# Has John Williams created anything original?



## Jotto

?


----------



## dcoscina

Wow, that's a sure-fire way to get some spicey responses.


----------



## Uiroo

Yes, Joseph Williams.


----------



## szczaw

He did once upon a time in a galaxy far away.


----------



## Markrs

There is plenty of cases where John Williams has done the above, but the end result has always been original.


----------



## doctoremmet

John Williams is a plural now? I KNEW it was an entire team, I KNEW it! An entire team, and still EVERYTHING they ever did, they stole. Thanks for pointing it out for us! Much appreciated. We need more respectfully titled threads like yours.

Edit: thread title typo corrected, so this doesn't make sense now haha. Anyway, who cares.


----------



## zolhof




----------



## Loïc D

He reportedly made an ashtray with clay, once.


----------



## AudioLoco

the classical guitarist? no


----------



## Chris Harper

No one has. At least not in centuries. I could write a symphony of farts and penny whistles and it would probably be highly derivative of my grandfather.


----------



## JohnG

Originality is wildly overrated. People say that they prize originality but when they are confronted with it, much of the time, genuinely original art repels them.

Part of our responsibility as artists/craftsmen is choosing what rules we want to follow and which we reject (or "suspend" maybe). You can keep 99% of them and twist one little thing, or you can try throwing out all the rules at once. That's what we all do.


----------



## darkogav

Uiroo said:


> Yes, Joseph Williams.


Well I learned something new today. I never knew they were related.


----------



## CT

Yes.


----------



## CT

Jotto said:


> ...please educate me.


No. If you really want to see if your perspective on this can be altered, listen hard and with a different mindset, think about what originality really means, look into the real mechanics of his music and ask yourself who else would do exactly what he does. Don't expect people on the internet to do it for you.


----------



## Jotto

Mike T said:


> No. If you really want to see if your perspective on this can be altered, listen hard and with a different mindset, think about what originality really means, look into the real mechanics of his music and ask yourself who else would do exactly what he does. Don't expect people on the internet to do it for you.


Well.. i have listened to his music since 1977 and im NOT trying to degrade him as a film composer. One of the best. But.... i do not hear anything on his music that i have not heard before. Do you?? If so please tell me. Im just curious.


----------



## Toecutter

JohnG said:


> Originality is wildly overrated. People say that they prize originality but when they are confronted with it, much of the time, art that's genuinely original repels them.
> 
> Part of our responsibility as artists/craftsmen is choosing what rules we want to follow and which we reject (or "suspend" maybe). You can keep 99% of them and twist one little thing, or you can try throwing out all the rules at once. That's what we all do.


I almost had a stroke reading the title of this thread, your reply calmed me down, much appreciated!


----------



## Living Fossil

Markrs said:


> There is plenty of cases where John Williams has done the above, but the end result has always been original.


And here's the original quote:


----------



## d.healey

Jotto said:


> Well.. i have listened to his music since 1977 and im NOT trying to degrade him as a film composer. One of the best. But.... i do not hear anything on his music that i have not heard before. Do you?? If so please tell me. Im just curious.


I think you need to define originality for us. If it's something you have never heard before what do you mean? The instruments, the notes, the orchestration, the themes? Which part is unoriginal to you?


----------



## thesteelydane

Who cares? Have you?


----------



## cygnusdei

FWIW the score of Catch Me If You Can is considered atypical of him, and bore out some solo saxophone recital pieces. The opening theme from Tintin likewise has a different vibe.


----------



## Toecutter

Chris Harper said:


> No one has. At least not in centuries. I could write a symphony of farts and penny whistles and it would probably be highly derivative of my grandfather.


Underrated comment.


----------



## ryans

You could make a case that his style isn't very innovative or original.

But his melodies and themes are original.


----------



## Trash Panda

Uiroo said:


> Yes, Joseph Williams.


Technically, Joseph is derivative of those who came before him.


----------



## Mike Greene

Jotto said:


> No. I gave you the question. What is original in JW,s music? Im still waiting.


This is a really trollish response. Given that this is _your_ thread, it's up to _you_ to make a point.

If you want to make a point that JW is not original, then back it up with more than just a question mark for an opening post. Make an actual case, with examples and actual thought. Otherwise I'm going to just delete this thread.


----------



## CT

Jotto said:


> No one is able or willing to to tell me how JW,s music is original.


Able? Yes. Willing? No, you're right. Pay me for my time and I'll put together an essay for you on the subject.


----------



## Toecutter

Jokes aside this is was sparkling some nice discussion. JohnG reply was gold!


----------



## Toecutter

Jotto said:


> Go ahead. I wasnt expecting much from this thread. No one is able or willing to to tell me how JW,s music is original. Its not by any means and i do not care if someone thinks i have insulted God.


I will dig some cool music that JW wrote that is very original if you consider what he's known for. JW is no slouch my friend!


----------



## Toecutter

Mike T said:


> Able? Yes. Willing? No, you're right. Pay me for my time and I'll put together an essay for you on the subject.


Don't mind him, I'm interested in learning. Please share! It's not like we are talking about Horner anyway


----------



## gsilbers

I have to say the score for the 70s movie The paper chase. not because its good. because I really didn't like it. really.. go watch the movie. don't google a clip in YouTube or other places. THE MOVIE. 
I remember seeing it and mid way I was like.. wow this music is so bad, who made it? yep JW. I even think it won a Oscar.

its a mix of advance jazz mixed with baroque music. the weirdest wildest thing ever.
jazz harpsichord anyone? yep.. its like Joe satriani was playing it.

that has to be original as fuk. 

Then again, film music is not about being original. also.. the definition of original is also very important in these arguments. sometimes these simple questions are the most difficult.
to you JW might not be original because his stuff sounds like many scores. but for an orchestrator who analyses stuff it must be like a kid in a toy store checking out the whole new original stuff he could then use on his works.


----------



## cygnusdei

I don't think people should get up in arms over the term _original_. Even *if* he never wrote anything original, so what?


----------



## Mike Greene

Toecutter said:


> Jokes aside this is was sparkling some nice discussion. JohnG reply was gold!


Good point. Jotto continued to troll after my last post, but there are some interesting points being made, so rather than delete the thread, I'm giving Jotto a little time off so actual discussion can carry on without the trolling.

<EDIT> I've also deleted some of the distracting troll and response posts.


----------



## tack

The specific arrangement of all of his notes in any given composition are original. They have never been arranged before in exactly that way.

If Jotto isn't going to answer @d.healey's perfectly valid question about how he defines "original" in the context of this thread, then I think it's reasonable for us to make up a working definition.


----------



## Vik

Hi, since you have listened to his music 40-50 years and still haven't heard anything original – why would you expect that others have found something that you consider original? 

I like his 'Prayer for peace'. Hedwig Theme is maybe more original. Maybe someone else see it differently, but (don't get this wrong): so what?


----------



## Polkasound

I'm sorry to say the basis of this thread reeks of Grammy envy, because the OP contributed absolutely nothing to his own conversation... no background for his philosophy, no examples, no comparisons... nothing. Just a few pot shot comments. When Jotto comes back from his time-out, I would welcome him to revisit this thread, but with the goal of having a point of view and explaining it.


----------



## CT




----------



## Toecutter

I'm trying to find some tracks from Storia Di Una Donna (I swear I had a backup) it's one of his most obscure works, far from conventional. Original? Nothing is but it's certainly different.

JW the serialist XD


----------



## Dave Connor

Why doesn’t John Williams stop writing all that silly film music?

Do you know who said that? His dearest of friends, Andre’ Previn. Who told that story? John Williams.

What’s with all the drama? How many YouTube videos are there that segue between JW and some other film or classical composer?

Yet it’s a crisis here and the thread is in danger of being deleted?

Everyone over 10 years old that can’t bare this thread - please raise your hand if you want it shut down.

JW’s originality is an old, persistent question. I don’t mind it at all. And no I’m not bothered by this particular framing of it. I learned how to hang in back in little league baseball.

The OP was in fact correct in that few people were bothering to actually offer a response. If it’s such an obvious answer, why wasn’t there a slew of easy rebuttals? Instead some are melting down because of a possible troll on the internet? Why not take advantage of a slow pitch over the plate and hit it out of the park?

My answer? John Williams’ thematic writing alone is original enough (and abundant) to qualify him as an original composer. The Raiders theme is a gem of originality. Yes the repeated cadence at the end is from Mahler’s 3rd but that’s okay. It found a new home there and I’m not aware that what precedes it was swiped. I like the tune in Midway. I like the title of Towering Inferno. I love the Korngold-like Star Wars. Influenced yes, but in a rhythmic framework all its own. In fact JW’s themes throughout the Star Wars universe whether action or romantic are all top drawer. Certainly enough to call him original.

Maybe it is silly film music but even commercials on TV or TV titles require originality. Ask Lalo Schifrin.


----------



## CT

Dave Connor said:


> why wasn’t there a slew of easy rebuttals?


For my part, it's because I don't think there are "easy" rebuttals to what Jotto seemed to be getting at. I didn't think he'd be convinced by my saying, "this theme is original," or, "this harmony is original." Is that really sufficient? A worthwhile response would leave little room for ambiguity by going into much more detail than I at least am motivated to on a forum, particularly when it doesn't feel like the person asking is doing so in good faith.


----------



## cygnusdei

Aside from JW in particular, composers don't write to be original per se. Composers write to briefs, and it's the director who writes the briefs in the case of film music. I need an exciting action sequence here, a poignant, emotional cue here, and maybe a retro 70s acid rock number here. I doubt that those briefs will include, oh yeah and be original about it!


----------



## Dave Connor

Mike T said:


> For my part, it's because I don't think there are "easy" rebuttals to what Jotto seemed to be getting at. I didn't think he'd be convinced by my saying, "this theme is original," or, "this harmony is original." Is that really sufficient? A worthwhile response would leave little room for ambiguity by going into much more detail than I at least am motivated to on a forum, particularly when it doesn't feel like the person asking is doing so in good faith.


