# John Williams' Lincoln



## ryanstrong (Oct 22, 2012)

JWFan.com has posted 30sec samples of Williams' score for Lincoln. Have a listen here:

http://www.jwfan.com/?p=4950

I know these are just samples, and coming from a huge Williams fan this hard to say, but none of this excites me at all.

I know it's a historical period piece and not some space opera, super hero, or childrens adventure film where you can take more risks, but it all just feels ordinary. I felt the same way with War Horse, granted there were some decent moments there, but as a whole there just isn't that John Williams magic.

Thoughts??


----------



## Ganvai (Oct 22, 2012)

rystro @ 23rd October 2012 said:


> I felt the same way with War Horse



Yeah, you're not alone with that. Was really disappointed after listening to the soundtrack, also the movie was very disapointing too.

Sad it's going the same way with Lincoln.

But we have to wait. Some soundtracks get better when you see the movie and have some pictures in your mind to the melodies. Never liked the Unbreakable-Score from JNH but when I saw the film, the score got so much more. 

Better to wait until the movie comes.


----------



## passenger57 (Oct 22, 2012)

It seems like many film composers seem to do their best work in their 30s/40s/50s/ Am I wrong in this?
Of course there are exceptions - Jerry Goldsmith. But film composing is such a physical thing, it can really take alot out of you. I could never maintain the hours I currently work well into my 60s, 70s or 80s - for that I have to applaud JW. Amazing.


----------



## mverta (Oct 23, 2012)

Can there be said to be a bigger fan of Williams' music, than I? 

Yes, JW's heyday was 30 years ago. Every composer has a really prolific, magic period. His work, starting in the 90's, has often been laced with brilliance; peppered with transcendently great moments, but never again the wall-to-wall genius of his best , earlier scores. The movies were better then, too.

His worst work today is still on a completely different tier of accomplishment than anyone else working regularly, and that is not a matter of opinion, but musicological fact. How effective or motivating that work ultimately is IS a matter of opinion, and utterly subjective.

On principle, I bought War Horse. I listened once or twice. Some nice things there. But it'll not be in my playlist anytime soon. Maybe that says it all.

The man virtually created me, but it turns out he's mortal. And certainly by now, has nothing left to prove. 


_Mike


----------



## passenger57 (Oct 23, 2012)

Agreed. JW would have been the one of the greatest even if he retired in his 50s or 60s. Amazing what that man has accomplished in his lifetime. I always thought of him as a modern day Tchaikovsky with his great melodic and dramatic gifts. 
But many composers do have their 'hey day' or magic period. My fav scores by Elfman were late 80s through early 90s. That was his classic period for me.


----------



## Kejero (Oct 23, 2012)

Maybe it's because people don't like to take the 'Harry Potter' franchise seriously, but I think the music he wrote for those first three movies is easily amongst his best work. These together with 'Hook' and 'E.T'. are the very definition of _magic_.


----------



## Ganvai (Oct 23, 2012)

John Williams did some amazing scores in the last ten years.

Remember the great new Star Wars Soundtracks (the movies suck, but "Duel of the Fates" and "Battle of Heroes" are really great Tracks and the lovetheme was quit amazing), Harry Potter, The Geisha (one of the best scores John Williams ever did, just because it's so different).

And especially Harry Potter and Hedwigs Theme are playing in the same league as Star Wars, Indiana Jones or Jaws.

I think it's nothing other than James Horner. If he get's a really strong movie that can inspire him he does amazing things. Just think about Titanic, Braveheart or Avatar. And then think about all the boring stuff James Horner did like "The Storm" or his "Jack Ryan Scores".

And as John Williams scores get a little bit boring, the Spielbergmovies become boring too. I think there is a link.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 23, 2012)

If the movie itself (Lincoln) is boring, that will be a real shame, because having access to a virtually unlimited production budget, the greatest movie actor of our time AND arguably the greatest film scorer of the modern era, it really shouldn't happen. I have high hopes.


----------



## Ganvai (Oct 23, 2012)

NYC Composer @ 23rd October 2012 said:


> If the movie itself (Lincoln) is boring, that will be a real shame, because having access to a virtually unlimited production budget, the greatest movie actor of our time AND arguably the greatest film scorer of the modern era, it really shouldn't happen. I have high hopes.



I really have to mention War Horse again..., also ~o)


----------



## jamwerks (Oct 23, 2012)

Ganvai @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> And as John Williams scores get a little bit boring, the Spielbergmovies become boring too. I think there is a link.



Agreed !


----------



## rayinstirling (Oct 23, 2012)

I spent last Friday evening attending a concert celebrating John Williams 80th birthday at the Royal Albert Hall in London. Many of his greatest works were performed by the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra and Royal Choral Society and I loved every minute.
I know of no composer ever, where I've enjoyed everything they've done in their career but hey! so what, they've done it, I haven't.

Ray


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 23, 2012)

It's about how it works with the picture. It's not concert hall music.


----------



## dcoscina (Oct 23, 2012)

I loved War Horse. Both film and music. Some gorgeous writing in there. 

Williams' War of the Worlds (2005) is also a tour de force as far as muscularity is concerned. Very atypical score. I've grown to really appreciate both film and music. 

But if you guys want bombast and orchestral fireworks, try out Alexandre Desplat's Rise of the Guardians. Only sound examples are up up but holy god are they amazing sounding. Conrad Pope has been on about this score on Facebook as he's been orchestrating it. Sounds amazing.


----------



## Niah (Oct 23, 2012)

War of the worlds was perhaps the last Williams scored I really liked.

As for Spielberg well...really hope he gets back on track :-|


----------



## rgames (Oct 23, 2012)

passenger57 @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> It seems like many film composers seem to do their best work in their 30s/40s/50s/


Nearly all great individual work in any field is done by people under the age of 40.

Beyond that age, their greater achievements usually lie in leadership roles (if they are able to make the switch).

Having said that, yeah, I didn't care much for War Horse.

rgames


----------



## RiffWraith (Oct 23, 2012)

passenger57 @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> Agreed. JW would have been the one of the greatest even if he retired in his 50s or 60s.



JW would have been the one of the greatest even if he retired after the original Star Wars! :lol:


----------



## Ed (Oct 23, 2012)

The films he is scoring are booorrrinnng now, probably helps contribute.


----------



## dcoscina (Oct 23, 2012)

mverta @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> Can there be said to be a bigger fan of Williams' music, than I?
> 
> Yes, JW's heyday was 30 years ago. Every composer has a really prolific, magic period. His work, starting in the 90's, has often been laced with brilliance; peppered with transcendently great moments, but never again the wall-to-wall genius of his best , earlier scores. The movies were better then, too.
> 
> ...



Hook was released in 1991 and it still blows me away. Probably the last virtuosic Williams score, though parts of Harry Potter 1 get close.


----------



## ryanstrong (Oct 23, 2012)

Ganvai @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> And as John Williams scores get a little bit boring, the Spielbergmovies become boring too. I think there is a link.





Ed @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> The films he is scoring are booorrrinnng now, probably helps contribute.



I would definitely have to say this is part of it. Especially since we know that Mr. Williams doesn't start writing for any film until he has seen the first cut, according to interviews. So yes it does lay an uninspiring platform to perform from.



EastWest Lurker @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> It's about how it works with the picture. It's not concert hall music.



I agree or at least understand your position from a certain point of view, but completely disagree from another.

---

Perhaps it is because of age as many of you have alluded to... but do you really think so? I don't know if I buy that. I mean I realize 80 years old is starting to push it, I get it but I mean simply from an orchestration stand point you do not hear as much drama in the textures of instruments and counterpoint in melody. It all just feels bland and expected. He could have just ripped himself off and it be better, so maybe there are some external factors that play in to these scores?

