Galeron
Bruno Galeron
688v5.4586$gD2.1...@news1.online.no...
Many opinions here in rec.music.movies seem to be raised as FACTS.
So, if it is just your opinion why don't you wrote "I PREFER Williams to
Beethoven" instead of "Williams is BETTER than Beethoven" ?
Regards
Bruno Galeron
M.R.E.
news:20000911121542...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> I was agreeing with everything you said, up until this point. Thematic
> development is not always a big factor in even some of the greatest
classical
> works. Many impressionist works, Strauss tone poems, and Gershwin pieces
leap
> to mind.
Thematic development is ALWAYS an important factor in all great classical
works.
That you are not aware of this development is simply a sign of the true
greatness of the work.
One of the basic premises of impressionism is its particular sort of
develpment.
As for Richard Strauss, his music is the apogee of post-romantic develpment
techniques.
As for Gershwin.. while I enjoy much of his music, having performed many of
his piano works in concert, but I don't think I'd place him "among the
greats".
M.R.E.
> Yes, it is. I can't see where the amount of time spent on the
compositional
> process has anything to do with it.
>
> I can certainly compare Brahms' First Symphony (twenty years in the
making)
> with his Second (about a year). Mozart wrote "The Magic Flute" in far less
time
> than it took Beethoven to write "Fidelio".
All I can say is, you're obviously not a composer.
As for the Brahms example... I doubt even HE tossed off a 45 minute
symphonic piece of music in 3-4 weeks.
Mozart wrote the Magic Flute in less time because he was dealing with
"classical" structure, form , and orchestration. Beethoven took more time
because he was experimenting at the crossroads of the classical and romantic
periods.
It all comes down to the fact that film composers are dealing with clichés
and predetermined short-forms when they write film music. Other than
composing the new themes they need for a film (which are often helped along
by set harmonic patterns, ie: this type of harmony for romance, this type
for action, etc...) film composers rarely have to conceive large form and
structure around the music they are creating.
Again, do not confuse writing a theme, and writing a piece of music. A theme
may be very beautiful, and in the short time that it plays, fully
satisfying. But it is not a complete gesture.
No film composer would create the equivalent of what he/she does for a film
to present as a concert work. The structure and the compositional process
will be completely different.
M.R.E.
That you find Williams' music more entertaining than Beethoven's is fine as
an opinion.
That Williams is a greater composer than Beethoven (while very flattering to
him, I'm sure) is NOT an opinion that can stand without some sort of
justification.
"I like it better" is not a justification for this kind of opinion.
THAT is why you are being asked your qualifications for making the judgement
you have made.
Even I have to be careful of my judgements when I talk about the music that
I like or dislike, this despite 20 years as a professional musician, and 30
intensive years of study. You will rarely hear me say that "such and such is
a bad composer".... rarely (though in heated discussions, it's been known to
happen!).
I agree with you, I'd rather be listening to John WIlliams than MANY "great
composers" .
As a matter of fact, I was just listening to Williams' Violin Concerto this
morning... a piece I feel is worthy of great merit. And the CD player just
finished with E.T.
--
Michel R. Edward, Compositeur
Montréal, Québec
<<Music hath charms to soothe the savage breast>>
"Jostein Hakestad" <au...@online.no> wrote in message
news:238v5.4579$gD2.1...@news1.online.no...
Jaquandor
>news:20000911121542...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
>> I was agreeing with everything you said, up until this point. Thematic
>> development is not always a big factor in even some of the greatest
>classical
>> works. Many impressionist works, Strauss tone poems, and Gershwin pieces
>leap
>> to mind.
>
>Thematic development is ALWAYS an important factor in all great classical
>works.
I'm really not sure I agree with that statement, nor am I sure that even if I
granted it, that it would necessarily place filmscores as lesser musical works
because the emphasis is less on development (even if were to grant THAT
particular sub-point).
>That you are not aware of this development is simply a sign of the true
>greatness of the work.
What about when I am aware of it? Berlioz' "Symphonie Fantastique" is a great
work, but I wouldn't advance its development as its particular genius. The idee
fixe is not developed that much at all.
>One of the basic premises of impressionism is its particular sort of
>develpment.
>As for Richard Strauss, his music is the apogee of post-romantic develpment
>techniques.
What development is there in "Also Sprach Zarathustra"? or "Eine
Alpensinfonie"?
Or, for that matter, in "Daphnis et Chloe"? There are impressionist works that
don't even employ melody, in the traditional sense.
>As for Gershwin.. while I enjoy much of his music, having performed many of
>his piano works in concert, but I don't think I'd place him "among the
>greats".
That's because he died way too young. But surely the Rhapsody in Blue, the
Piano Concerto, and "An American in Paris" are in the standard repertoire for a
reason, and it sure as hell isn't his development, which is nonexistent.
Jaquandor
>
>So, if it is just your opinion why don't you wrote "I PREFER Williams to
>Beethoven" instead of "Williams is BETTER than Beethoven" ?
Both are statements of opinion, and thus both are fair game to be posted. If
someone really thinks that Williams is better than Beethoven, then to that
person Williams is, in fact, better than Beethoven. Now, the consensus of
persons with a given level of musical knowledge tends to hold an opposite view,
but this is mere consensus, not engrained truth.
Glenn Gould was a musician of a very high level of sophistication and
knowledge. Some would even call him a genius. He once described Mozart's 40th
symphony (which most consider a masterpiece) as "six remarkable measures
surrounded by a half-hour of banality". Like it or not, Gould's view can't just
be dismissed as a false statement as if he were to claim "The Sun orbits the
Earth".
Jostein Hakestad
>
> Many opinions here in rec.music.movies seem to be raised as FACTS.
That is true.
>
> So, if it is just your opinion why don't you wrote "I PREFER Williams to
> Beethoven" instead of "Williams is BETTER than Beethoven" ?
>
>
I usually specify that I THINK or that I FEEL that Williams is better than
Beethoven. Which means exact the same thing as you suggested.
It doesn't mean that I don't accept that you do not prefer Williams over
Beethoven.
--
Jostein H