I would think an answer would be to demonstrate why you are convinced - as in any argument. Why wouldn’t you site examples of his originality? That’s precisely the way to argue any point isn’t it? With specific examples? A worthwhile response would be to demonstrate an original piece of music of which there isn’t an exact counterpart elsewhere right?

I did all the above to my own satisfaction. If this fellow gets out of jail (do these timeouts ever work?) he can respond to my argument and I will be happy to reinforce my point. As to convincing someone of an argument, does one really ever succeed? Make your case and get on with it.


----------



## CT

Right, what I'm saying is to make the case I'd want to make, to properly demonstrate why I am convinced, would be more effort than I want to expend in this instance.


----------



## Dave Connor

Mike T said:


> Right, what I'm saying is to make the case I'd want to make, to properly demonstrate why I am convinced, would be more effort than I want to expend in this instance.


Certainly fair enough.


----------



## jbuhler

Williams has a very distinct musical voice that sounds even when he lifts music from somewhere else.


----------



## JohnG

jbuhler said:


> Williams has a very distinct musical voice that sounds even when he lifts music from somewhere else.


As do most composers in the big leagues. (of course as soon as I typed that I thought of two guys who slavishly follow the temp. So not _all_ of them)


----------



## mscp

Can I ask why the question?


----------



## G_Erland

I think its not a particularly original question, but none the less its an example of the question posed in a context which make people care about the question. Its my belief that the classical world regards film music as derivative anyway, and there is a rich material in 21th century arts discourse obviously, about reproduction, value and humanity. Personally, i find it beyond doubt that the artist in question has an irreproducible human voice, and is in «common» terms a melodic genious - i dont know how productive it would be to compare his works to, say, Wagners without spesific context. As for borrowing things - that can be a referential thing, and i cant see a critique of neccesity here - within the context of popular culture references to golden era Hollywood or watershed moments in western art placed within revival commercial cinema seems uncontroversial..?


----------



## NekujaK

Maybe he has, maybe he hasn't... so what? What's the point of the question?

JW is a successful, well-respected film composer. At the end of the day, his primary job is simply to satisfy the film's director, and yes (gasp) that means sometimes having to lift and reforge existing musical works. It's just part of the job. Composing for media is rarely a creative free-for-all. Most of the time, you need to answer to other people who have definite ideas about what the music should be.

I've composed cues that I felt were ground-breakingly creative and original, only to have the director say, "Can you make it sound more like <insert-name-of-well-known-piece-of-music>."

Familiarity sells. And like it or not, film composers are in the business of selling. It doesn't mean you can't be brilliant or creative, but it does mean you will often have constraints that limit originality.


----------



## pinki

Personally I think innovation in the arts is underrated. In my experience some people feel the need to innovate and some do not. But none of that has anything to do with being a good composer. John Williams is a good composer.


----------



## G_Erland

John Carpenter has a funny comment about his music - which i think actually taps into the professional demands that many highlight here - that of «mickey mousing», as in steamboat Willy, where every move has a corresponding musical effect. The most hilarious example i can think of is indy riding down a hill in the holy grail, each move of the horse orchestrated with a horn blast. Its a valid critique of the oversaturation in commercial cinema, i think. And by extent original inferred meaning and so on..


----------



## Mornats

I can't find the source for this which really bugs me. Williams get criticised for "clearly ripping off Holst" for the Star Wars score. There's a bunch of videos on YouTube of people being "shocked" by it. However I heard that George Lucas originally wanted Williams to adapt Holst's The Planets for use in the film. Instead, Williams wrote the Star Wars score, thereby bringing originality to Lucas' original brief. So rather than rip off Holst he wrote his own version of what Lucas wanted. Anyone know if this is true or have I completely invented it in my head?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

He hasn't created anything original, in fact he has no musical skills whatsoever.

Here's a list of all the minor crap he's produced.

And here's some totally derivative shite. Hard to believe that no-talent wanker became famous.


----------



## Trash Panda

He hasn’t done anything since 2019. What a washed up hack.


----------



## G_Erland

His art must perhaps endure the question?


----------



## dgburns

I came to the conclusion that I ’think’ JW is probably my all time favorite composer. I’ll tell you why:

There seems to me that there are a few composers who write music that actually stand up as program music- aside from the production. Not an easy feat given what score is all about, it’s supposed to support and actually not be part of the narrative; if the score becomes the focal point, it failed in it’s role as a supporting element.

Increasingly, score has become fused with sound design. It’s like the old ways of developing themes and leitmotif is old fashioned and intrusive. Not modern. I fell to the allure of writing nonmelodic score, revelling in the ambiguity of never establishing anything thematic or anthemic or memorable. When you write thematic material, you run the risk of getting labelled, or worse, quoting from somewhere else and being called out as a cheat.

And like established artists with careers spanning many decades, some artists are able to recite older styles and the buying public consume it. JW is one of those guys. JW is one of those guys who just writes quality stuff, like it or not, the craft is great, and so addictive.

If I had to sum up JW is a nutshell, I would say his greatest contribution is the density of his score. It is most apparent when you compare the Harry Potter films, both with his scores, and later scores. The richness and density of the written material just boosts the viewer experience. I doubt we will see this kind of writing in the coming years. Why? Partly because it’s HARD to do. Extremely hard to write so much in support of the screen. Partly because there is less incentive to do so given the shorter times to finish the music, and also current taste.

And also, more then anything, everytime I hear a JW score, it makes me feel good. Like the second golden age of Hollywood. I know he looked up to JG, and for good reason. But anyone who has been in the driver seat as composer on any decent project will tell you, it is exceedingly hard to succeed in pleasing everyone, exceedingly hard to retain your score as conceptualized, and exceedingly hard to have it widely accepted as being well recieved, no matter who you are. JW did this his whole life.

Was listening to Shindler’s List the other day, it nearly knocked me off my chair. Stayed with me for days. Just goes to show.


----------



## jbuhler

JohnG said:


> As do most composers in the big leagues. (of course as soon as I typed that I thought of two guys who slavishly follow the temp. So not _all_ of them)


Sure, I wasn’t being exclusionary. But I think anyone who creates a distinct voice manages to present a kind of originality.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh




----------



## Mike Fox

I don’t care how original or unoriginal the Jurassic Park and Hook soundtracks were. They simply take me somewhere else.


----------



## robcs

JohnG said:


> Originality is wildly overrated. People say that they prize originality but when they are confronted with it, much of the time, genuinely original art repels them.


Indeed. Just look up how people reacted to The Rite of Spring when it was first performed


----------



## givemenoughrope

Is the OP referring to his music away from the picture or to the picture? I think the latter matters most really although it has obviously transcended it (the themes).


----------



## SymphonicSamples

For me John Williams music is far more "original" than the vast majority of film composers however you want to frame the meaning/context of the word original. I'm greatful we still have some living film composers who have a mastery of melody, harmony and orchestration. For some musicians who haven't explored the music of the great composers John Williams offers many bread crumbs which may intern inspire someone to dig deeper into the past which is a good thing ultimately.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva

JohnG said:


> Part of our responsibility as artists/craftsmen is choosing what rules we want to follow and which we reject (or "suspend" maybe). You can keep 99% of them and twist one little thing, or you can try throwing out all the rules at once. That's what we all do.


_*All painting is an accident. But it's also not an accident, because one must select what part of the accident one chooses to preserve.*_
*Francis Bacon*


----------



## Saxer

You don't have to create a new language to say something original. And if you do nobody will understand it. You can judge every book in the world as non original because in nearly all of them people say "Good Morning" or "I love you" or other well known clichés at some place. It's the way we communicate.

If you are original or not depends on the way you use the language, the context, the story, the intention, the whole picture. And nobody did it the way JW did.


----------



## Ivan M.

> Has John Williams created anything original?


Yes, because he didn't copy note to note, he simply took inspiration from other composers. 

Which is perfectly fine, and everyone does it, not only because we want to, but because we have to. We are not separate universes, music is our collective legacy and it moves forward by extending and contributing to this legacy.

Or look, for example, at folk songs. They are the most beautiful music there is, exactly because it was caried from generation to generation and perfected.

We need to define terms like ,,original" or ,,copying" more precisely. Music that is too ,,original" is simply crap music or not music at all, just noise.

So, yes, John created something new and valuable, melodies that all recognize.


----------



## CT

It doesn't take much more than a curious peak under the hood to see what makes Williams, or any good composer, "original." Every single decision is shaped by their unique taste, technique, life experience, etc... if you're not hearing all of this, the individual behind the music, but are instead hearing and focusing on superficial similarities to other music, you're listening wrong.


----------



## GNP

I think sometimes there's too much focus on originality and not enough discussion with how well the music works with the film. This is *FILM* SCORING, afterall.

In this case, while I love JW, I sometimes thinks he mickey-mouses way too much with what's going on onscreen, to a point I find myself howling with laughter (_in the past, the final cut was essential to scoring, and that's what was practiced_). In the opposite case, while I love HZ, I think too much music editing elevated his music in places he wouldn't have thought of himself (_nowadays, just write lots of suites and let the music editors do the placing, because the film editors are still editing the film footage till the very end_).


----------



## GNP

Saxer said:


> You don't have to create a new language to say something original. And if you do nobody will understand it. You can judge every book in the world as non original because in nearly all of them people say "Good Morning" or "I love you" or other well known clichés at some place. It's the way we communicate.
> 
> If you are original or not depends on the way you use the language, the context, the story, the intention, the whole picture. And nobody did it the way JW did.


What you just said is extremely important. Thank you.


----------



## re-peat

_(Haven’t read everything that came before with the attention some of it surely deserves, so parts of what follows may already have been mentioned in earlier posts. I see, for example, that my opening line is exactly the same as what Saxer already posted.)_


- You don’t have to invent a new language to say something new.

