# Things in JW scores that do not make sense



## Stephen Limbaugh (Mar 10, 2021)

There are obvious, stylistic uses for parallel motion of 5ths/octaves. However, there are lots of places in William's scores that in one bar adhere to perfect voice leading, and then in the next bar, out of context, parallel 5ths/octaves rub strangely.

_The Empire Strikes Back _astroid chase scene has stylistic parallel motion here that sounds rad:
View attachment 46197


Yet later after this figure ends and the big brass chords enter, there are no parallel 5ths/octaves...
View attachment 46198


...until these two chords:
View attachment 46199


The question is, why do this:
View attachment 46200


...when JW could just as easily do this:
View attachment 46201



It would sound *really* full the second way, and the only rationale seems to be that those low 5ths by themselves make a very "brassy" harmonically rich sound. Though, it weakens the overall impact (compared to different voice leading) in the rest of the orchestra and frequency range. In addition, low brass/strings never move like this in the classical masterpieces (Wagner, Mahler, Tchaikovsky, etc).

What's going on here?


----------



## Gene Pool (Mar 10, 2021)

One can only speculate, but low density brass voicings are pretty common in film scores because of their thickness/darkness/weight, et cetera.

Putting Tbn. III on the 5th rather than the naturally strong root _does_ help put the emphasis of the voicing on the melody note of E, so he may have been trying to avoid the resonance of a standard major chord voicing. But again that's somewhat speculative.

In addition to that or instead of that, a more certain probability is that it was a setup, which you can only see in the context of the rest of the orchestration. On the fourth beat of that first C-major bar, the timpani play four 16ths on G2, followed by a hit on C3, that C3 being absent from the brass. So I'd say he wanted to leave a hole there in the resonance for the timpani to fill, since it's such a perfect touch, and nothing else is going on with the heavy instruments when the timps do their thing.

Also, I'm not sure where you're getting the notes, but in the third screenshot, first bar, fourth beat, the Ab's in the melody should go down to a G. And in the last bar of that same example, on the fourth beat, the trumpets start _on_ the beat, and play the sweep in 16ths.


----------



## youngpokie (Mar 10, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> _The Empire Strikes Back _astroid chase scene has stylistic parallel motion here that sounds rad:
> View attachment 46197


This looks more like a simple ornamental figuration in the upper voice that was then doubled at lower voices...


----------



## AlexRuger (Mar 10, 2021)

I very literally never consciously think about voice leading or whether I'm using parallel 5ths. I haven't since counterpoint in college.

We're writing for dramatic effect here. If the less "correct" voicing has more appropriate dramatic effect, then it's correct. Especially in a film like Star Wars -- very often big intervalic jumps = big dramatic effect.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Mar 10, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> This looks more like a simple ornamental figuration in the upper voice that was then doubled at lower voices...


It's an ostinato with an angular melody in violins/xylophone. Also doubled in horns for breathing purposes apparently, then moves to trumpets later on.




AlexRuger said:


> Especially in a film like Star Wars -- very often big intervalic jumps = big dramatic effect.


But it's only a whole step down? I would totally dig it if it were some immediate modal jump, but that's not the case here.




Gene Pool said:


> I'd say he wanted to leave a hole there in the resonance for the timpani to fill,


Makes sense, though there still would be options to leave that whole open? (C2, E3, G3, C4)



Re all, 
Hell, what if it's just a mistake?


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Mar 10, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> Also, I'm not sure where you're getting the notes,


It's one of these film "scoring" kids on Youtube... horrible source admittedly. But I am fairly certain those lower brass parts are accurate except the rhythm (there's an 8th note, not a rest on the & of the 4th beat in the measure in question).


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 10, 2021)

Often times parallelism is the idea. It’s a particular sound and hardly an issue to the average listener. So whereas in earlier eras one would want to alleviate it, in another era one deliberately emphasizes it. To answer the _why _question.