Hats off though to the man. I don't mean to dog on him, he is one of the forefathers of Hollywood film music, and I'm definitely a fan. But I guess I'm just being selfish... I just want to hear some new Williams' stuff that I can fall in love with!


----------



## passenger57 (Oct 23, 2012)

> Nearly all great individual work in any field is done by people under the age of 40.


JW scored Jaws at age 43 which pretty much started his film composing career. So there is hope, you can still kick ass when your over the hill! lol


----------



## RiffWraith (Oct 23, 2012)

rgames @ Wed Oct 24 said:


> Nearly all great individual work in any field is done by people under the age of 40.



Hmmmm....

Mozart _died_ at 35.

Beethoven completed his 5th at 38.

Einstein introduced his Special Theory of Relativity, and his General Theory of Relativity at 26 and 36, respectively.

You may have a point there.....


----------



## KEnK (Oct 24, 2012)

Picasso & Ellington did their greatest work pretty late in life.
The literary field is full of people who continued to do great work throughout their lives.

Just saying that there _is_ life after 20...

k


----------



## JohnG (Oct 24, 2012)

dcoscina @ 23rd October 2012 said:


> Hook was released in 1991 and it still blows me away. Probably the last virtuosic Williams score, though parts of Harry Potter 1 get close.



How about The Prisoner of Azkaban? That score showcases Mr. W's ability to set up dramatic events and bring them to some place very special as much as anything. 

I think he's still got "it" and shows that every time there's an opportunity -- but as someone implied above, not every film gives the composer such opportunities. There's a playful, make-believe, spirit -- even a tone of fable -- to some of his great films that invited him to pull out all his great skills and dazzle us. But War of the Worlds was just not that kind of film and nor, to the same extent, was War Horse.

So I think the film matters a heck of a lot.


----------



## sherief83 (Oct 24, 2012)

I liked the samples. I have to say I was hoping for a less americana approach but I suppose it is musically logical to do period music to the film. Some of the samples have the same harmonies as warhorse which isn't bad at all! 

I think that anything this man creates at this point is a luxury after all what he achieved. 

I would love though if he started working with different directors. I'm quite sure that Spielberg doesn't push his button's too hard and lets williams do what he wants... but at the same time... Sometimes having someone push your buttons could lead to Good things! So I really hope he takes on that challenge sometime before he truly retires from film music.


----------



## Darthmorphling (Oct 24, 2012)

I consider myself lucky that my knowledge of orchestration and composing is at the beginning stages. For me I get to enjoy the music for being what it is, music. In this instance ignorance is bliss!

However, I am starting to notice music used in TV shows and am realizing how much good music really drives the story and how most shows sound generic. I guess I am becoming less ignorant.

I enjoyed War Horse, the movie and the soundtrack.

P.S.

We have a teacher on our staff who is unable to hear when the school band goes off key. They do this regularly. Sometimes I wish I couldn't hear it as well.


----------



## whinecellar (Oct 24, 2012)

JohnG @ Wed Oct 24 said:


> I think he's still got "it" and shows that every time there's an opportunity -- but as someone implied above, not every film gives the composer such opportunities. There's a playful, make-believe, spirit -- even a tone of fable -- to some of his great films that invited him to pull out all his great skills and dazzle us. But War of the Worlds was just not that kind of film and nor, to the same extent, was War Horse.
> 
> So I think the film matters a heck of a lot.



Couldn't agree more, John. The Potter films are the last time he really pulled out the stops, and he was 72 at the time. As pointed out above, he has done nothing short of the miraculous - all past the tender age of 40. Oh to write just one timeless piece like one of his many...


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 24, 2012)

RiffWraith @ Wed Oct 24 said:


> Einstein introduced his Special Theory of Relativity, and his General Theory of Relativity at 26 and 36, respectively..



Ha ha, he had stolen it from his wife. She was that great ghost in his family.


----------



## dcoscina (Oct 24, 2012)

Williams' most creative and seminal scores were all composed when he was well into his 40s and into his 50s.


----------



## ryanstrong (Oct 24, 2012)

Seeing this conversation unfold the impression I am having now is that a lot of it has been dependent on the film, and the director - despite the genius behind the film and the genius director himself.

That isn't a complete excuse though - for example I could imagine a tune like the theme to Jurassic Park being put in to Lincoln or War Horse.

So I think melody and memorable theme arcs could have been pushed a little more. As someone alluded to earlier maybe Spielberg didn't push Williams enough as he might have in the past?


----------



## Niah (Oct 24, 2012)

man I feel bad for all the old geezers in the forum now :-(


----------



## re-peat (Oct 24, 2012)

I’m of the opinion that people underestimate/misunderstand/ misjudge John Williams gravely if they think “the film matters”. When you’re as great a composer as he is, when you have as much talent as he has, when your brain is soaked in ‘the art of music’ as much as his is (or used to be), nothing as trivial as a movie is ever going to matter much. Implying that it might, is a gross misunderstanding of the power of (his) exceptional talent, it seems to me. (I would even argue that it indicates an inability to ‘hear’ the very thing which used to make Williams such a special composer and a musician of such ultra-rare abilities. People who believe, for example, that “The Phantom Menace” contains great Williamsmusic, haven’t got a clue about the true importance of this composer. Is my pretentious opinion.) 

Williams wrote his best music for some of the most ridiculous and flawed pictures ever made, and during his great years (which, I very much agree, ended quickly after “Hook”) you could have given the man the most embarrassing drivel of a movie and he would still have woven the most sublime music around it. With composers as great as Williams is (or, at least: used to be), nothing matters but the music. The force of their talent is simply too strong in them for any outside factor (a script, a director, a producer, …) to be able to have any significant influence whatsoever on (the quality of) the music.

Seriously, how many truly great films did Williams ever score? I can’t think of all that many, to be honest. And if ‘truly great’ really has to mean ‘truly great’, I can’t even think of any, with the possible exception of the first “Jaws”. Not during the 70’s and 80’s and not now. But bad or mediocre films never stopped Williams before (“Witches of Eastwick”, “1941”, “Spacecamp”, “Home Alone”, “The Fury”, “Empire Of The Sun”, “Always”, …), so I see no reason why it should be an excuse today. I wouldn’t even be surprised if Willliams actually preferred to work on lesser movies, because that would give his music more room to be what he wanted/needed it to be. (This is just an assumption of mine though.) Just like Mozart preferred to pick libretti of questionnable merit: to make sure his music got all the bandwidth it needed. Let’s not forget that when Williams signed on to do “Jaws”, nothing much indicated that that movie would turn out to be the mother-of-all-blockbusters it became. The lasting acclaim and classic status of “Jaws” is something attributed in hindsight, certainly not something he could have been aware of at the time he started writing the music. After all, he also did “The Eiger Sanction”, “Towering Inferno” and “Earthquake’ around the same time: pretty dreadful and forgettable films, all three of them. 
Or take “Superman”. Totally idiotic movie from start to finish, and yet … wrapped in music of an inspiration, a creativity and a quality that I easily rank alongside *anything* written in the past three centuries. “Superman”, to me, (particularly its second half) is as good as anything by Tchaikovsky, Dvorák, Milhaud, Berlioz, Shostakovitch, Grieg, Bizet, Kodály, Elgar or dozens of other ‘classical’ masters. It really is on that level, I believe. As are “Jaws 1 & 2”. (Re-editing the music for these two films into some sort of coherent structure, will yield a “Sea Symphony” as powerful, profound and enduring as Debussy’s “La Mer” or Britten’s “Sea Symphony”.)