- Williams is instantly recognizeable. That can only mean he must be the author of a way of musical expression that is uniquely his and his alone. (And we can spot it the second we hear it, even when it’s weakly imitated by the countless Williams-epigones that are out there.)

- Williams’ musical ideas, especially his midseason melodic inventions, are completely original even if stylistically or formally conservative. There can’t be any doubt about that, I believe. If something like, say, _“E.T.’s Flying Theme”_ isn’t a wholly original and totally unique musical creation, I don’t know what is. And there are several dozens of themes like that in his work: inventions of such singular quality that only Williams, during his good years, — and with the possible exception of Franz Waxman perhaps — could come up with them. Quality of ideas is also the one element of his music that remains utterly inimitable: people may copy the style (they have), the technique (they have), the orchestrations (they have) and what-have-you-not (they have), but no one, literally no one, has ever come up with comparable ideas.

- To the question “Did Williams ever create something original?”, the laziest but quickest and easiest answer is _“Images”_, a score containing music written for Baschet sculptures. Not belonging to, nor typical of his best-known output maybe, but still, he wrote it.

- Williams didn’t just write gloriously original themes, he also wrote a substantial catalog of iconic musical emblems. This is a bit more difficult to explain, but what I mean is: sometimes a composer hits upon something that becomes more than itself, that transcends both its abstract musical value and its original purpose to turn into a universally recognized musical representation of a specific idea, concept, or maybe a dramaturgical technique or some form of rhetoric. Herrmann’s strings stabs for _"Psycho",_ for example, is such a thing. Play that — in or out of context, doesn’t matter — and everybody knows instantly and exactly what you’re trying to convey. Copland’s “Americana” style is another example. Or Morricone’s spaghetti western idiom. Or Barry’s immensely influential and much-copied stylings for anything to do with 60's spies and secret agents. Even refer to these idioms only superficially — be it melodically, timbrally or harmonically — and your message is immediately unequivocally clear to everyone who hears it. See, we are talking musical invention here so powerful, so effective, so perfectly capturing and expressing an idea — and, yes, so original — that it has become much more than what it was originally envisaged to be and is now forever associated with specific emotions, certain types of characters, a period, a national identity maybe, or a narrative, or a particular cinematic technique, etc. … The list of Williams’ accomplishments in this respect is, quite simply, baffling. I’m trying to think of another composer in the entire history of music (in whatever genre, style or tradition) who left us something similar as what Williams did — and, let’s not ignore it, which also resonates with as many people as Williams’ music does —, and I can’t find one, not a single one, not even among the greatest of the greatest.

- Anything a great composer, on an inspired day, writes is, by way of being, original. Any organization of musical material that has the stamp of a unique and exceptionnal talent is, almost by definition, original, no matter how unoriginal the style and/or form it is presented in may be.

But much of the above, except the point about the musical ideas, is irrelevant in any final evaluation of the achievement of John Williams, I believe. Originality is, after all, not only overrated, as John said, it’s also NOT an aesthetic or artistic parameter. No work, in any field of artistic expression, has ever survived on the sole basis of it being original. The originality of a work is something that may cause a bit of a stir or a few raised eyebrows at first — and it will be taken note of in the history books, yes — but it is an aspect of the work that has, inevitably, a very limited lifespan. It is, at the end of the day, fleeting and wholly uninteresting. Yesterday’s originality is, not rarely, today’s cliché. This in sharp contrast to the quality of the content of work — its ideas, its craft, its message —, which, in great art, is timeless.
The startling impact of the arrival of The Sacre’s originality has long faded and is now reduced to the status of historical anecdote, and the only reason that the work keeps being programmed, season after season, decade in, decade out, the world over, is because it is, and always will be, an incomprehensibly stunning and endlessly fascinating musical creation. We no longer listen to Beethoven’s symphonies because they were original — their originality is today actually quite difficult to understand if you’re not thoroughly schooled in the music of the era and that which came before —, no, we keep listening to these works, century after century, because they’re among the greatest music ever written. The creative human brain can’t rise any higher than that. Thelonious Monk isn’t remembered as one of jazz greatest musicians because he was an original — and he most certainly was — but because he was good: a freakishly, breathtakingly imaginative player and composer.
And the list goes on and on and on, of course.

So, whether John Williams is an original or not — in my book, midseason Williams (1975-1995) most certainly is (after that, much less so) — is completely beside the point. It's also a rather stupid and ignorant point of departure for a discussion, I feel, in that it completely overlooks the essential in favour of the trivial.

_


----------



## ed buller

re-peat said:


> So, whether John Williams is an original or not — in my book, midseason Williams (1975-1995) most certainly is (after that, much less so) — is completely beside the point. It's also a rather stupid and ignorant point of departure for a discussion, I feel, in that it completely overlooks the essential in favour of the trivial.


yup...to both points

best

ed


----------



## mikeh-375

There's an even more introspective, personal and therefore more likely 'original' aspect to Williams. It's in these works that I find him at his best and also at his most exposed.

Cello Concerto

Violin Concerto


----------



## Michael Antrum

A couple of years ago, John Williams was to conduct the LSO at the Royal Albert Hall and I got some tickets and took my wife. In the end, he was taken ill, and wound up in a London Hospital, but the concert went ahead anyway.

At some points there was a huge smile on my face, at others, I was blinking back the tears.

There are only twelve notes, so there's bound to be some crossover, but all i remember is how his music made me feel.

And that's all I have to say about that.......


----------



## Illico

In the same vein.
@OP Would you say that _*Steven Spielberg*_ has not created anything original?
Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind , Indiana Jones, E.T., Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Minority Report ...You know what I mean...


----------



## AudioLoco

Originality and innovation DO have an important role in music, in my opinion, and probably Williams, in that sense, doesn't *seem* immediately as such a clear cut symbol of this aspect.

I'm imagining what the first people hearing Sg. Peppers the day it came out felt, or the first time someone listened to "tommorrow never knows" or saw Hendrix do a solo for the first time, Coltrane go places nobody was expecting etc.... The feeling of euphoria and the sparkle it could give to other musicians getting nutrients and inspiration from directions they couldn't have invisioned themselves.
Particular instrumentation combinations or particular new sounds, certain scales, using "wrong" notes etc...

So in my opinion, he wasn't strictly original in THAT sense, as he was using the "classical language", hence I guess the OPs doubts.

But (I like big buts...): 
the way Williams manipulated the feelings we all get while watching the movies he scored?
The way he for ever connected the music to ideas?
The way he mastered the language of emotion?
At the end of the day this is what music is aaaaaaall about. 
Who cares about what scales, techniques etc ? From the tiniest woodwind flair detail found in many of his scores adorning the beautiful and memorable themes, to.... two bloody, two notes repeating ... da da - da da - da- da -dadadadadadadaada!!

I remember as a very young boy, going out of the cinema theatre and singing loudly in the street the Superman theme. What did it make my raw, human person feel? Euphoria, power, optimism.
How hyper does the Indiana Jones theme make people feel? Would the Star Wars movies appeal to people in the same way without the powerful score?

If mastering the art of the human feeling is not original I don't know what is.

I also agree that if your themes are so recognizable, if other composers stride to copy your sound for the decades to come, it means your own voice as a musician is mighty powerful, 
therefore you are .... original.


----------



## re-peat

AudioLoco said:


> Originality and innovation DO have an important role in music, in my opinion


Yes, innovation is important — without it, stagnation looms — but the preoccupation with originality as a quintessential requirement for artistic credibility is quite silly, I always thought. Surely, if one listens, really listens, to _“The Asteroïd Field”_, any inquiry about it being the work of an original musical mind or not, is totally ludicrous?

Not every great artist is wired for innovation either. Some achieve greatness and become the best they could possibly be, by sowing and harvesting diligently on fields which were first annexed, ploughed and farmed by other artists. Not everyone, that is to say, is a Charlie Parker. Some are an Art Pepper or a Cannonball Adderley.

Innovators open doors for others to go through, and that can be an accomplishment of the utmost importance, no doubt about it, but among those who subsequently pass through these doors, there can well be artists of the highest calibre who then go on to produce work of sublime beauty and landmark importance themselves, in some cases even outshining the legacy of the one who opened the door for them in the first place.

Williams has always had an infallible instinct and a remarkable courage for finding and opening the doors which suited his musical personality best.

_


----------



## AudioLoco

re-peat said:


> Yes, innovation is important — without it, stagnation looms — but the preoccupation with originality as a quintessential requirement for artistic credibility is quite silly, I always thought. Surely, if one listens, really listens, to _“The Asteroïd Field”_, any inquiry about it being the work of an original musical mind or not, is totally ludicrous?
> 
> Not every great artist is wired for innovation either. Some achieve greatness and become the best they could possibly be, by sowing and harvesting diligently on fields which were first annexed, ploughed and farmed by other artists. Not everyone, that is to say, is a Charlie Parker. Some are an Art Pepper or a Cannonball Adderley.
> 
> Innovators open doors for others to go through, and that can be an accomplishment of the utmost importance, no doubt about it, but among those who subsequently pass through these doors, there can well be artists of the highest calibre who then go on to produce work of sublime beauty and landmark importance themselves, in some cases even outshining the legacy of the one who opened the door for them in the first place.
> 
> Williams has always had an infallible instinct and a remarkable courage for finding and opening the doors which suited his musical personality best.
> 
> _


Absolutely, I agree with all this, have you read also the rest of my post?


----------



## Toecutter

Vicontrol... the gift that keeps on giving! There's a lesson to be learned here on how to deal with controversial questions-opinions but the outcome of this thread speaks for itself.


----------



## JohnG

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> _All painting is an accident. But it's also not an accident, because one must select what part of the accident one chooses to preserve._
> *Francis Bacon*


That's an excellent quotation, @Tatiana Gordeeva -- thanks for posting it.

Not that I'm claiming the same level vision as Bacon, but I agree with the sentiment about "accidents" being the core of something interesting. For my part, I often think that I'm a good listener more than a good composer; I think I hear when a "happy accident" has a kernel of something interesting in it, and then I latch onto it until I can grapple it into something bigger that I like. I expect most people do that.