----------



## Gene Pool (Mar 10, 2021)

Stephen, I looked at my hard-to-read copy of the original orchestration (have to use a magnifying glass actually) and I've posted what it shows at the bottom. Trumpets are red (top trumpet note is a2), horns are green, trombones are purple, and tuba is blue. The small stave above the trumpets appears to have been an option or a write-in.

Anyway, as you can see in the brass voicing, the only C for the first two beats is the tuba. There's a big void of C's there, and the timpani figure fills the pocket since the area was all cleared out.

As for the fifths and the voice-leading, JW loves the effect of planing and hang voicings and he turns on a dime to fit the need of the moment. The bar after the last bar of your second example planes down to a chromatic mediant, the C-major chord, which is a tried and true effect.

Anyway, here's what I have of the original for those two bars. Sometimes podium changes are written in and sometimes not. I haven't heard this fantastic cue in a long time so I can't say.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Mar 12, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> As for the fifths and the voice-leading, JW loves the effect of planing and hang voicings and he turns on a dime to fit the need of the moment. The bar after the last bar of your second example planes down to a chromatic mediant, the C-major chord, which is a tried and true effect.


Mr. Pool, can you expand on this? The missing Cs makes sense, for that timpani "hole" but the above is a little unclear. Dmaj to Cmaj chromatic mediant?


----------



## Gene Pool (Mar 12, 2021)

Okay, I found the source you're using on YT. So the last bar of your second example is bar 98 on the video, which is the Eb-major chord bar, followed by bar 99 (the bar after the last bar of your second example), which goes down to the lower minor-3rd chromatic mediant, C-major. So, he planes those big root-position major triads, sounds great. (BTW, that same pairing relationship voice-led a different way is a common H-wood cliche for "the big reveal.")

Before you study this score much more you might wanna check everything against your ear, because there appears to be the odd mistake here and there. He didn't mark courtesy accidentals for the E-natural on that C-major chord that follows the Eb-major. In that same bar in the bass clef of the braced grand-staff, for some reason he notated a min-3rd down in the pits of hell, and to make matters worse is that the bottom of it is an errant A1. What it should be down there is Dbs. (in quarters) and Tuba on C2, and Tbn. III on C3.

There's also that melody note I mentioned (beat 4 of bar 100) which should be a G instead of an Ab, and the incorrect 32nds for trumpets (bar 104) that oughta be 16ths.


----------



## Loïc D (Mar 12, 2021)

As a former guitarist in a punk band, I knew nothing but parallel fifth. We call it power chord. Because we like power. And cords. I guess...


----------



## JohannesR (Mar 12, 2021)

Lotsa curiosities in JW scores, most of them brilliant. Remember he is a pianist with a strong background in jazz, so every now and then there are no explanation other than “it’s his hands!“ It’s good to have in the back of the head when (over) analyzing his scores.


----------



## Consona (Mar 12, 2021)

Have this on your mind whenever you read a Williams' score:

Afaik he composes free-form style, i.e. he doesn't give a damn about parallel whatever and whatnot. He has spent countless hours at the piano, trying every tonal variation possible. He does not compose by theory, but by experience.

He has composed so many orchestral pieces that he knows what will sound the way he wants it to sound. He does not compose by theory, but by experience.


----------



## José Herring (Mar 12, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> There are obvious, stylistic uses for parallel motion of 5ths/octaves. However, there are lots of places in William's scores that in one bar adhere to perfect voice leading, and then in the next bar, out of context, parallel 5ths/octaves rub strangely.
> 
> _The Empire Strikes Back _astroid chase scene has stylistic parallel motion here that sounds rad:
> View attachment 46197
> ...



It really depends on what you are trying to achieve. If you are doing chord mass writing like Beethoven then the idea is to get a quick successions of chords. In the case of people like Ravel and Stravinsky it doesn't even matter if the chords are in the same key or not. If you are doing choir style writing like a brass choir then the slowness of the movement calls attention to proper voice leading. 