See, Williams at his very best (mid and late 70’s up to the early 90’s) is first and foremost a composer. Not a ‘film composer’, but a composer full-stop. And the greater you are as a composer, the more selfish you are as well, it can’t be helped, because your art is simply too important for you to let it be steered by anything other than purely musical considerations. Which is why, in all of the great Williams scores, you can find several cues which don’t really work very well as film music. Cues where Williams’ talent simply takes over completely, and makes him write music that rises far above the needs of the actual scene it was written for. Plenty of examples in “Jaws”, “Superman”, “Raiders”, “E.T”., the original “Star Wars” trilogy, … (I’m very much of the opinion that Williams, these days, actually succeeds better at being a film composer than he used to. Why? Because he is a lesser composer than he used to be. He isn’t driven anymore by his own all-overpowering, phenomenal talent and now simply conforms, and very expertly so, to the rules of the game, resulting in better functional film music, but also in far less impressive absolute music.) 
The simple (and sad) fact is: for some reason, the fire of his unique genius — that unselfconscious (but completely self-confident), uninhibited, untameable volcano that spewed out truly divine music for almost 20 years on end — quickly stopped burning after the last glorious eruption that was “Hook”. There were still a few sparks in “Jurassic Park”, but soon after, things began to sound increasingly contrived, laboured and devoid of any Williams-magic whatsoever. Me, I don’t hear any Williams-magic in “Potter”, “War Of The Worlds”, “Tin Tin”, “Crystal Skull”, “Tibet”, “Private Ryan”, “Catch Me If You Can”, “Angela’s Ashes”, or any other of his scores after “Hook”. Still lots of very appealing, highly enjoyable and masterfully crafted music, absolutely, but not a single bar of vintage Williams-magic. And “War Horse”, sorry, is embarrassing. As it looks like “Lincoln” might be, if those extracts are anything to go by. 

Since the early 90’s, Williams gradually transformed into a reliable, exciting, still admirable and fascinating, but fairly bland and predictable film composer. Better than many, yes, but certainly nowhere near the level his former self operated on. Up until and including “Hook”, he was a force of nature. Too powerful for his own profession. Couldn’t control himself. Page after page after page after page of some of the most amazing music ever written on this planet, simply poured out of him. There was no stopping it. Good movies, bad movies, big budgets, small budgets, plenty of time, hardly any time at all, none of that did matter: John Williams simply kept composing music of unanalyzeable beauty, timeless quality and stunning depth. Until something snapped.

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 24, 2012)

PM me folks if you want to hear a story that Ken Wannberg, John Williams music editor for many years, told me when I was doing the arrangements of some songs for him for a film he was scoring, "Blame It On Rio".


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 24, 2012)

Well, it's an angle, Piet. Your views are highly regarded with good reason. And although there are some great points you raise, I don't really buy the premise - mostly because of the subjectivity of response to music.

For example, you hear no magic in Harry Potter. Many here - including I - would disagree with that (and, in general, I'm not a huge Potter fan). Oddly enough, it wasn't even in one of his own films that I really noticed how terrific that core theme is - it was in the final movie, where the theme reappeared after an absence of many years. It was an amazing musical moment, and an amazing filmic moment. Desplat did some fine work, but when that theme comes in.... hmmm. Now, you could argue that that is bogus - that wasn't even Williams' orchestration (AFAIK... unless it was copied?), so much a part of what makes him special. The Star Wars Theme is nothing if played on the piano with one finger. But nevertheless, that inspired gift of melody in the hands of another fine composer in the right context of a movie still produced something magical.

I don't know all of the scores you praise. I have seen Eastwick, 1941, Home Alone and Always, and I can remember little of the scores. I don't doubt they are highly superior, however. But I'm not sure I agree with your central thesis, that he composes brilliance regardless of the film. I'm not familiar with his concert work, again I presume it's fantastic. But the magic seems to happen when there is the fusion of film and music. The stuff that makes anyone on the street's hairs rise up on the back of the neck.

Take Superman. Agree, not a great series of films, but where it works is that it is a cinematic icon. All you need is the image of Christopher Reeve flying in that suit, plus Williams, and that's pretty much it. It doesn't need great character development or an intriguing 2nd act... but it does need iconography. And that, perhaps is the key. Twin suns setting, the tail fin of the shark, Indy being chased, a bike flying. And, I'd add, two Jedi's duelling. Now, when a director, writer, cast and crew make that iconography part of a truly great movie... that's when you're firing on all cylinders, but it's not always the case.

Wild speculation on my part, but its these things that help create the absolute genius in the Williams mind, whose genesis occurs sat at the Steenbeck. Williams always actually wrote the music at the piano, no film or video in front of him at all - it was all done from notes made in the edit. The images are what would have played in his mind, and finding a musical expression for them. Can he produce brilliant music without a brilliant image? Of course. But the very very best stuff... well, it tends to follow imo.


----------



## re-peat (Oct 25, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Thu Oct 25 said:


> (...) you hear no magic in Harry Potter? (...)


None whatsoever, Guy. Sorry. I very much agree that the music evokes magic as expertly as any music can, but it doesn’t have any musical magic of its own, I strongly feel. (And it seems to me that some of your ‘many here’ could well be confusing the two.) There’s none of that inexplicable, unmeasurable inspiration at the heart of this music. It’s all well-made, extremely well-made even, and it sure works perfectly in its context, but ... nothing more. And Williams’ music used to be soooo much more than that. To me, the entire Potter-opus sounds as if fabricated in a “Trying to sound like John Williams”-class. By the very best and most talented students of that class, sure, but still: second-rate Williams. If you wanna hear true Williams magic, the real thing, the man at his absolute best, have a listen to “The Banquet” or “Finding Neverland” from “Hook”. Or the entire second half of “Superman” (from “March Of The Villains” onwards). Or a little jewel like “For Gillian” from “The Fury”. Or “One Barrel Chase” from “Jaws”. Or “The Asteroïd Field” from “Empire” … Those are all instances, and there are hundreds more in his 1975- 1993 period, where the music simply explodes in a fireworks of sheer leave-me-alone talent, inspiration and words-fail-me-ness. There’s a musical mind at work there that can no longer be captured in mere admiration alone. (Which happens very rarely with me.) 

What I wanna say (and I’ve said before on this very forum several years ago) is this: Williams’ best music happens on a level where my talent of musical understanding is unable to follow him. At his best, there’s a scale of creativity and inspiration that I can no longer measure. Without wanting to sound too arrogant: I can quite easily follow, understand and grasp the sort of creativity it takes to produce any of his post-Hook scores. None of that more recent work puzzles or baffles me, because I, with my limited abilities, can perfectly understand, in every detail, how a professional, talented musician could come up with it. I can however NOT understand “Superman”. That is just too good. Or put differently: to me, the only superman in “Superman”, the real superman if you like, is John Williams. And I listen, and gratefully cry.



> noiseboyuk @ Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:30 am wrote: (...) And more to the point - did that occur to him as he watched the rough assembly, and the soaring theme THEN come into his head? Or as he reflected upon it afterwards at the piano? Or did he always have it in a draw, thought “that’s nice, that’ll do?”


Great example. See, to me, a theme as sublime as that, is not something you plan on doing at the start of a working day. It’s not like you say to yourself, after your morning coffee: “Today, I’m going to do that flying sequence in Steven’s new bike movie, and tomorrow I’ll start looking at the Halloween sequence. Let’s get cracking.” The well of inspiration from which the “Flying Theme” is tapped, is something different altogether, I believe, and the moment that theme started to emerge from under his hands (in whatever shape it may have first presented itself), that really was a very, very special moment. Something that you definitely can not write down in your agenda as ‘something that needs to be done’. 
In stark contrast, I can perfectly imagine Williams sitting down at the piano and saying to himself: “Hermione needs a theme, let’s write one.” and then actually effectively writing it, in whatever time he allows himself to do so. Or take the entire “Duel Of the Fates” music: that, to me, sounds again like a “job well done”. But nothing more. I really don’t hear any ‘special moment’ in that music, I only hear solid but mostly boring film music.