----------



## jeremyr

It really sucks that Williams has this reputation in "intellectual circles" that he's not original. It's almost as if music academia successfully steered the narrative that all he does is plagiarize classical music, and they did it only out of jealously of his success.

I had this discussion nearly 20 years ago with my music/composition professors. His reputation is irrevocably tarnished by what amounts to 0.01% of his total compositional output. I guess that's the price of success.


----------



## Noeticus

John Williams is a genius.


----------



## Double Helix

Ivan M. said:


> Yes, because he didn't copy note to note, he simply took inspiration from other composers.
> 
> *Which is perfectly fine, and everyone does it, not only because we want to, but because we have to. *We are not separate universes, music is our collective legacy and it moves forward by extending and contributing to this legacy.


 ^^Yes, this, thanks, @Ivan M. ^^

The notion that all things that enclose Art already exist in time and all the artist does is re-transcribe a cumulative sensibility approximates Michelangelo's concept that the figure already existed in the marble, and that all he did was chip away the un-needed stone.

Tolstoy, in Anna Karenina, put this concept into Levin's assertion that "I discovered nothing--I merely opened my eyes to what I knew."

In his essay "Poetry" in _Seven Nights_ (1980) Borges noted that "When I write something, I have the sensation that it existed before. I start from a general conception. I know more or less the beginning an the end, and then I discover the intervening parts. But I do not have the sensation of having created them, that they depend upon my free will. The things are as they are, but they are hidden, and my task. . . is to find them."


----------



## JohnG

Double Helix said:


> "When I write something, I have the sensation that it existed before. I start from a general conception. I know more or less the beginning an the end, and then I discover the intervening parts. But I do not have the sensation of having created them, that they depend upon my free will. The things are as they are, but they are hidden, and my task. . . is to find them." [Borges]


exactly!


----------



## Michael Antrum




----------



## Trash Panda

jeremyr said:


> It really sucks that Williams has this reputation in "intellectual circles" that he's not original. It's almost as if music academia successfully steered the narrative that all he does is plagiarize classical music, and they did it only out of jealously of his success.
> 
> I had this discussion nearly 20 years ago with my music/composition professors. His reputation is irrevocably tarnished by what amounts to 0.01% of his total compositional output. I guess that's the price of success.


It’s hard for those who live that far up their own butts to come out when their heads have overinflated that much.


----------



## cygnusdei

It is of utmost important that one be original. Need I remind you that the Oscar category is Best _Original_ Score?


----------



## Chris Harper

Chris Harper said:


> No one has. At least not in centuries. I could write a symphony of farts and penny whistles and it would probably be highly derivative of my grandfather.



So... Can anyone recommend any good penny whistle libraries? I need something that sounds

really

original.


----------



## FinGael

I think that people who consider JW not original are either tone-deaf, biased, live in a bubble or don't know the heck about composing and orchestrating.



_Yes, he has copied things, or been inspired of various things, but what he has created are solid pieces _on their own_, which I think is what matters in the end._


----------



## re-peat

AudioLoco said:


> have you read also the rest of my post?



Yes, I did. Read everything. Assiduously. The reason I didn’t run with any of it, is because you touch on a side of Williams — the manipulator of feelings, the master of the language of emotions …, in short: his powers as a consummate composer of _film music_ — that I’m not particularly interested in. I know that for most people it is precisely this aspect of his work that makes him the legend which they declare he is, and I have no argument with that at all, but (a) I don’t think that it is in this area that Williams distinguishes himself most spectacularly from his colleagues and (b) I’ve always had difficulty with the widespread idea that music gains in interest, appeal or value to the degree in which it can stir or steer emotions.

The latter is an entirely different discussion than is the topic of this thread of course, so we needn’t go there — and a substantial percentage of the VI-C archives consists of me having gone there already at inordinate lengths on various occasions in the past anyway — but the former is perhaps worth a few more words.

See, I always felt that calling Williams a great film composer and a superb master at emotionally playing the audience, is selling him short. Quite a bit, actually. For two reasons: firstly, I think that his remarkable talent, skill and professional acumen make his ability as 'a puppeteer of emotions' a fairly obvious and unremarkable achievement (not to mention the fact that such an ability is pretty common among good film composers anyway). That Williams, given his talents and musical leanings, can deliver great film music is nothing out of the ordinary, I find. I would think that that falls well within what can be expected from a musical phenomenon like he is. And secondly, focusing on the emotional powers of the music sort of relegates its abstract musical interest to the background. And it is precisely that abstract musical interest which, of all the gifts that Williams gave us, makes me swoon the most. I understand the film composer, I understand the technician, I understand the professional, I understand the emotion-weaving virtuoso … what I don’t understand however, is the raw, insane quality and inspiration of his great ideas and his best music. That, to me, boggles the mind.

Furthermore, if there is any area in which Williams can be faulted — and I say this with the utmost humility and respect — it is precisely as a film composer. In my opinion, that is. Particularly during his heyday, he was on occasion simply too good for his own (and the film’s) good, when his talent, passion and inspiration seemed to get the better of him and he wrote music that was far too interesting and self-absorbed to still function optimally as a cue. Me, I thank the Gods of Music on my bare knees that that did happen because it gave us some fabulous good music, but it doesn’t change the fact that those scenes could have been served better by a composer who showed more restraint or who wrote less interesting music.
One example: “The March Of The Villains” from “Superman”. A failure as a movie cue, I always felt (very distracting and ill-judged in its characterization as well, I believe), but simply divine as a piece of music. No one has ever out-Serged Prokofiev the way Williams does, with such staggering inspiration, confidence and skill, in this music.

So, as 'a manipulator of feelings' or 'a master of the language of emotions', I don’t find Williams all that special, I must say. I can easily name 10 or even 20 other film composers who can serve a picture as well as Williams can, who can direct our emotions as cunningly and expertly as he can, and who can intensify the movie-watching-experience every bit as much as he does.
As a composer of music however, Williams, at his best, is (or, at least, was) totally unique. He stands alone. A 20-year-long incessantly erupting volcano of the best that tonal, non-symphonic orchestral music can be.

_


----------



## brek

Chris Harper said:


> No one has. At least not in centuries. I could write a symphony of farts and penny whistles and it would probably be highly derivative of my grandfather.






Well, there is Fartclops. At least the penny whistles would have been original. 

To the broader point, does this music classify as "original"? To some, maybe (at least it was to me when I was 20); but it also borrows heavily in concept from musique concrete, and musically in the rhythm and cadence of EDM. Is the simple act of using farts as the musical instrument enough to warrant a Badge of Originality? Does it matter? 

As others have said, the idea of "Originality" is much less interesting to me than whether or not the music resonates with me or sparks my curiosity. I'm particularly not a fan of the way it is used as a form of gatekeeping in some circles.


----------



## AudioLoco

re-peat said:


> Yes, I did. Read everything. Assiduously. The reason I didn’t run with any of it, is because you touch on a side of Williams — the manipulator of feelings, the master of the language of emotions …, in short: his powers as a consummate composer of _film music_ — that I’m not particularly interested in. I know that for most people it is precisely this aspect of his work that makes him the legend which they declare he is, and I have no argument with that at all, but (a) I don’t think that it is in this area that Williams distinguishes himself most spectacularly from his colleagues and (b) I’ve always had difficulty with the widespread idea that music gains in interest, appeal or value to the degree in which it can stir or steer emotions.
> 
> The latter is an entirely different discussion than is the topic of this thread of course, so we needn’t go there — and a substantial percentage of the VI-C archives consists of me having gone there already at inordinate lengths on various occasions in the past anyway — but the former is perhaps worth a few more words.
> 
> See, I always felt that calling Williams a great film composer and a superb master at emotionally playing the audience, is selling him short. Quite a bit, actually. For two reasons: firstly, I think that his remarkable talent, skill and professional acumen make his ability as 'a puppeteer of emotions' a fairly obvious and unremarkable achievement (not to mention the fact that such an ability is pretty common among good film composers anyway). That Williams, given his talents and musical leanings, can deliver great film music is nothing out of the ordinary, I find. I would think that that falls well within what can be expected from a musical phenomenon like he is. And secondly, focusing on the emotional powers of the music sort of relegates its abstract musical interest to the background. And it is precisely that abstract musical interest which, of all the gifts that Williams gave us, makes me swoon the most. I understand the film composer, I understand the technician, I understand the professional, I understand the emotion-weaving virtuoso … what I don’t understand however, is the raw, insane quality and inspiration of his great ideas and his best music. That, to me, boggles the mind.
> 
> Furthermore, if there is any area in which Williams can be faulted — and I say this with the utmost humility and respect — it is precisely as a film composer. In my opinion, that is. Particularly during his heyday, he was on occasion simply too good for his own (and the film’s) good, when his talent, passion and inspiration seemed to get the better of him and he wrote music that was far too interesting and self-absorbed to still function optimally as a cue. Me, I thank the Gods of Music on my bare knees that that did happen because it gave us some fabulous good music, but it doesn’t change the fact that those scenes could have been served better by a composer who showed more restraint or who wrote less interesting music.
> One example: “The March Of The Villains” from “Superman”. A failure as a movie cue, I always felt (very distracting and ill-judged in its characterization as well, I believe), but simply divine as a piece of music. No one has ever out-Serged Prokofiev the way Williams does, with such staggering inspiration, confidence and skill, in this music.
> 
> So, as 'a manipulator of feelings' or 'a master of the language of emotions', I don’t find Williams all that special, I must say. I can easily name 10 or even 20 other film composers who can serve a picture as well as Williams can, who can direct our emotions as cunningly and expertly as he can, and who can intensify the movie-watching-experience every bit as much as he does.
> As a composer of music however, Williams, at his best, is (or, at least, was) totally unique. He stands alone. A 20-year-long incessantly erupting volcano of the best that tonal orchestral music can be.
> 
> _


Hey I appreciate the clarification, and thanks for going through my post! 
I get where you are coming from even if we don't agree on this particular point...