Chord mass writing is typical keyboard style writing where you would have a melody and chords accompanying, and choir writing is of course typical of vocals so the rules of counter point come into play as that is what counterpoint was intended for--church choir and organ.


----------



## tonaliszt (Mar 12, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> The question is, why do this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't forget that he had a lot of jazz experience too! Your version doubles the root in both chords, which extremely common in western tonal practice, but rather frowned upon in jazz (or at least not the default).


----------



## brek (Mar 12, 2021)

I think that he changed to parallel 5ths at this particular moment is what's interesting. It's not some haphazard shift in the voice leading in the middle of a phrase - it happens at the "resolution" of the phrase. These two measures feel like a moment of repose between the flurry of activity before and after, so the parallel motion helps close the phrase and "sell" the momentary change of scereny.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Mar 12, 2021)

Check this...



Alternate options written based on:

Nothing significant is happening on screen during this moment.
Gene's idea about leaving a "hole" on C3 (see above).
Tenor trombones and bass trombones do *not* equal tuba in terms of color/power.
Trumpets in pretty bright area of their range, which can be better matched if bones are higher (if that's the goal).
Williams _may_ have wanted a dense lower part of the spectrum, but there were other options to make it even "beefier" (if that was the goal).
Williams _may_ have wanted a sound that had more punchy power to it, but there were other options to get more power by bass trombone/tuba relationship, and sticking the tenor bones higher (if that was the goal).
Conrad Pope (William's orchestrator) once found an errant parallel octave between a countermelody and inner voice I wrote and insisted that such a thing would hurt the richness of the passage. It was an item to be corrected in music that is supposed to sound rich.
Starwars is not a jazz score.


To my ears, the worst sounding option is the original.

In working through options in my own music, even if something sounds "good" it is worth investigating if there is a _better_ sounding option. In looking at Williams scores, if there is a better option than what made it to theaters, it is definitely something from which to learn.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 12, 2021)

Consona said:


> Have this on your mind whenever you read a Williams' score:
> 
> Afaik he composes free-form style, i.e. he doesn't give a damn about parallel whatever and whatnot. He has spent countless hours at the piano, trying every tonal variation possible. He does not compose by theory, but by experience.
> 
> He has composed so many orchestral pieces that he knows what will sound the way he wants it to sound. He does not compose by theory, but by experience.


That’s basically true about countless experienced composers. To think John Williams doesn’t understand or care about employing certain musical devices, harmonies, modes for musical or psychological effect (i.e. has catalogued them in his musical vocabulary and easily able to name their theoretical basis or properties - the same as he could name any Jazz chord voicing - seems an odd assumption. Of course he can. If his process is largely unconscious, that again is quite common and the goal of most composers. But the conscious is not depleted by that ability and no doubt relied upon while understanding and able to describe music in theoretical, psychological and many other terms.


----------



## Gene Pool (Mar 12, 2021)

Stephen, your last paragraph is spot on. I understood the nature of your inquiry.

Let me clarify a little bit of the orchestration. Besides the woodwinds filigree JW trademark, the melody is, per your notation, Vlns. I & II col 8va , 2 trumpets and violas col unison, 1 trumpet and cellos col 8vb. So, pretty saturated. Then the horns and heavy brass are doing chord duty, along with the basses who are doing quarters on the bass note, typically in unison with the tuba.

Each of the options in your video are pretty much fine in and of themselves depending on the effect you'd be looking for. I find it easier to make these types of comparisons without piano or playback so I can instead imagine the colors of the instruments and their natural balances and effect. Anyway, numbering the bars in your video as bars 1—3, my take is:

Option 1 — Maybe the most viable of the alternates. Though without the chord 5th in bars 2 & 3, it sounds a little gappy down there, especially bar 3, and without the harmonic support of the bass trombone's G2, you'd have an overbalanced E when using the real instruments and full scoring, which already has three trumpets, a horn, and all the strings except the basses.