Virtually all the music which he wrote in the last two decades, I can imagine as being dilligently written, relying on his vast expertise, his amazing virtuosity and his generous, loyal sense of professionalism. But, for some reason, without any of those special moments that lifted his work so frequently and to such unfathomable heights before.
And, as must be clear by now, I don’t subsribe to your theory of there being much of an inspirational link between image and music. Not with composers like Williams, there isn’t. Sure, on a superficial level, there is, obviously, and very much so, but images triggering that ‘special’ inspiration? I doubt it. I very much doubt it. Images can trigger craft, yes, images can motivate and steer, absolutely, but that magical core from where the greatest music comes is well beyond the reach of any visuals to stir it into action, I strongly believe. Going back to “Superman” for a moment, there is nothing in that movie that deserves music of the quality that it got. “Superman”, in my view, sprung entirely from within Williams himself, the movie being nothing more than a circumstantial superficiality. 

_


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 25, 2012)

Ah, great post - we'll agree to differ no doubt, but I get ya. Only thing I want to pick up on though is the business about flying bikes and shark fins. My point was that perhaps he only came up with those amazing musical moments because he was inspired at the Steenbeck? As opposed to my own reaction after the event when watching the admittedly perfect marriage at the cinema. I do remember him talking about the ET flying theme, making it sound so simple as he often does, that he just drops out all the lower instrumentation completely because its, you know, FLYING. And more to the point - did that occur to him as he watched the rough assembly, and the soaring theme THEN come into his head? Or as he reflected upon it afterwards at the piano? Or did he always have it in a draw, thought "that's nice, that'll do?"

My theory is that, in the very best stuff, there is a link between the creation of the music itself and the image. You may well not care about Christopher Reeve's outside underwear - nor I - but did Williams?


----------



## re-peat (Oct 25, 2012)

> noiseboyuk @ Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:17 am wrote: (...) but where it works is that it is a cinematic icon. All you need is the image of Christopher Reeve flying in that suit, plus Williams, and that’s pretty much it.


To me, “Superman” has got nothing to do with Reeve, cinematic icons or silly suits whatsoever. “Superman”, as you would learn should you be able to read my mind, is only music and nothing else for me. Same with “Star Wars”: I’m of the opinion that the only two lasting elements of the first three installments are (1) its mythology (which doesn’t interest me at all, I’m afraid) and (2) above all: the music. And that’s precisely where you and I seem to differ in our approach to his work. 
All the examples you give (twin suns setting, the tail fin of the shark, Indy being chased, a bike flying, two Jedi’s duelling, …) are all moments in movies where your (emotional and intellectual) response to what you’re watching on the screen is being added to, or mixed with, your evaluation of the music. A totally valid and sensible approach from which I don’t want to take anything away, certainly not, but me, I enter from a completely different angle: I really *only” listen to the music and nothing else. I don’t care at all about any of those movies or their iconographic merits. Everytime I listen to Williams, there is nothing but his music in my head. I don’t make any associations, don’t think of any tinseltownish heroïcs, don’t envisage any scenes, and I don’t get carried away in any sense other than a purely musical one. And again: from that angle, I remain totally convinced that Williams’ pre-1993 music is vastly superior to anything he produced since.

_


----------



## lux (Oct 25, 2012)

While being undoubtely idiotic, Superman has been probably one of the earliest attempt at serious superhero screen writing, and keeps a strong place in my infancy memories. Listening the Lois and Clark theme almost immediately transports me on a time machine, like only a few other things can do. And I'm certainly convinced thats because the emotional quality of that music left a sign much bigger than many other scores I've heard being a child.

I personally liked the whole HP thing btw. In general themes became less effective in the recent years. But, i wonder, in his shape, how much stuff we could pull off after the "incredible" run which represents the entire career (and life) of John Williams.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 25, 2012)

Here is Mr. Williams himself on film scoring:
http://www.nea.gov/av/avCMS/Williams-podcast-transcript.html (http://www.nea.gov/av/avCMS/Williams-po ... cript.html)


----------



## ryanstrong (Oct 25, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Oct 25 said:


> Here is Mr. Williams himself on film scoring:
> http://www.nea.gov/av/avCMS/Williams-podcast-transcript.html (http://www.nea.gov/av/avCMS/Williams-po ... cript.html)



Here is the actual audio portion from the interview...
http://www.prx.org/pieces/66474-a-conve ... n-williams


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 25, 2012)

Luckily younger composers in their prime took over the Harry Potter franchise and finally gave them some great scores.


----------



## ryanstrong (Oct 25, 2012)

re-peat @ Thu Oct 25 said:


> Going back to "Superman" for a moment, there is nothing in that movie that deserves music of the quality that it got. "Superman", in my view, sprung entirely from within Williams himself, the movie being nothing more than a circumstantial superficiality.


Whoa! I don't know if I believe you, I probably do, but dang quite the statement. Without a doubt there was something very independent going on in that score that had nothing to do with the pictures.

Outside of the deep talk, I'm just thankful I grew up as a kid with E.T., Superman, Hook, and Indiana Jones - because of that there is that sentimental bond with the pictures and sounds that could not have been created without the wonder as a child.


----------



## Gusfmm (Oct 25, 2012)

As everything in life, there are better times than others, and people change and evolve in time. I think we all go through our journey resourcing to different tools and skills that we learn and hopefully improve, also in an evolving and different way, over time. This is part of what I perceive in Mr Williams' music evolution over the years. An evolution from a more detailed consideration of such (fantastic) musical themes and their interplay, to a more resourceful use of orchestral devices and skills that seems to me more organic and masterful now (e.g. HP), as a result of such prolific and extended experience.

There is one piece though, in the newer SW trilogy, that has had a far greater impact on me than most other recent music. " http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFcuT4Nbcb8 (Across The Stars) " from Ep. II. Fairly simple but dreamy and passionate. Not too decorated, but rather raw and very sentimental. And perhaps that contributes to my appreciation for it. And in my case at least, there is also a psicological element associated to the movie, no doubt about it. But to me, that is very sublime and memorable music, full of feeling almost as the whole "Escape/Chase" sequence in ET, just in a very different fashion.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 25, 2012)

I love it when Piet gets on a roll (assuming he's not mad as hell; )

So, Piet-I'm sure we agree that Herrmann had many better quality movies to work with...yet to me, much as I love it and admire its special genius, it seems to me his music always, or almost always, SERVED the film, as opposed to superceding it as you suggest that Williams' best music did. Would you agree with that, and if so, does it make him a lesser genius in your eyes?


----------



## re-peat (Oct 26, 2012)

> NYC Composer @ Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:57 am wrote: (...) and if so, does it make him a lesser genius in your eyes?


Let’s keep this between you and me, Larry, let’s not share this with anyone else, let’s speak in hushed tones and barely audible whispers, but I am of the opinion, and please, be aware that this message will self-destruct within five seconds after you’ve read it, that Bernard Herrmann is somewhat overrated. Overrated, yes. I never considered him a genius of any kind. I certainly do recognize he’s a miracle of a musician (that’s how I described him once in an earlier thread, and I stick with it), but absolutely not a composer blessed with a talent on the same scale as John Williams’. 