As much as I appreciate, well - idolize and adore him as a composer.... 
As a pure listener, I still find myself listening much more to other composers (of the past or just different genres). 
As an example, Pergolesi's Stabat Mater plays much more often in my home then the E.T. soundtrack...


----------



## NoamL

*Why don't we put it to the test?*

In the link below are 18 mp3s I've curated from... some composers. Your task is to see if you can pick out JW from among composers who sound not entirely unlike him...

*Click here to take the test*

I'll leave this test up for 3 days. If people here can consistently guess which ones are John, then he has an original and recognizable voice as a composer.


----------



## cygnusdei

NoamL said:


> *Why don't we put it to the test?*
> 
> In the link below are 18 mp3s I've curated from... some composers. Your task is to see if you can pick out JW from among composers who sound not entirely unlike him...
> 
> *Click here to take the test*
> 
> I'll leave this test up for 3 days. If people here can consistently guess which ones are John, then he has an original and recognizable voice as a composer.


While this sounds interesting, you seem to be conflating original and unique. Anyway my 2 cents: don't be so serious guys. Music is subjective, JW ain't your daddy, enjoy life, be kind. Peace!


----------



## Chris Harper

brek said:


> As others have said, the idea of "Originality" is much less interesting to me than whether or not the music resonates with me or sparks my curiosity. I'm particularly not a fan of the way it is used as a form of gatekeeping in some circles.


I agree, and I do think some of these discussions do sometimes involve snobbery and gatekeeping. I know this, because I will admit I used to be this way when I was younger. While I liked JW and cinematic music in general, I just didn’t see it as being on the same level as “classical” music. Because it was new, and written for visual media, I saw it as somehow inferior or more pedestrian.

But all that changed with some maturity and thinking about things differently. Now, I sometimes imagine a group of people in the late 18th century sitting in a stuffy salon and disparaging Mozart for composing operas.

Discussing originality of JW is certainly a good and valid topic for debate. It’s just important not to approach it with an implicit bias because of the media he composes for or his failure to be dead for a couple hundred years.


----------



## JonS

gsilbers said:


> I have to say the score for the 70s movie The paper chase. not because its good. because I really didn't like it. really.. go watch the movie. don't google a clip in YouTube or other places. THE MOVIE.
> I remember seeing it and mid way I was like.. wow this music is so bad, who made it? yep JW. I even think it won a Oscar.
> 
> its a mix of advance jazz mixed with baroque music. the weirdest wildest thing ever.
> jazz harpsichord anyone? yep.. its like Joe satriani was playing it.
> 
> that has to be original as fuk.
> 
> Then again, film music is not about being original. also.. the definition of original is also very important in these arguments. sometimes these simple questions are the most difficult.
> to you JW might not be original because his stuff sounds like many scores. but for an orchestrator who analyses stuff it must be like a kid in a toy store checking out the whole new original stuff he could then use on his works.


The Paper Chase is one of my favorite movies. I don't remember the score but I love that movie.


----------



## JonS

Markrs said:


> There is plenty of cases where John Williams has done the above, but the end result has always been original.


No one knows the classical catalog like John Williams. Even though he has stolen from the classical catalog more the most, JW is my favorite film composer and a wonderful orchestrator. The real question is where does invention come from? Most of my original ideas seem to be faxed to me in a blink of an eye, so I wonder who on the other side is doing this faxing? Every idea comes from God anyway, so copyrights and patents are just illusions.


----------



## Consona

I love these threads.

One thing is certain, original or not, not even one hollywood composer today can compose even one minute of top-tier Wlliams' music. Which in itself says something.



G_Erland said:


> John Carpenter has a funny comment about his music - which i think actually taps into the professional demands that many highlight here - that of «mickey mousing», as in steamboat Willy, where every move has a corresponding musical effect. The most hilarious example i can think of is indy riding down a hill in the holy grail, each move of the horse orchestrated with a horn blast. Its a valid critique of the oversaturation in commercial cinema, i think. And by extent original inferred meaning and so on..


On the other hand. When you follow Indiana films from the macro perspective, you realize how well places all these moments are. Spielberg and Williams have sense for long-form flow and development in films and music. Something you barely see these days from current directors and composers.


----------



## JohnG

Consona said:


> One thing is certain, original or not, not even one hollywood composer today can compose even one minute of top-tier Wlliams' music.


While that might be a bit unfair -- James Newton Howard and maybe one or two others come to mind -- but I certainly agree with your overall view that Mr. W has given us spectacular swaths of genius.


----------



## South Thames

> The March Of The Villains” from “Superman”. A failure as a movie cue, I always felt (very distracting and ill-judged in its characterization as well, I believe)



I was waiting for an example, but this was poorly chosen. March of the Villains was substantially composed for the album - yes, it's based on the theme used in the film and comprised in part of sections of cues that are heard the film, but much of the material that comprises that piece is never heard in the film - this was a very common Williams habit at that time. So yes, it far too 'interesting and self-absorbed to still function optimally as a cue", but that would be because it wasn't written as one. Saying Williams wrote music that was 'too interesting for the film' and then pointing to material he wrote specifically for albums/concert suites is not really proving your point. I always thought it was rather a credit to Williams that he could do double duty like that - repurpose and significantly embellish and enrich his themes into compelling concert pieces for his albums, especially given the time constraints film composers are usually under.


----------



## re-peat

You’re right, South. The Villains music as used in the movie is found in a cue called “Lex Luthor’s Lair”. Still completely wrong, I find. “The Menu” from “Jaws” is another 2 minutes of music that always takes me out of the movie. As does “For Gillian” from “The Fury” (one of my favourite Williams pieces), “To Thornfield” from “Jane Eyre” and the Ewok forest battle music from “Return Of The Jedi”, to name just the first few that I recall. Come to think of it, I have the greatest difficulty focusing on any movie scored by Williams between ’75 and ’95 because I always get distracted and start listening to the amazing music.

_


----------



## MauroPantin

LOL, he is *instantly *recognizable among his peers.

Regardless, IDGAF if he's original or not, he is one of the most effective composers alive, he has moved countless people to tears with some cues like the ET finale or Schindler's List. This is substantially more relevant to his responsibilities as a film composer than just originality for the sake of it.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva

Of course we all know that all great people and their accomplishments don't come out of nothing:






Music, like most forms of Art, is like S.J. Gould's punctuated equilibrium: a lot of stability punctuated by fast change. Mostly evolution mixed with _a little _revolution. Imitation, repetition, triggering mirror neurons and making them happy  _Sweet expectation,_ some say. A lot about guessing what's coming next and then be surprised! Not unlike sex. Peekaboo for intellectuals. Bartok summarized it well:






Also my humble thoughts on this subject. Sorry for the wasted screen real estate


----------



## Consona

JohnG said:


> While that might be a bit unfair -- James Newton Howard and maybe one or two others come to mind -- but I certainly agree with your overall view that Mr. W has given us spectacular swaths of genius.


This thread made me listen to Star Wars, Hook, Jurrasic Park, Indy, Potter and I can honestly say, IMO, noone today can do what he does. He's just way too leveled up, it's insane.

Heck, I'd love to know how many composers these days could put even that goofy cantina band piece together. 

Btw, I've found a great orchestral rendition. Would love to see the orchestration, it's really well done.


----------



## johnsrev

With all the pithy quotes from famous 20th Century composers and passionate positions from members of this forum, maybe this will be the last word on whether there is any creative musical expression that is original. 

It must be understood that any of us who engage in the profession as media composers are not hired to be "original" in our musical product. We are hired to serve the creative impetus of another. So making a value judgment about the originality of a composer's work, famous or not, is a fool's errand. 

One thing I can say about John Williams' music, is that there are more people leaving the motion pictures he has scored singing or humming the melodies he composed than many other famous film composers. In addition, his music scores have breathed life into the symphony orchestras which have been losing patrons when his scores have been programmed with accompanying projection of the film in concert settings all over the world. Which one of you can say that about your own work? 

The wisdom from the Book of Ecclesiastes sums up this thread quite nicely:

“All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea_ is_ not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. All things_ are_ full of labor; man cannot utter_ it_: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. The thing that hath been, it _is that_ which shall be; and that which is done_ is_ that which shall be done: and _there is_ no new_ thing_ under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes 1:7-9 KJV)


----------



## JohnG

johnsrev said:


> We are hired to serve the creative impetus of another.


Well, sort of, but it's not like they are sitting behind us putting our hands on the keys or strings.

Even writing a single minute of music requires hundreds if not thousands of decisions. They aren't making them, we are. Naturally, we work with our collaborators, but that doesn't mean, as I think you are suggesting, that our contributions are all directed by another to the point where our own ideas are merely rote. 

Even when we get lengthy, specific instructions (which is not all that common these days), we can surprise them with an idea that's bold or unexpected, that adds something meaningful to the rest of the production.

While one can scarcely argue against Ecclesiastes and other similar sentiments (nothing new under the sun), nevertheless what we do does matter to our audiences, I find, and to us personally.

Put another way, sometimes I feel that I stumble into a really good, somewhat surprising and daring idea, and when it succeeds like that, it's joyful and satisfying.


----------



## johnsrev

JohnG said:


> Well, sort of, but it's not like they are sitting behind us putting our hands on the keys or strings.
> 
> Even writing a single minute of music requires hundreds if not thousands of decisions. They aren't making them, we are. Naturally, we work with our collaborators, but that doesn't mean, as I think you are suggesting, that our contributions are all directed by another to the point where our own ideas are merely rote.
> 
> Even when we get lengthy, specific instructions (which is not all that common, these days), we can surprise them with an idea that's bold or unexpected, that adds something meaningful to the rest of the production.
> 
> While one can scarcely argue against Ecclesiastes and other similar sentiments (nothing new under the sun), nevertheless what we do does matter to our audiences, I find, and to us personally.
> 
> Put another way, sometimes I feel that I stumble into a really good, somewhat surprising and daring idea, and when it succeeds like that, it's joyful and satisfying.