Option 2 — It's okay, but trombones might be voiced a bit bright with respect to his desired very strong emphasis on the melody, plus which the sudden unison coupling of the bright trombone E4 with the melody E at bar 3, which, with its already saturated scoring again gives you an even more overbalanced E than Option 1, since that trombone E really pops out.

Option 3 — Similar comments to 1 and 2. No chord 5th harmonic support, and another over-strong E.

Option 4 — Bottom heavy.

So, my Goldilocks take is that I still prefer the JW solution, but since it's music it really just comes down to personal preference. Looks to me like JW was more interested in planing here, at the end of the phrase, more so than any other consideration, which is why I mentioned in my previous posts that he had done the same thing with bars 98–99, bar 98 being the last bar of your second example (which I actually should have called "screenshot" to avoid the confusion as to what I was referencing; I meant the second screenshot graphic.).

In other words, he ended both phrases by planing major chords, which turns the voice-leading off, essentially, for the effect of it. (You probably recall Ravel's version of it in Bolero, spaced like the harmonic series.) His low brass voicings never get muddy, but they are full. And they never get too bright since he keeps the trombones in their neutral zone.

P.S. I don't know how I feel about having my "orchestration hole" being filled five times in one video.


----------



## Dr. Shagwell (Mar 13, 2021)

I have a hypothesis to explain the decision-making, but first, we should make sure the scores we are looking at are correct. 

Like others, I have the handwritten version of the score, and there seem to be differences between what is being asked about and the original version. The trombones do not have a rest, and there is a position shift. Also, the melody has the 8th rest and goes up a 7th (F# to E), not down a second.


This is the version I have:


----------



## Gene Pool (Mar 13, 2021)

@Dr. Shagwell, you have the original JW sketch score. Yours is mercifully easy to read. I have a second generation copy of one of the booth copies of the full score, so it's on 8.5 x 14 paper, reduced to about 70% the original. My real world stave size is 3.5mm. The differences between the full score and the sketch score will be negligible, though there are some.

As for the melody profile, I regard the heard profile, the trumpets, as the intended one. The violins are the same as trumpets 1&2 there, with the sole exception that the third trumpet jumps up an octave to play the F# in unison with the first two trumpets to avoid having to play F#3. Then when the trumpets 1&2 leap up to the E, trumpet 3 doubles them an octave lower again.


----------



## ed buller (Mar 13, 2021)

JohannesR said:


> Lotsa curiosities in JW scores, most of them brilliant. Remember he is a pianist with a strong background in jazz, so every now and then there are no explanation other than “it’s his hands!“ It’s good to have in the back of the head when (over) analyzing his scores.


Yes..this point was made emphatic when I was lucky enough to be working on a film with Conrad Pope and got a chance to pick his brains......He said just this. "he's a jazz pianists and his fingers wander!"


also very obvious but ALL of JW's scores are transposed scores. Not Sketches though.

best

ed


----------



## Consona (Mar 13, 2021)

Dave Connor said:


> To think John Williams doesn’t understand


----------



## Dr. Shagwell (Mar 13, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> The differences between the full score and the sketch score will be negligible, though there are some.



Thanks, Gene Pool for your comment. Interesting to read your comment about the booth copy.

I am certainly no John Williams authority and do not know the piece in question. 

I looked it up out of interest from the original question and unless my eyes are wrong the original voice leading was never correct in the questioners first post. Do not the trombones drop to D and F# and move up to E and G? 







The original question had the voice-leading 50% correct unless it was changed at a later time for some mysterious reason.








If the original sketch is correct it answers one of the questions posed.
He did avoid the parallel octaves. (5ths were never as frowned upon as octaves btw)


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 13, 2021)

Consona said:


> he doesn't give a damn about parallel whatever and whatnot.


On a thread about his common use of parallel whatnots. He loves to use them, somehow only composer on planet that doesn’t think about what they actually are.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Mar 13, 2021)

Dr. Shagwell said:


> He did avoid the parallel octaves.