Maybe I haven’t been clear enough up to this point, but I really do believe that Williams, the great Williams, was something of a unicum. Together with Frank Zappa, he is, to me, the most astounding and impressive example of someone being uniquely blessed *and*, just as amazing, being able to exploit that blessing to its fullest potential (insofar as it hasn’t been cut short – in Zappa’s case certainly, and maybe in Williams’ case as well, which is the very subject of this speculative discussion – by nature’s often cruel ways), I have been fortunate enough to witness (like I said before: with deep, endless gratitude) in my lifetime. (And please, forgive me for this ugliest of ugly English sentences.) Williams’ great music during the period book-ended on either side by “Jaws” and “Hook”, is a non-stop, uninterrupted avalanche of true genius. Which opinion should also explain why I tend to make such a big thing of the perplexing contrast with his later work: I find it one of the most remarkable and puzzling transformations in the entire history of music. And I use the word ‘genius’ very selectively, you know. If you were to ask me about who I consider a musical genius in, say, the past two centuries, the fingers of both my hands would be more than enough to give you an idea of their number. Herrmann isn’t among them, in my view. He’s obviously a superior talent and a phenomenal (film) composer, without question, but I can immediately think of several other composers (working for films) whom I rate just as highly, if not higher. (As an aside: the only other film composer I rank in Williams’ neighbourhood, is Franz Waxman, that other lone geiser of musical magic.)

Please note, and it’s a very important note: I do feel ex-tre-me-ly uncomfortable making all these sorts of evaluations and ranking comparisons. Not only because I’m such a limited and insignificant little musical insect myself, but also because we’re talking about people here who have given us the greatest thing anyone can give: themselves. It always strikes me as highly improper for us to pick on, or talk diminituively about this type of generosity. After all, who am I, who are we, to presume insight in, let alone feel entitled to discuss the level of greatness, or lack thereof, in all these wonderful composers?

Anyway, I’ve started this madness, so I might as well finish: when I listen to Herrmann, I often hear a certain amount of formulae and recipes in his music (the very thing I’m also hearing in Williams’ more recent work). Wonderful formulae and gourmettable recipes, sure, but even so: there’s often a certain rationalized, template- reliant, self-aware distance between himself and his talent, it seems to me. And that’s something you shouldn’t hear and that you will never hear in the greatest music. I don’t hear it in “Temple Of Doom”, I certainly do hear it in “Crystal Skull”. (Is there a better, more telling illustration, I ask, of Williams’ decline than the juxtaposition of these two scores? One standing proud with self-confidence and brimming with fullblooded greatness, the other bleak, weak and empty, and smelling of musical Viagra.)

Allow me this metaphor (although it might obscure matters more than that it clarifies them): hot-air balloons. In great music, the talent (as a pars pro toto for: the blessing, the commitment, the passion, the inspiration, the creative urge, ...) is the balloon filled with hot air (and the flame heating it), while the composer (as a pars pro toto for: the craftsman, the professional, the self-aware realist, ...) sits in the basket. In lesser music, it’s the other way round. I know, I know, things can’t be separated that sharply – balloon and basket have an overlapping importance and a common purpose, and both are equally essential in getting the structure off the ground with any sense of controlled direction –, but it’s just to give you some idea, even if it’s a regrettably simplified one, of what I perceive as a huge difference. Herrmann, to me, never completely dissolves in his music, Williams, during his great years, often did. Herrmann writes music, Williams is music.

_


----------



## JohnG (Oct 26, 2012)

All very interesting Piet and others -- thanks for your thoughts.

I confess that I am far too influenced at times by the picture; I can't stand "Superman" as a film, which I found embarrassingly childish even at a tender age, and I laughed out loud in the theater when watching "Jaws." 

I am going to buy some more Williams scores and have a listen, with your thoughts in mind because, years later when I heard the Jaws score separately from the movie, it was quite a revelation, one that would be great to repeat.

Certainly I feel, after listening to Williams and then turning back to my own little efforts, that they are "like a giant's robe upon a dwarfish thief."


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 26, 2012)

Being an even smaller unit of talent myself, I think they're both incomprehensible geniuses . I admire Williams more for the simple reason that I'm essentially a pop musician- I love a great melody and a great hook, and for me, Williams provided the apotheosis of those, mixed with wondrous orchestrational abilities.

Were I a director, however, I might have very well chosen Herrmann, so as not to overshadow my film and yet support it wondrously. Even the best composers serve someone (though Herrmann, notoriously, had final cut!!)

Fun convo.


----------



## Leosc (Oct 26, 2012)

re-peat @ Fri Oct 26 said:


> I am of the opinion that Bernard Hermann is somewhat _overrated_.



I tend to agree with that.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 26, 2012)

Acall @ Fri Oct 26 said:


> re-peat @ Fri Oct 26 said:
> 
> 
> > I am of the opinion that Bernard Hermann is somewhat _overrated_.
> ...



Ha! Thanks for that. I hadn't had a good laugh in a while.

Anybody who thinks that is seriously bereft of any kind of advance musical knowledge. Or, severely ignorant of what BH was writing.

BH was the last of the true art composer in a field overrun by commercial hacks.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 26, 2012)

josejherring @ Fri Oct 26 said:


> Acall @ Fri Oct 26 said:
> 
> 
> > re-peat @ Fri Oct 26 said:
> ...



Oy.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 26, 2012)

NYC Composer @ Fri Oct 26 said:


> josejherring @ Fri Oct 26 said:
> 
> 
> > Acall @ Fri Oct 26 said:
> ...



Vey.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 26, 2012)

josejherring @ Sat Oct 27 said:


> NYC Composer @ Fri Oct 26 said:
> 
> 
> > josejherring @ Fri Oct 26 said:
> ...



is Mir! Herrmann was a putz!!

(No, not really, I'm just emphasizing my Jewish street cred. Plus, I'm in frigging New Haven, Ct, and I'm bored.)


----------



## José Herring (Oct 26, 2012)

Composer wise he was a mensch. Anybody that thinks otherwise is a mashugana.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 26, 2012)

Ha! Now you're stretching! Mensch is, like, a standup guy. Good person.

I cop to being meshuganah.. Still, I do think Herrmann was an amazing composer, and quite possibly the greatest pure FILM composer.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 26, 2012)

I checked my urban dictionary. Mensch also means somebody to be admired.

Herrmann is beyond reproach as a composer. Like his music or not to think that he's "overrated" is not to really understand, what he did and how much he contributed to film scoring.

Some of what he invented was copied so much that it became cliché. But, if you're the first one to do it, then it's not your fault that everybody else tried to copy you.

But the opening to Vertigo is such a perfect piece of film music that nobody has been able to even come close. And, don't even get me started on Cape Fear.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 26, 2012)

(did you notice that, at least with the boundaries established, I agreed with you? But please, carry on :wink: )


----------



## José Herring (Oct 26, 2012)

I did notice that. I wasn't arguing with you or anybody really. Just trying to voice my opinion.

Nobody could do more with so little. This guy remember never scored a mega blockbuster. But many of the films he did score are classics in all genres.

I first heard Herrmann in a midnight showing of Vertigo at an art house movie theater when I was in high school. I was mesmerized. I rented that year just about every movie he scored that remained. Nothing, and I mean nothing touches the score to North by Northwest, Vertigo and The Day the Earth Stood Still.


----------



## mark812 (Oct 27, 2012)

dcoscina @ Tue Oct 23 said:


> Hook was released in 1991 and it still blows me away. Probably the last virtuosic Williams score, though parts of Harry Potter 1 get close.



It's one of my favorites. _The Face of Pan_ is one of the most beautiful pieces of music I've heard.


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 27, 2012)

i as mostly a concert goer think this about williams and herrmann.

williams seemed to write music that was out on its own and almost as if the film was cut to it later. whereas heerrmann seemed to write to the film and not as an afterthought. both brilliant in their own ways but if i had to choose one over the other i would take williams just based on his themes. but herrmann would get it for creating those unforgettable moments.