I think you misunderstood what I was trying to communicate. My post was strictly related to the question of whether John Williams has composed anything original. I am very familiar with the work and creative ability required to perform. This is what I would understand to be the expert craft of media composing. I also understand the associated satisfaction of an inspiring idea. I also know that many times that idea has been shot down by the director and it was back to the drawing board to bring to fruition an approach that was approved. All that I am saying is that it is the person who hired us that has the last word and not our self-satisfaction. 

When I started out, everything was done by hand. Composing, orchestrating, and copying the parts I had to do myself. No DAW, no virtual instruments, no midi. I had to design my own workflows to compose and produce to picture. If I did not perform the music on a multitrack machine and hire musicians that could play what I could this score was not going to be mixed and delivered. These were not big-budget productions. Although, the finished production sounded like it and I was able to get bigger and better projects with bigger budgets. I was being hired to other projects by word of mouth recommendations from such phrases as, "He gets the job done. He is easy to work with. He always delivers on time. His work for me won this award or that award." Never was I recommended because I was the most original composer they had ever worked with.

We would not still be in this business if we were not viewed as valuable talent to serve the project. My problem with this thread is that it seems to come from and is debated by an inflated & egotistical point of view. What you like, and what I like should not ridicule another composer's creative ability. Much less one as accomplished as John Williams. Let us build each other up, not tear one another down.


----------



## JohnG

I'm still not sure I understand what your thrust is, exactly. If you don't like the title of the thread and what it's insinuating, fair enough; I think a number of people feel the same.

But whether it's the Esterhazy family or some Archduke or a tv show-runner who's the boss, music costs a lot of money to put on properly so of course there are bosses. Some jobs we get a lot of latitude, some not too much. But I still find ways to enjoy the craft, as evidently you do too.


----------



## johnsrev

JohnG said:


> I'm still not sure I understand what your thrust is, exactly. If you don't like the title of the thread and what it's insinuating, fair enough; I think a number of people feel the same.
> 
> But whether it's the Esterhazy family or some Archduke or a tv show-runner who's the boss, music costs a lot of money to put on properly so of course there are bosses. Some jobs we get a lot of latitude, some not too much. But I still find ways to enjoy the craft, as evidently you do too.


Agreed.


----------



## PaulieDC

Jotto said:


> Has John Williams created anything original?
> ?


Click this link and listen with your eyes closed. You'll say "Oh yeah, that's Mozart". The actual composer was one of the few that Mozart publicly declared his admiration of. We don't steal... nahhhhh... we call it... getting influenced.

We're all in this together. Keep your stick on the ice...


----------



## johnsrev

PaulieDC said:


> Click this link and listen with your eyes closed. You'll say "Oh yeah, that's Mozart". The actual composer was one of the few that Mozart publicly declared his admiration of. We don't steal... nahhhhh... we call it... getting influenced.
> 
> We're all in this together. Keep your stick on the ice...


Amen!


----------



## South Thames

> Villains music as used in the movie is found in a cue called “Lex Luthor’s Lair”. Still completely wrong, I find
Click to expand...


Subjective of course, but I find the lumbering, somewhat clumsy villains' theme pretty perfect for Hackman's cartoonish Luthor and his idiot sidekick Otis, especially in that opening sequence in Grand Central - and I don't find it too 'interesting and self-absorbed'. I know a lot of people necessarily don't like the fact that the movie took the villians in that direction, but that's not Williams' fault.

We've discussed before your general lack of regard for most of the movies whose Williams scores you so admire; perhaps that's why you find yourself concentrating on the music to the exclusion of the film in some of them. This is not a widespread problem however.


----------



## ☻

Jotto said:


> Well.. i have listened to his music since 1977 and im NOT trying to degrade him as a film composer. One of the best. But.... i do not hear anything on his music that i have not heard before. Do you?? If so please tell me. Im just curious.


For one... the themes. He is a true genius in this respect.

Secondly, his sound really is his own. Yes, he was very stylistically influenced by people like Holst, Stravinsky, etc... but tell me who isn't influenced by the greats before them? JW wasn't a radical innovator of style, but who cares? Bach wasn't either, at all. Mozart barely... It's only one facet of any given composer's art. Nevertheless, give me one random selection by John Williams and I guarantee you I will not mistake it for Holst or anyone else (deliberate parodies don't count).

Nobody in the world but John could have written something like Hedwig's theme from Harry Potter, among countless other examples.

I think geniuses are given to the world at specific times for a reason. JW was not meant to be a radical innovator of harmony or form. His role was to elevate the artform of cinema through his colossal musical gift. I'd bet dollars to donuts that in 100 years he will be universally remembered as a great artist. As for such "radical innovators" as, say, John Cage and Pierre Boulez on the other hand... well... you can hold on to your donuts.


----------



## gussunkri

wonzo said:


> Nobody in the world but John could have written something like Hedwig's theme from Harry Potter, among countless other examples.


Not even Tchaikovsky?


----------



## MauroPantin

No offense to anyone but I think some of these takes are just hilarious. Like "Pfff! Wagner could have easily written something like that. UNORIGINAL, I SAY!". Imagine being criticized for getting "close-but-no-cigar" to some of the greatest composers in the history of music. A man can dream.


----------



## cygnusdei

wonzo said:


> For one... the themes. He is a true genius in this respect.
> 
> Secondly, his sound really is his own. Yes, he was very stylistically influenced by people like Holst, Stravinsky, etc... but tell me who isn't influenced by the greats before them? JW wasn't a radical innovator of style, but who cares? Bach wasn't either, at all. Mozart barely... It's only one facet of any given composer's art. Nevertheless, give me one random selection by John Williams and I guarantee you I will not mistake it for Holst or anyone else (deliberate parodies don't count).
> 
> Nobody in the world but John could have written something like Hedwig's theme from Harry Potter, among countless other examples.
> 
> I think geniuses are given to the world at specific times for a reason. JW was not meant to be a radical innovator of harmony or form. His role was to elevate the artform of cinema through his colossal musical gift. I'd bet dollars to donuts that in 100 years he will be universally remembered as a great artist. As for such "radical innovators" as, say, John Cage and Pierre Boulez on the other hand... well... you can hold on to your donuts.


Re: Hedwig's theme. Yeah that doesn't sit right with me either, but not for reasons you might think. Even if "nobody in the world" means JW's contemporary, how a composer chooses to write or not write is shaped by his own musical aesthetics or internal musical logic. So yeah, maybe nobody else in the world could have written Hedwig's theme because they choose not to.


----------



## PeterN

JohnG said:


> Originality is wildly overrated. People say that they prize originality but when they are confronted with it, much of the time, genuinely original art repels them.
> 
> Part of our responsibility as artists/craftsmen is choosing what rules we want to follow and which we reject (or "suspend" maybe). You can keep 99% of them and twist one little thing, or you can try throwing out all the rules at once. That's what we all do.



Words with several interpretations. And theres the word responsibility too - this sounds like a government representative from the arts bureau declaring official rules on art.

Maybe Im wrong, as its impossible to get the whole pie, but if you got 20 likes for that mishmash - like a vacuum cleaner salesman - you deserve one downvote too.


----------



## Alex Fraser

My first musical memory - _no lie_ - is flying the Kenner 'Falcon around my bedroom with my brother, listening to the Star Wars theme repeatedly pumping out on a mono cassette player.

These days little music moves me, but JW still has the power to make me blub even if the music comes from a dodgy YouTube video and broken iPhone speaker combo.

This is one of my fav performances. It's from a phone camera. The horn player is..well..just watch. But the reverence in the room when the audience works out who's actually behind the curtain gives me goosebumps every time. ❤️




As for the subject of the post, apologies if I'm not really contributing - it's not the sort of question I really give much consideration to. I spent years in music academia and it dampened my enthusiasm for talking about music in any real detail other than "did you enjoy it?"


----------



## cygnusdei

PeterN said:


> Words with several interpretations. And theres the word responsibility too - this sounds like a government representative from the arts bureau declaring official rules on art.
> 
> Maybe Im wrong, as its impossible to get the whole pie, but if you got 20 likes for that mishmash - like a vacuum cleaner salesman - you deserve one downvote too.


I think the OP made a big mistake in asking the question. The mistake is that he didn't put a simple yes/no poll to go with it


----------



## PeterN

cygnusdei said:


> I think the OP made a big mistake in asking the question. The mistake is that he didn't put a simple yes/no poll to go with it


I replied to John.

For example, when you say "Part of our responsibility as artists....", it indicates theres a set of responsibilities for artists. Then what the hell are the other parts of "our responsibilities as artists", if one part is "choosing the rules we want to follow".

I dont know howthat mishmash picked up 20 likes, but I suppose all the nice students gave the norm principal a kiss on the cheek or something.

The question if there are responsibilities for artists might be interesting of course. A moral principle inside myself says my line goes that I dont kill anyone - except in self defense maybe. Something like that - I dont know what other "responsibilities" someone can dictate from the ministry of arts. My fu.kin responsibility is to turn the official art ministry to ashes.

Edit. Or maybe I read it out of context - not sure? Was it meant to be part of our responsibility is not to steal and copy 100%? That would make more sense, when using the word responsibility. Brain is nor working anymore after 15 months of isolation. Maybe I shot myself in the foot. Not a big deal anyway - no intention to go back and analyse. Just something gave an allergic reaction - particularly a norm and someone declaring a set of artists responsibilities. Not that it would matter - apologies.


----------



## jononotbono

I can literally sing the whole Jurassic Park theme by memory and there is no other theme like it. If that isn’t the definition of something original in music, I have no idea what could be.


----------



## cygnusdei

jononotbono said:


> I can literally sing the whole Jurassic Park theme by memory and there is no other theme like it. If that isn’t the definition of something original in music, I have no idea what could be.