Worth noting that Pope’s correction to one of my scores was a parallel octave, not a 5th. 🤙🧙‍♂️

(...more to say on al this later but this is a fascinating discussion and my sincerest thanks to everyone for participating!)

EDIT: this is not correct... see https://vi-control.net/community/th...es-that-do-not-make-sense.106846/post-4784076


----------



## Gene Pool (Mar 13, 2021)

Dr. Shagwell said:


> The original question had the voice-leading 50% correct unless it was changed at a later time for some mysterious reason.


It wasn't changed later. I'm guessing the YT source was transcribed, maybe, in which case he did pretty well, but there are mistakes, obviously. I've no time to notate anything else, but I'll do a scan in a bit and you can see that the part you're talking about is the same as the sketch score.


----------



## rnb_2 (Mar 13, 2021)

I'm sure that, like many people (particularly members of a certain age here), I was introduced to the power of orchestral music via the Star Wars soundtrack in 1977 (along with a bit of Looney Tunes ). I can't comment on anything about this piece from a technical perspective — I had one semester of music theory in college, 30+ years ago — but as soon as you said "Asteroid", I started hearing the piece in my head, beginning to end (having not heard it in several months, at a minimum). The whole of the "Empire Strikes Back" soundtrack was formative for me (I was 13, and it stuck in my brain the way things do at that age), but if I had to pick one piece over all others, it would be "The Asteroid Field". Listening to it can still give me chills, over 40 years after I first heard it.

Tangentially, for anybody who wants to hear a deep dive into the original Star Wars soundtracks, as well as a couple other JW scores, I can't recommend David W. Collins' "The Soundtrack Show" Podcast highly enough (you can also get it through your podcast player of choice, of course). He does multi-episode looks at all three original Star Wars films, along with "Raiders of the Lost Ark", "Jurassic Park", and some lesser-known JW soundtracks. He's also looked at "The Lord of the Rings" soundtracks, "Tron", and several other films, as well as some video game and TV scores more recently.


----------



## Gene Pool (Mar 13, 2021)

Had to splice:


----------



## Gene Pool (Mar 13, 2021)

Had to splice. The only interruption to the melodic profile is indicated with the barely discernible downward flag added to the F#4 on the last 8th of the second bar on the top trumpet stave, which was their in-house shorthand for telling the copyist to have trumpet 3 play the F#4 in unison with the first two trumpets to avoid having to play the F#3. But they divide into octaves again when the top two trumpets leap up to the E5.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Mar 13, 2021)

So for clarity... this is the melody? Bars (in this picture) 2 to 3, and 6 to 7, featuring that 7th leap.






Another curiosity, is that in Shagwell's and Gene's example scores, there are parallel octaves going from trombone 1 and bass trombone in bar 100 to 101. So even with the shift (and disproving my speculation that 5ths were ok but octaves bad) there is parallel motion all over the place, not just in the measure in question and it's restatement that takes place later.






With that 7th leap, and the "permission" of the shift on the & of that 4th beat, that frees the accompaniment to make moves like this. Sounds pretty solid to me.







I am two mouse clicks away from just hiring a some low brass guys to play all this shit so I can judge what _really is_ better... 😂


----------



## Gene Pool (Mar 13, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> So for clarity... this is the melody? Bars (in this picture) 2 to 3, and 6 to 7, featuring that 7th leap.


Yes.

Do instances of planing all over JW's scores stick out to you, or is it just this excerpt. And is this something you heard first and it stuck out to you, or did you only notice it after you started looking at the music. The reason I ask is that JW's deliberate use of this technique is a lot more in-your-face in many other places (close-voiced, root position, strict planing) for example, like you find in _Rescue of the Princess_ from SW, whereas in the excerpts you posted some of the planing is the non-strict type, and they're all in spaced voicings.