----------



## whinecellar (Oct 27, 2012)

An artist I work with a lot does a bunch of big symphony shows each year, and as a JW fan he always throws one or two pieces in the set as a tip of the hat. We're in the middle of 3 nights at home with the Nashville Symphony and we open with "Flight to Neverland" from Hook and then Raider's March later on.

I tell you, sitting in the middle of that you really get to dissect the genius of that writing. It's hard to sit there and not smile like a kid in a candy store. The best part? Watching my 9-year-old daughter light up on the first row when she hears those pieces, and then hearing her gush afterwards about what each part brought to the table.

What a gift that man has brought to the world...


----------



## rgames (Oct 27, 2012)

"Flight to Neverland" is definitely in my top-10 all time favorites.

Maybe we associated JW with a particular sound and we dislike the newer material because he's attempting to move away from it. If he kept writing scores like Star Wars and Hook over and over, we'd accuse him of lack of originality. Catch 22!

I've heard a few of his concert works and they're OK but not great. His genius is definitely in the film music world.

rgames


----------



## José Herring (Oct 27, 2012)

George Caplan @ Sat Oct 27 said:


> i as mostly a concert goer think this about williams and herrmann.
> 
> williams seemed to write music that was out on its own and almost as if the film was cut to it later. whereas heerrmann seemed to write to the film and not as an afterthought. both brilliant in their own ways but if i had to choose one over the other i would take williams just based on his themes. but herrmann would get it for creating those unforgettable moments.



Like comparing Frances Bacon to Einstein. Sure Einstein is more popular, but wouldn't have existed without the work of Bacon. Both geniuses. Who cares in the end who was "more popular" the work is done.


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 27, 2012)

i dont see how any comparison can be made because the films are entirely different. i must admit im not really of the age for most of williams films but i did like jaws and saving private ryan to an extent. the theme to jurassic is one of the best ever to me but films like that have great moments and long periods of boredom. in terms of films i think if youre doing a comparison anyway then herrmann films take it by a big margin but then its about taste. in fact i believe williams did a film for hitchcock but it was at the end of his career and not memorable in any case. i dont really like films much.


----------



## re-peat (Oct 27, 2012)

> josejherring @ Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:11 am wrote: (...) to think that he’s “overrated” is not to really understand, what he did and how much he contributed to film scoring (...)


It’s precisely *when* one understands what he did and what he contributed to film scoring, that the conclusion that he’s overrated becomes inevitable and blatantly clear. And, paradoxically, also that he’s vastly underrated at the same time, especially by those who praise him. (More about that below.) 

Herrmann is of course, and I am quite aware of it, the ideal and favourite choice for those who need to compliment themselves regularly on their fine musical taste, without ever actually needing to really think about it on strictly musical grounds, or without ever feeling the intellectual obligation to provide any solid musical arguments for their choice. Oh, no. Because, first of all: few will disagree (only a musical moron, “seriously bereft of any kind of advanced musical knowledge”, would ever dare doubt the absolute genius of Herrmann, innit?), secondly: he is indeed a composer of remarkable achievement, thirdly: he fought relentlessly for artistic integrity (always nice to associate with that, even if integrity is the last thing to be found in one’s spineless self), fourthly: he’s linked to a number of highly-rated movies and iconic scenes (always a bonus), and finally: he also symbolizes the courage most people lack, to be a stubborn individual among the grey, cowardly masses of conformity.
An ideal figure, in other words, to rub shoulders with, not so much for the abstract musical value of his output — most Herrmann admirers, it seems to me, haven’t got a clue about the abstract musical value of his output —, but because his singularity, his persona, his shadow and his radiance are such that they instill, by association, a sense of profoundness, expertise and artistic integrity even where none of those qualities are present. 

Which brings me to that tragic paradox that is Herrmann’s heritage: it’s his weaker side as a composer which has actually been much more influential, rather than those qualities of his which *really* earn him our deepest musical respect and admiration. The infuence of “Kane”, “The Devil and Daniel Webster” or “The Ghost and Mrs. Muir” or any other of his truly great music has been largely negligible, whereas his ostinati, his long barren chords, his stark textures, his fragmentary structures, his ‘Klangfarben’-variation technique, his thematic sobriety and his endless stretching-out of musical spartanism have all been embraced by the musical fraternity as all-solving solutions to musical challenges and problems which their mediocrity and lazyness can’t overcome.

It’s a very sad irony: Herrmann, his entire professional life on the barricades for better music, has made it possible for all those musical mediocrities in his wake to feel good about themselves and to even believe that, surely, there is artistic merit in their tedious musical nothingness, because: didn’t the Great Herrmann do the same? Simply cite Herrmann as an inspiration, and even the most dreadful and tiresome music is supposed to acquire an air of quality. That’s also, by the way, why I seriously dislike all those so-called Herrmann-inspired pieces which occasionally pop up in the Member’s Composition section. These pieces invariably copy only the easiest-to-copy stylistic characteristics of Herrmann’s musical language: the predictable stacked major triads, the snail-paced arpeggios, the near-motionless harmonies, the eerie strings, the complete absence of developed melody, the foreboding brass portatos, … in short: only those musical elements which lie within facile and lazy reach. 
(Hans Zimmer often has to endure a similar insult, by the way: being completely reduced to unlistenable superficiality and poverty of ideas by his so-called admirers.) You never hear someone present a Herrmann-tribute by trying to emulate, say, the up-beat “Citizen Kane” music, do you? Or the sophisticated and fantastic music of “Mrs. Muir”? Or the wonderfully sinister sounds of “Daniel Webster”? No, it’s always those tiresome, frozen adagio textures that require little effort, little musical intelligence and hardly any imaginative talent (and yet create so easily a false sense of musical worth), that are favoured. How dull. And, ironically, how completely un-Herrmann-like. Bernard Herrmann would have thoroughly hated it himself, I’m convinced of it, to be praised, emulated and remembered for the reasons he is so often praised, emulated and remembered for today.

_


----------



## Leosc (Oct 27, 2012)

What a great post, Piet, very insightful. Although I have to disagree with you on one thing - whenever I watched Citizen Kane, I felt that the music was the least interesting part of the movie. Or maybe that was simply the paradigm of its time.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 28, 2012)

...and to my point that most movie music serves as a complement to a directorial vision, Piet? Herrmann may have often created wonderfully orchestrated "textural" music, but no one did it better, in my opinion. Movie music can be melodically transcendent, as Williams did it in his prime, but many movies may be better served by supportive music rather than attention grabbing music. Certainly many current directors feel that way, and let's face it- there's a movie with or without music, but no movie without film/video.

On a slightly different tack-I've been of the opinion that textural, often non-melodic music is just faddish, but I must admit, Zimmer's Inception really got me listening differently. The power of that simple progression developed and added to over time gave me that " sitting on the edge of my seat" feeling after a while. Musical sophistication is wonderful, and erudition is grand, but it's not til' something grabs me by the testicles (or the heart  that I really sit up and take notice. Zimmer's work on that film was a special sort of genius in my view.


----------



## re-peat (Oct 28, 2012)

> NYC Composer @ Sun Oct 28, 2012 8:25 am wrote: ...and to my point that most movie music serves as a complement to a directorial vision, Piet? Herrmann may have often created wonderfully orchestrated “textural” music, but no one did it better, in my opinion. Movie music can be melodically transcendent, as Williams did it in his prime, but many movies may be better served by supportive music rather than attention grabbing music. Certainly many current directors feel that way, and let’s face it- there’s a movie with or without music, but no movie without film/video. (...)