 I can sing the entire Happy Birthday To You, too, by memory!

(just messing with you man  )


----------



## jononotbono

cygnusdei said:


> I can sing the entire Happy Birthday To You, too, by memory!
> 
> (just messing with you man  )


Haha! And a fine example of something else that is completely original. Can you do the obligatory drunken adlibbed harmonies though (or is that just highly original out of tune singing by family members)?


----------



## cygnusdei

Has JW created anything original? (pick the response that suits you best):
1. Whatever do you mean by original?
2. Well, there are two schools of thought on that ...
3. Meh, who needs original.
4. You take that back. JW is the best composer evar!
5. You're banned.


----------



## Giovanni dall Camera

re-peat said:


> Furthermore, if there is any area in which Williams can be faulted — and I say this with the utmost humility and respect — it is precisely as a film composer. In my opinion, that is. Particularly during his heyday, he was on occasion simply too good for his own (and the film’s) good, when his talent, passion and inspiration seemed to get the better of him and he wrote music that was far too interesting and self-absorbed to still function optimally as a cue. Me, I thank the Gods of Music on my bare knees that that did happen because it gave us some fabulous good music, but it doesn’t change the fact that those scenes could have been served better by a composer who showed more restraint or who wrote less interesting music.
> One example: “The March Of The Villains” from “Superman”. A failure as a movie cue, I always felt (very distracting and ill-judged in its characterization as well, I believe), but simply divine as a piece of music. No one has ever out-Serged Prokofiev the way Williams does, with such staggering inspiration, confidence and skill, in this music.


These thoughts strike remarkably well my own dilemma in between two very different schools of thought: I really love the music of John Williams and his soundtracks are one of the very few I ever regularly listen to as music without the movie! That lead to great irritation watching those movies again after many years, noticing how much of the music is lost in the mix ... I realized, that the music of Hans Zimmer, which I would never listen to on its own, worked quite well in the picture. Almost nothing is lost - well, probably because there wasn't the same amount of detail there in the first place.

And that is causing the dilemma (at least to me): I would really want the greater composer to be my preferred choice of film music. But being objective, I can't help that the lesser compositions often resulted in the better finished product as a whole with the film, solely by being crafted with only its supporting role to the film in mind, neglecting any artistic ambition. That being said, wild horses couldn't drag me to a Zimmer concert. 

There are exceptions, of course, but mostly Williams shines during title sequences and operatic sequences where there is preferably nothing to get in the way of his masterful score.

So, yeah! John Williams should actually have written for the concert hall instead of the movies. In fact, if you look at classical concert programs today, you might think he really did! But you never know how it might have influenced his artistic development ... After all, what would Russian music from the 20th century have been without the oppression of the communist regime? As cynical as it might seem, Stalin may have been like a "dark muse" (well, a rather diabolical one, of course!!) to Shostakovichs output. Beethoven would not have written the same music without going deaf. And Williams might have been just that composer personality who flourished within exactly that corset of writing for the movies. Listening to Williams output intended for the concert hall, I get the feeling we might not have gotten all of that what makes him so unique ...


----------



## Ray Cole

I tend to think of originality in music as coming in three phases.

*PHASE 1: INTRODUCE THE IDEA*
In the first phase, the originator of the new idea uses it as the main focus in a work which, practically by definition, is an experimental work. The composer is introducing the idea to the world and trying to give a sense of some of the things that can be done with it. An example is Conlon Nancarrow's early _Studies for Player Piano_, which answer the question, what would it sound like if I wrote music with cross-rhythms too fast and complex for human players to play?

*PHASE 2: ADAPT SOMEONE ELSE'S IDEA TO YOUR OWN PURPOSES*
In the second phase, composers inspired by the original experimental pieces try to adapt the techniques to their own purposes. These works are often still somewhat experimental. An example would be Ligeti's _Etudes for Piano_, for which he acknowledges being inspired by Nancarrow's music but wanted find a way to allow human performers to play such complex polyrhythms.

*PHASE 3: USE THE IDEA LIKE YOU'D USE ANY OTHER ESTABLISHED IDEA*
In the final phase you have composers who've grown up with the once-experimental technique as an established fact so it is not really that experimental any more, and they use the technique as just one of the many tools in their toolbox. Their music is no longer so heavily focused on the technique and they just use it alongside others in music that often has more traditional values and is less overtly experimental. An example here would be Carl Vine's _Piano Sonata No. 1_, which makes use of cross-rhythms but is not solely about the cross-rhythms.

I see John Williams as a great assimilator of previously-developed techniques. His facility with a huge range of musical styles, including many that were once considered quite avant-garde, is astounding. And he has a tremendous ability to meld them together into a cohesive musical statement. It's already been pointed out how he assimilates techniques from Holst and Stravinsky, but in _Close Encounters_ he adopts techniques from Ligeti and Penderecki--not soundworlds normally associated with John Williams. The Star Wars and the Indiana Jones movies have passages that remind me of Schoenberg's _5 Pieces for Orchestra_; in _AI _he adapts the repetition of minimalism to his needs.

You might consider all of this to be "unoriginal" since the techniques were developed originally by others. But I'd argue that Williams's originality is a third-phase originality: it's in the way he combines past innovations.

NOTE: Edited to fix a couple of typos.


----------



## cygnusdei

Ray Cole said:


> I tend to think of originality in music as coming in three phases.
> 
> *PHASE 1: INTRODUCE THE IDEA*
> In the first phase, yhe originator of the new idea uses it as the main focus in a work which, practically by definition, is an experimental work. The composer is introducing the idea to the world and trying to give a sense of some of the things that can be done with it. An example is Conlon Nancarrow's early _Studies for Player Piano_, which answer the question, what would it sound like if I wrote music with cross-rhythms too fast and complex for human players to play?
> 
> *PHASE 2: ADAPT SOMEONE ELSE'S IDEA TO YOUR OWN PURPOSES*
> In the second phase, composers inspired by the original experimental pieces try to adapt the techniques to their own purposes. These works are often still somewhat experimental. An example would be Ligeti's _Etudes for Piano_, for which he acknowledges being inspired by Nancarrow's music but wanted find a way to allow human performers to play such complex polyrhythms.
> 
> *PHASE 3: USE THE IDEA LIKE YOU'D USE ANY OTHER ESTABLISHED IDEA*
> In the final phase you have composers who've grown up with the once-experimental technique as an established fact so it is not really that experimental any more, and they use the technique as just one of the many tools in their toolbox. Their music is no longer so heavily focused on the technique and they just use it alongside others in music that often has more traditional values and is less overtly experimental. An example here would be Carl Vine's _Piano Sonata No. 1_, which makes use of cross-rhythms but is not solely about the cross-rhythms.
> 
> I see John Williams as a great assimilator of previously-developed techniques. His facility with a huge range of musical styles, including many that were once considered quite avant-garde, is astounding. And he has a tremendous ability to meld them together into a cohesive musical statement. It's already been pointed out how he assimilates techniques from Holst and Stravinsky, but in _Close Encounters_ he adopts techniques from Ligeti and Penderecki--not soundworlds normally associated with John Williams. In Star Wars and the Indiana Jones movies have passages that remind me of Schoenberg's _5 Pieces for Orchestra_; in _AI _he adapts the repetition of minimalism to his needs.
> 
> You might consider all of this to be "unoriginal" since the techniques were developed originally by others. But I'd argue that Williams's originality is a third-phase originality: it's in the way he combines past innovations.


That sounds interesting. I don't know how this fits into your system (it probably doesn't). I never thought much about Erik Satie but as I got older and my perspectives evolved, I would say now that he did create something original with the _Gymnopédies _and _Gnossiennes_. It wasn't so much that he experimented with avant-garde ideas, complex rhythms or harmonies, it's just as if he opened a portal into another (musical) world altogether. The _Gymnopédie _no. 1 is not unlike a Chopin Nocturne in its meter and tempo, and there is nothing novel with the harmonies per se (plagal cadences, major seventh chords)_,_ but the meditative quality, the mood it conveys is wholly original, in the face of prevailing musical language at the time. It's as if the music merely presents the surface and there is something else entirely beyond it, a 'meta-ness' if you will, borrowing 21st century language. To me his music can be considered as the prototype of what later became the minimalist movement. And that's got to be something original.


----------



## Reid Rosefelt




----------



## Ray Cole

cygnusdei said:


> That sounds interesting. I don't know how this fits into your system (it probably doesn't). I never thought much about Erik Satie but as I got older and my perspectives evolved, I would say now that he did create something original with the _Gymnopédies _and _Gnossiennes_. It wasn't so much that he experimented with avant-garde ideas, complex rhythms or harmonies, it's just as if he opened a portal into another (musical) world altogether. The _Gymnopédie _no. 1 is not unlike a Chopin Nocturne in its meter and tempo, and there is nothing novel with the harmonies per se (plagal cadences, major seventh chords)_,_ but the meditative quality, the mood it conveys is wholly original, in the face of prevailing musical language at the time. It's as if the music merely presents the surface and there is something else entirely beyond it, a 'meta-ness' if you will, borrowing 21st century language. To me his music can be considered as the prototype of what later became the minimalist movement. And that's got to be something original.


I haven't studied the sheet music to the _Gymnopédies _or the Chopin Nocturnes, but I see what you mean about the connection between _Gymnopédie No. 1 _and the Nocturnes. In fact, if I hum the melody from _Gymnopédie No. 1_ and then the melody from Chopin's _Nocturne No. 1_ in B flat minor (Op. 9 No. 1), they seem very similar to me, a connection I'd never noticed before.

But I think you'd have to decide what musical elements or techniques lead to that particular mood that Satie achieves in the _Gymnopédies _in order to fit it into one of the innovation phases I described. Mood is not by itself a technique that other musicians can adapt to their needs, at least not until and unless they can figure out a musical method that reliably produces that mood.