Also, the octaves you pointed out just now are chromatic parallel octaves, not the minor second kind, which have a little bit different of an effect, plus which the tritone progression has such a strong effect the parallelism doesn't really draw attention to itself to my ears. Compare it to the really blatant root position tritone progression in _Symphonie Fantastique_.

As a top-tier pianist I'm sure you've come across the masked parallel octaves (not octave doublings) Beethoven wrote in some of his piano music, which Brahms put in his little notebook.

Have you tried making a condensed score of all the brass instruments rather than just a playable piano score? Your video from yesterday didn't reflect the trumpet III doubling, nor the horns as part of the voicing.

Anyway, good luck in your quest.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Mar 13, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> is this something you heard first and it stuck out to you, or did you only notice it after you started looking at the music.


You know what it is? When I listen to some concert versions of JW scores, like this one here, there are passages that just sound off.

"Throne Room" @ 1:13:45



So in spare time, I flip through youtube to figure out why some Starwars stuff, or some parts of Jurassic Park, hit me wrong. I never played an orchestra version of a JW score, but I did a couple concert band arrangements back in Jr. high school and never liked them.

I flipped through the Ravel you suggested earlier, one because I hadn't listened to it in a while, but to see if there were JW-comparable motion, and interestingly there isn't any that I could find at the surprise mediant jump.





(Trumpet/violin top note is doubled in the bottom... to me at first it kinda looked like parallel 5ths)

The _really_ cool parts to me in the Ravel are things like this:





Obviously this is parallel 5ths used as an effect... just like that organ-y thing earlier. Reminds me of Puccini when slowed down! But for whatever reason, when non-effect-driven parallel 5ths/octaves happens in a passage like the Asteroid Field, the Jurassic Park theme, or a handful of other places in JW scores, it sounds a little weaker than a similarly-orchestrated Mahler or Tchaikovsky symphony.



Gene Pool said:


> plus which the tritone progression has such a strong effect the parallelism doesn't really draw attention to itself to my ears.


This is why I missed it in my initial musings! Didn't draw attention to mine either.


----------



## Duncan Krummel (Mar 13, 2021)

It's worth keeping in mind that Music Theory™ is descriptive, not prescriptive (well, not unless you choose to make it so). To think that avoidance of parallel 5ths/8ths is somehow a universal, or even necessary, part of music is to ignore most music outside of the traditions of Western music from around the 1720s onwards.

This avoidance comes from species counterpoint, which, while great, is only one way of thinking about music. I so often read beginners grappling with trying to understand why the music they love fails to fit the rules they've been told, and it really comes down to the fact that - to many great, successful composers - there aren't any rules, only guidelines, and some really aren't worth breaking a sweat over.


----------



## Gene Pool (Mar 13, 2021)

Duncan Krummel said:


> It's worth keeping in mind that Music Theory™ is descriptive, not prescriptive (well, not unless you choose to make it so). To think that avoidance of parallel 5ths/8ths is somehow a universal, or even necessary, part of music is to ignore most music outside of the traditions of Western music from around the 1720s onwards.
> 
> This avoidance comes from species counterpoint, which, while great, is only one way of thinking about music. I so often read beginners grappling with trying to understand why the music they love fails to fit the rules they've been told, and it really comes down to the fact that - to many great, successful composers - there aren't any rules, only guidelines, and some really aren't worth breaking a sweat over.


Yes, this is all understood. He's trying to figure out why these instances are sticking out to him when he hears it certain contexts and what he would do to make it sound like he would prefer.


----------



## Gene Pool (Mar 13, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> You know what it is? When I listen to some concert versions of JW scores, like this one here, there are passages that just sound off.


Okay, got it. It appears to be that when you hear it in a context of otherwise more or less straightforward voice-leading, the turn on a dime from one mode of writing to another seems discontinuous.

Regarding the Ravel, it wasn't regarding anything other than the "overtone doubling" passage starting at bar 149, with the horn and piccolos. But now I understand that wouldn't have been relevant anyway since what's bothering you mostly is when these things pop up within another context of writing.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Mar 13, 2021)

Yes to what Gene said, and also, aiming to create works of art that are highly resistant to subjectivity relies on a different set of premises. ...but that's a conversation I'd like to avoid here if possible.