Again, I very much agree with all that, Larry, but on the other hand: I can’t deny who I am, can I? I am a musician. When I hear music, my brain can’t help but listen. Yes, I know, don’t tell me. And I’ve tried everything, you know: medicine, spa’s, prostitutes, holy water, Toto’s Greatest Hits, hypnosis, orchestral mockups, leeches, online forums, … but all to no avail: as soon I hear music, I listen. Of course, film music is expected to fit in with the director’s vision, no one questions that, but somehow, certain composers succeed, more or less within that limitation — which is far less of a limitation than most people here make it out to be anyway —, to still produce music of the highest intrinsic quality. (See a few names below.)

But to show you where I come from: I was fairly familiar with the work of many a film composer long before I saw any of the films their music was written for. (I still haven’t seen half the films I own and enjoy the soundtrack of.) My soundtrack collection, first on vinyl, then on cd, already required several shelves (and rather big ones too) years before I started to be able to link some of that music to specific scenes. (Which was often a big disappointment.) And which was also the time when I quickly learned that, for example, some of Williams’ music which appeals to me most, doesn’t work very well at all as film music, in my opinion. 
Take, for example, the “March Of The Villains” from “Superman”: a wonderfully inspired, immensely exciting piece of music where Williams ‘out-prokofievs’ Prokofiev with amazing ease and self-confidence (as I described it some time ago in a whole other thread), but at the same time, it’s also a piece of very self-indulgent, compositional virtuosity which, in my view, fails completely as film music. And like I said before: Williams has quite a few of these moments — often my favourite ones — during his ‘great years’: moments where the composer takes over and the film composer seems to forget about the job he’s supposed to be doing.
Same with Herrmann, by the way: some of his music that I keep enjoying with undiminished pleasure — take for instance the cheerful Charles Ives/Nino Rotaesque “Citizen Kane” music — is indeed, as Acall rightly observed, not terribly well-suited for the film. It distracts. But I like that. There’s nothing I like more than being distracted by great music.

To be totally honest, I’m not really interested in film music. Well I am, but *only* to discover good music (Jerry Fielding, David Shire, Franz Waxman, Bruce Broughton, Nino Rota, Jon Brion, George Fenton, Richard Rodney Bennett, Philippe Sarde, John Williams, Ennio Morricone, Jerry Goldsmith, Thomas Newman, Michael Small, Alex North, Patrick Gowers, Elmer Bernstein, etc., etc. ...) I absolutely don’t care in the least if these people’s music fits the picture or not — it usually does reasonably well anyway, and if not, screw the movie. Music is much more important to me than any movie. All of which goes some way, I hope, in explaining why a composer like Herrmann puts much less of a spell on me than Williams does. And why, to return nicely to the topic of this thread, Williams’ decline has been such a regrettably unignorable evolution to me. 

_


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 28, 2012)

re-peat @ Sun Oct 28 said:


> I absolutely don’t care in the least if these people’s music fits the picture or not — it usually does reasonably well anyway, and if not, screw the movie. Music is much more important to me than any movie.



Interesting... this doesn't bear directly on the earlier issue of whether or not picture inspires the music, but I can come at this from different perspective.

I'm just the opposite to you here Piet - movies are actually more important to me than music. I compose, I write, I do sound design, all in service of STORY, that's my thing (much as love music for its own sake). Now, with Superman I don't know the film well at all, but listening to March of the Villains just now, there was nothing that sounded atypical for Williams of the period. I'm very familiar with Star Wars (the 1977 one) both score and film. I knew both intimately as a kid - I saw the film 5 times, but more importantly I had the Story Of Star Wars LP - the audio soundtrack to the movie condensed to 50 minutes with bridging voiceover, so it had dialogue, sound effects and score (the stereo master mix, I guess). I never had the music soundtrack in isolation, but I knew all of its rhythms and nuances (at least those in the 50 minutes it covered). And I loved it all - the care of Ben Burt's sounds robot sounds blended perfectly with the location dialogue so it sounded real (compare with the bloody awful mixing of Bane's voice in The Dark Knight Rises made with all of today's technology). And I love how the score weaves with the other elements... the power of the lack of score in a long stretch of the final battle, and the power of when it is reintroduced... the simple high horn note as the Millenium Falcon takes off from Mos Eisley, allowing the roar of the engines to thunder beneath. It remains to this day of the greatest examples of the marriage of sound design, score and story.

Then when home video appeared, I REALLY started obsessing.

Listening now, all grown up (sorta) I hear so much more in what Williams was doing. The Battle For Yavin has all this amazing complexity that surely isn't necessary. And yet... cos I came at it film-first - I conclude that it IS necessary. The textures Williams created became part of the universe of the film. Now, maybe they meshed better in Star Wars than in Superman - quite likely I'd have thought, not least because the former is the much better film. But they were all part of that world of Star Wars to me, they told me that story. Now I can compare with Rite Of Spring and go "wow, yeah, very similar", but because of the context in which it was used, it will forever evoke Tatooine to me... indeed, it's the soul of Tatooine.

We all agree that Williams in full flow is better than any of us here, by an order of magnitude. That it works so well for you, Piet, as pure music, devoid of its original context, is a miraculous thing. So regardless of whether you're like me and put story first, or like you and put music first, he's created simply the best music of his generation - and all we can respond with really is to marvel and enjoy.


----------



## re-peat (Oct 28, 2012)

> noiseboyuk @ Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:55 pm wrote: (...) That it works so well for you, Piet, as pure music, devoid of its original context, is a miraculous thing.


Not sure if I would call it miraculous, Guy, unless you’re referring to “the miracle that is great music” of course. But yeah, it works. It very much does. I used to make cassette tapes (and later cd-r’s) of Williams’ music for my brother and myself (both equally deep in love with this music), editing together little “Williams symphonies” sourced from various soundtracks. Neither of us had ever seen any of the movies, but by <Divinity Of Your Own Choosing>, did (and do) we enjoy that music! 

That “Jaws Sea Symphony” I mentioned earlier, it exists, you know. I have it on a completely worn-out cassette somewhere. And it works exceptionally well: using the first cue of the Jaws 2 OST as the introduction and then building an entire 44 minute piece with various cues from Jaws 1 and 2 (one side of 90min cassette). Amazing music. And no images needed, as far as we were concerned. In fact, the only images I ever associated with any of Williams’ music (apart from the score for the film “Images” of course), were the album sleeves. Just that. George C. Scott’s stern expression on the “Jane Eyre” cover, for example. Or the side-lit headshots of “The Fury”’s main protagonists (I have no idea who they are) … To this day, I haven’t seen either movie. But that music is engraved in my soul for eternity. 

And again: after “Hook”, I soon stopped making these Williams-suites. It didn’t work anymore. Everytime I had included a post-”Hook” fragment on one of my cd-r’s, and we listened to it later on, we always pressed fast forward to the next pre- or from-”Hook” bit. To borrow a Don McLean phrase: sometime after “Hook” there was a day, a very black day, that the music died. I still buy every Williams album which appears, and will continue to do so. Out of respect, appreciation and gratitude. But I can’t say I have enjoyed any of them very much, since “Hook”.

_


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 28, 2012)

OK Piet, lemmie push you a little. If I have a gift in this world, a musical one, it's that I think I'm good at knowing what music should go with what picture - to help tell a story or make a gag work. That music could be incredibly simple or complex, of any style whatsoever. My own musical skills are modest at best, but enough to do what I want to borderline-passable degree most of the time. I'm aware that in the context of the show I'll get away with a helluva lot more than I would were it listened to in isolation. But what it sounds like in isolation is waaaay down on my list of concerns. Nobody, not even the director, will ever hear it in isolation. The only person that will is me (and any occasional wastrels who wander past my website and hear anything I put up there). In fact, I'm pretty sure there are a few odd cues that even I have never even heard in isolation - the guide track has always been there!