In a way, Satie was doing the opposite of what Nancarrow was doing: where Nancarrow was exploring radical complexity in his music, Satie was exploring radical simplicity. Simplification can be just as powerful as complexification (is that a word?), but what was he simplifying down to? Was it because of the elements he chose to keep that his music has that ultra-chill mood, or is there something specifically about the voicings, the dynamics, the...??? I just don't know what the musical source of the mood is, so it is hard for me to evaluate whether that source is "original" to Satie or not, and if so to what degree.


----------



## cygnusdei

Ray Cole said:


> I haven't studied the sheet music to the _Gymnopédies _or the Chopin Nocturnes, but I see what you mean about the connection between _Gymnopédie No. 1 _and the Nocturnes. In fact, if I hum the melody from _Gymnopédie No. 1_ and then the melody from Chopin's _Nocturne No. 1_ in B flat minor (Op. 9 No. 1), they seem very similar to me, a connection I'd never noticed before.
> 
> But I think you'd have to decide what musical elements or techniques lead to that particular mood that Satie achieves in the _Gymnopédies _in order to fit it into one of the innovation phases I described. Mood is not by itself a technique that other musicians can adapt to their needs, at least not until and unless they can figure out a musical method that reliably produces that mood.
> 
> In a way, Satie was doing the opposite of what Nancarrow was doing: where Nancarrow was exploring radical complexity in his music, Satie was exploring radical simplicity. Simplification can be just as powerful as complexification (is that a word?), but what was he simplifying down to? Was it because of the elements he chose to keep that his music has that ultra-chill mood, or is there something specifically about the voicings, the dynamics, the...??? I just don't know what the musical source of the mood is, so it is hard for me to evaluate whether that source is "original" to Satie or not, and if so to what degree.


I don't know if Satie has been dissected before, seeing as he's not a major figure the way Schoenberg was, for example. But I suspect his music would elude conventional musical analysis. The closest metaphor I can think of would be that if music of other composers were framed paintings in a gallery, Satie's would be a framed window through which one can see what lies beyond.


----------



## Dave Connor

cygnusdei said:


> I don't know if Satie has been dissected before, seeing as he's not a major figure the way Schoenberg was, for example. But I suspect his music would elude conventional musical analysis. The closest metaphor I can think of would be that if music of other composers were framed paintings in a gallery, Satie's would be a framed window through which one can see what lies beyond.


Schoenberg is a major figure the way only one other was: Stravinsky. So there’s only two people in that club. Satie certainly was a major _influence_ in his time and really captured the imagination of the important composers of that day. He brought a sort of Pop sensibility that was stripped down compared to so many years of the extremes of Romanticism. He was a big deal; much talked about and admired.

When I first heard his Gymnopedies on a Blood Sweat and Tears album, I thought is was another album cut written by the band.

EDIT: To clarify: I’m not saying Schoenberg and Stravinsky are the two _greatest_ composers of the last century and that’s the club they’re in. But the two most _important. _A long-held historic view of the two leaders of the two main schools: Atonal and Tonal. Someone may indeed consider Satie or _anyone_ the greatest as a matter of preference. (Satie is in fact assigned a unique importance but still falls under one of the two larger headings as _Tonal.)_


----------



## cygnusdei

Dave Connor said:


> Schoenberg is a major figure the way only one other was: Stravinsky. So there’s only two people in that club. Satie certainly was a major _influence_ in his time and really captured the imagination of the important composers of that day. He brought a sort of Pop sensibility that was stripped down compared to so many years of the extremes of Romanticism. He was a big deal; much talked about and admired.
> 
> When I first heard his Gymnopedies on a Blood Sweat and Tears album, I thought is was another album cut written by the band.
> 
> EDIT: To clarify: I’m not saying Schoenberg and Stravinsky are the two _greatest_ composers of the last century and that’s the club they’re in. But the two most _important. _A long-held historic view of the two leaders of the two main schools: Atonal and Tonal. Someone may indeed consider Satie or _anyone_ the greatest as a matter of preference. (Satie is in fact assigned a unique importance but still falls under one of the two larger headings as _Tonal.)_


There's no denying that the twelve-tone system was original, if for no other reason that it was instantly copied, adopted and further cultivated by other composers. It's entirely not unlike a few years ago when practically everyone on VI-C wanted to write 'epic' music . But when something 'original' manages to rise to such vogue, it becomes a commodity, i.e. composers adopt it not necessarily because it captures their aesthetic imagination, but because there's a supply and demand equation to it. But I digress.


----------



## Living Fossil

Dave Connor said:


> Schoenberg is a major figure the way only one other was: Stravinsky. So there’s only two people in that club.



Bartók definitely is a member of that club too...


----------



## Dave Connor

Living Fossil said:


> Bartók definitely is a member of that club too...


If you see my edit than you can see why he isn’t in the club that I defined. He is essentially his own school I admit. But not the sort of spiritual leader huge swaths of composers identified as representative of the camp they saw themselves in. Perhaps a bit silly in retrospect but a genuine phenomenon in its day.


----------



## Dave Connor

cygnusdei said:


> There's no denying that the twelve-tone system was original, if for no other reason that it was instantly copied, adopted and further cultivated by other composers. It's entirely not unlike a few years ago when practically everyone on VI-C wanted to write 'epic' music . But when something 'original' manages to rise to such vogue, it becomes a commodity, i.e. composers adopt it not necessarily because it captures their aesthetic imagination, but because there's a supply and demand equation to it. But I digress.


There were many_ true believers_ as you know. I’m sure there were also many who got swept up in the revolution - so to speak - who’s heart may have not been in it. I am endlessly appreciative of twelve tone icon Milton Babbit telling his student Stephan Sondheim, _You’re not done with the tonal system. _That was history changing advice that showed how genuine the atonal approach was but not thought of as _the only way_ to the exclusion of tonality.


----------



## Living Fossil

Dave Connor said:


> If you see my edit than you can see why he isn’t in the club that I defined. He is essentially his own school I admit. But not the sort of spiritual leader huge swaths of composers identified as representative of the camp they saw themselves in. Perhaps a bit silly in retrospect but a genuine phenomenon in its day.


Dave, i guess this is a semi-historical point of view, at least from my (European) perspective. 
Some time ago, there were 4 "pre-WW2 giants": Schönberg, Stravinsky, Bartók, Hindemith.
With the Darmstadt-school becoming the canon of contemporary music (again: in Europe), Hindemith completly vanished from this club. OTOH, Anton Webern was seen more and more as the "spiritual father" of atonal music (rather than Schoenberg, who always maintained a very traditional approach in his thematical and formal language).

And i agree with you that Bartók's influence is far from being as big as one should expect.
(however, almost every composer [in Europe] who plays the piano came across the Mikrokosmos at some point and was influenced by it.)

But then again: what do most people really know about Schoenberg? I see people in this forum referring to his music as "serial" all the time (his music never was serial). Personally, i think Schoenberg was an excellent tonal composer and an excellent composer in a free atonal language. As a composer of twelvetone music, not that much. (Berg and Webern, among others, mastered this discipline much better.)

p.s. for those, you aren't very familiar with Bartók's music, here are two links with his music:
(i don't know if these are good recordings, but both have the score included)

EDIT: the 3rd movement of the first link at 14.35 is quite famous due to its use in "The Shining".


----------



## cygnusdei

Dave Connor said:


> There were many_ true believers_ as you know. I’m sure there were also many who got swept up in the revolution - so to speak - who’s heart may have not been in it. I am endlessly appreciative of twelve tone icon Milton Babbit telling his student Stephan Sondheim, _You’re not done with the tonal system. _That was history changing advice that showed how genuine the atonal approach was but not thought of as _the only way_ to the exclusion of tonality.


Here is an interesting commentary from 1990 - and to think that now we have 31 years of extra musical legacy in our favor. What a time to live, for us even the "20th century" is _last _century!









End of Road for Serialism?


Schoenberg's legacy - under fire of late - is proving its merit in the concert hall. MUSIC: COMMENTARY




www.csmonitor.com


----------



## Dave Connor

Living Fossil said:


> Dave, i guess this is a semi-historical point of view, at least from my (European) perspective.
> Some time ago, there were 4 "pre-WW2 giants": Schönberg, Stravinsky, Bartók, Hindemith.
> With the Darmstadt-school becoming the canon of contemporary music (again: in Europe), Hindemith completly vanished from this club. OTOH, Anton Webern was seen more and more as the "spiritual father" of atonal music (rather than Schoenberg, who always maintained a very traditional approach in his thematical and formal language).
> 
> And i agree with you that Bartók's influence is far from being as big as one should expect.
> (however, almost every composer [in Europe] who plays the piano came across the Mikrokosmos at some point and was influenced by it.)
> 
> But then again: what do most people really know about Schoenberg? I see people in this forum referring to his music as "serial" all the time (his music never was serial). Personally, i think Schoenberg was an excellent tonal composer and an excellent composer in a free atonal language. As a composer of twelvetone music, not that much. (Berg and Webern, among others, mastered this discipline much better.)
> 
> p.s. for those, you aren't very familiar with Bartók's music, here are two links with his music:
> (i don't know if these are good recordings, but both have the score included)
> 
> EDIT: the 3rd movement of the first link at 14.35 is quite famous due to its use in "The Shining".



I suppose I’m not making a particularly fine point. It’s general in the extreme in that there were two main camps in the 20th century. Which really means that a _new camp _was introduced - by Schoenberg indisputably. Which is why he remains in that perch.

In the case of Webern (who as you say became a guiding light to 12 tone and serialist composers) he is the progeny of Schoenberg along with Berg. Two fantastically original composers or branches from the same source. Both may have fathered others but you get my basic point I’m sure.

Bartok of course is hugely important and also had very important spiritual sons (including Jerry Goldsmith.) You and I seem to agree that he is not a pillar in the manner of Stravinsky or Schoenberg which as I said, is only the most general of classifications.


----------