Trust me, on the advice of bad teachers/peers, I wasted a lot of years making choices based on what I thought "sounded good." So I am really, really interested in living artistically in the Western musical tradition.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Mar 13, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> what's bothering you mostly is when these things happening in pop up within another context of writing.


YES! Exactly.


----------



## Dr. Shagwell (Mar 13, 2021)

I do not wish to cause a "too many cooks in the kitchen" syndrome. 

What I think (assuming there were no mistakes) the reason for the difference is "Hollywood" scores put more emphasis/importance on the tessitura of the instruments vs. voice leading. 

It's true you would never see the parallel octaves from 100 to 101. In fact even more shocking would have been the augmented 2nd back in the day.


If you consider the Bass Trombone as a bass instrument and the tenor trombone as a tenor then I think a defense of the Williams choice emerges. ***

If the tenors are shown in Tenor clef (like the Ravel), and Bass Trombone in Bass clef we can see that they sit in the same range.







Additionally, and I may be wrong, but on a first scan, I don't see any of the trombones moving more than 2 positions away from each note. (The higher A grabbed in VI and F# in V)

Moving the Bass trombone up to the C, following the A, would create this:






and most importantly the only option (moving from A to C in this register) would be moving from the 2nd position to the 6th. **






These details when recording large amounts of music and long session can help.

Thus, these types of issues most likely took precedence over the voiceleading.
It's a "barter" if you will.

** I am not a trombone player, so if there is a professional one who sees an error in my understanding of the positions let me know.

*** ( I know this is not how the trombone actually evolved, but let's consider that outside the scope of this question)


----------



## GNP (Mar 13, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> There are obvious, stylistic uses for parallel motion of 5ths/octaves. However, there are lots of places in William's scores that in one bar adhere to perfect voice leading, and then in the next bar, out of context, parallel 5ths/octaves rub strangely.
> 
> _The Empire Strikes Back _astroid chase scene has stylistic parallel motion here that sounds rad:
> View attachment 46197
> ...


He simply did what he liked. He broke the rules in his own way. That's about it, really.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Mar 14, 2021)

Dr. Shagwell said:


> What I think (assuming there were no mistakes) the reason for the difference is "Hollywood" scores put more emphasis/importance on the tessitura of the instruments vs. voice leading.
> [...]
> Thus, these types of issues most likely took precedence over the voiceleading.
> It's a "barter" if you will.



This makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Mar 14, 2021)

Dr. Shagwell said:


> would be moving from the 2nd position to the 6th. **


The C *might* be position 1... something about an “F attachment?”


...still, the tessitura being the paramount concern rather than the voice leading makes the most sense to me. 👍🏻


----------



## rpaillot (Mar 14, 2021)

fantastic thread to read. thank you all!


----------



## Gene Pool (Mar 14, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> ...still, the tessitura being the paramount concern rather than the voice leading makes the most sense to me. 👍🏻


LOL, this was the nature of my comments regarding the four options you posted a couple days ago.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Mar 14, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> LOL, this was the nature of my comments regarding the four options you posted a couple days ago.


Well damnit why didn’t you say it like that! 🤣🤣🤣


----------



## SamC (Mar 26, 2021)

ed buller said:


> Yes..this point was made emphatic when I was lucky enough to be working on a film with Conrad Pope and got a chance to pick his brains......He said just this. "he's a jazz pianists and his fingers wander!"
> 
> 
> also very obvious but ALL of JW's scores are transposed scores. Not Sketches though.
> ...


I always come to this conclusion with JW. As a “jazz guy” myself, it’s what I love about his chords and his approach. His scores are teaming with a jazz musicians sensibilities.

I’m so jelly, must’ve been great to work with Conrad Pope, what a guy!


----------