I've just come back from the cinema with the kids from seeing Magagascar 3, which Hans composed. Perfectly effective score, helped the story no end (and good lord it needed all the help it could get... a fun enough film, but all over the place editorially). But at least twice there were moments that I swear to god would have got bigger laughs if the music (or editing) had played it differently. For all I know, that was a directorial decision, so there's no criticism intended from a minnow such as I (just in case he is reading this thread). But in general it's those sorts of decisions - nebulous that they are - is where I think my talent is.

But basically I think scoring to picture (and music editing) is where I should be. It's clearly the right role for me if I do indeed have talent like that. But Piet - if you couldn't care less about how music works to picture, should you really be doing that? I have no doubt whatsover that your musical skill greatly exceeds mine, but in the end I care about the story more than the music. The China Syndrome and the Blair Witch Project worked best with no score at all, and I'd support that decision all the way. (I realise I may be making a huge assumption here, and perhaps you don't score to picture). Surely you'd be best off, and happiest, being free of the absurd constraints that picture will always put you through? Everything will be an intrusion. Every cue will be painful.

That Williams makes scores that you can edit into little symphonies is a happy accident (or at best a by-product). A very happy one, wherever and however that gift was bestowed. Because Williams is - and always has been - a masterful musical storyteller, and that's the core purpose of every one of those scores. You may disagree there - you may argue that in the case of Superman he couldn't have cared less what the picture was doing, and just channeled divine brilliance and randomly called it 2M14. Unless anyone has any actual evidence that he's ever done that, I won't believe it however, since everything I've ever heard him say on the subject or watched myself in documentary suggests the exact opposite. I'm not saying that his music doesn't flow in isolation - clearly it does, and it's part of his skill that it can sound cohesive, despite it's primary purpose being to serve story.

I'm genuinely interested to know - what do you make of his concert music? Is it as inspired for you as his film work? Logically I'd have thought it was more consistently to your taste. If it isn't.... doesn't it in fact suggest that the picture, the image or the story really IS what inspires / inspired him?


----------



## re-peat (Oct 29, 2012)

> noiseboyuk @ Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:14 pm wrote: (...) I’m genuinely interested to know - what do you make of his concert music? Logically, I’d have thought it was more consistently to your taste. (...)


You’d think that, wouldn’t you? Yes, I thought so too. I first approached his concert music with that very same, hopeful expectation, but alas, after repeated listenings, I must say I never felt (or feel) that same excitement and earth-shattering awe which overtakes me when listening to his great scores. There’s something about his concert work which disappoints me in much the same way as Gershwin’s serious work disappoints me when I compare it to his songs or his “Rhapsody In Blue”. (‘Disappoint’ is much too strong a word though. I very much enjoy listening to this music, it’s just that it doesn’t puzzle nor baffle me. It doesn’t seem to happen in that stratosphere of boundless creativity where the composer leaves me far behind, as I described it earlier on in this thread. I have a feeling, but I might be wrong, that it’s not so much the absence of inspiring pictures — in Williams’ case anyway —, but possbily more the idea “I want to be taken seriously” or “Listen carefully, cause I’m doing serious stuff here” which could well be responsible for a lot of loss of verve, purity and boyish bravoura in these composers. 

But again, it’s just a thought, I might very well be far off the mark with all this. Come to think of, Herrmann made a similar effort at being taken seriously, with his opera “Wuthering Heights”, and that also resulted in work for which the composer probably won’t be remembered. Or, take Leonard Bernstein: “West Side Story”, that marvel of superb and unhibited invention? Or one of his ‘serious’ symphonies which nobody can sit through without looking impatiently at their watch? You tell me.

The desire to be ‘taken seriously’ seems to make all these brilliant composers — and there are many, many more examples — to reflect too much on their art, on what they expect from themselves (and what the world might be expecting from them) and maybe even on their place in history too. And if that is indeed the case, it can’t but stifle the creativity and kill much of the spontaneity, inevitably resulting in much more contrived and self-conscious (at times even pretentious) music which, to my ears, is certainly nowhere near as fresh, as pure, as vibrant and as alive as their so-called ‘lighter’ work (in the case of Herrmann and Williams: film music, in the case of Gershwin and Bernstein: Broadway). Gershwin writing a piano concerto suddenly starts to entertain ideas which he never entertained before: ideas which his peers, the academics, and ‘History’ hopefully will approve of. And in the process he forgets who he really is. And that right there may well be the key to the whole thing, I believe: ignoring who you really are. The “Rhapsody” gushed out of him in all its brilliant, carefree inexperience and glorious academic imperfection, but it’s so much more exciting and convincing, as a piece, than the ‘serious’ concerto, which he studied for and laboured on. (Even though, naturally, that concerto has plenty of superb moments too, of course.) 

And it is, to some extent, the same thing with Williams, I’m inclinded to think. Williams writing a violin concerto or his “Five Sacred Trees” seems to suddenly ignore a vital part of his genius. Almost as if he’s suddenly a bit embarrassed about his unique and wonderful talent for writing Williams-music. The awareness of working on a ‘serious’ piece instantly seems to kill some of the brio, the sparkle, the joy and that fantastic, self-assured energy which makes his best film music as great as it is. And the funny thing is (in my view anyway): music really doesn’t get more ‘serious’ — in the sense of: profound, pure, honest, great — as it does in Williams’ best film music. 

Me, I prefer “Superman” over any Shostakovitch symphony. (I am aware I will be the risée of many a musical fraternity with statements such as these, but I don’t care.) The Williams work may be called ‘film music’ (and sneered at for being just that by the establishment), while the Shostakovitch symphonies are considered high-brow, self-revelatory and relevant art (always politely and sheepishly applauded by that same establishment), and yet, to me, in “Superman”, the art of music is practiced (and can be experienced) at least as seriously — and certainly more appealing to my musical mind — than in the Russian master’s symphonies. (Actually, Shostakovitch is also a composer who appeals most to me when he doesn’t try to be too ‘serious’. I really don’t care much for his heavy symphonic canon, but I’m deeply, deeply, deeply fond of his light-hearted, frivolous and witty 1st Piano Concerto. And likewise: of all Prokofiev’s symphonies, the one I enjoy most and rate highest, is his first: that breezy, unselfconscious little pastiche called “The Classical”. Much less ‘deep and serious’ than any of the others, but somehow ... magically perfect.) 

_


----------



## ryanstrong (Oct 29, 2012)

Piet - where might one listen to your work? Do you have a SoundCloud or website?


----------



## re-peat (Oct 29, 2012)

> noiseboyuk @ Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:14 pm wrote: (...) But if you couldn’t care less about how music works to picture, should you really be doing that? (...)


Good question. As nature would have it, I seem to have a certain gift for marrying music with pictures too. I can also jump in the water and stay afloat. Nothing exceptional in itself of course, but still, the recurring enthusiasm of people I work for, indicates I must be doing something right whenever I do it. 

So yes, I think there’s nothing much wrong with me doing it. I don’t do it all that often though, and I’m certainly not interested in any career along these lines. But I do find the occasional assignment quite a pleasant divertissement for the mind and, not to be ignored of course: it does pay the odd bill. Unlike you though, I’m always very much concerned — possibly even overly concerned — about what my film- or tv-music sounds like in isolation. 

For me, it always *has* to work on its own as well, without the pictures, as abstract music. Otherwise, I get bored. Immensely bored. Maybe my music is but slight music, but it can certainly be listened to without seeing what it was written for. And that is always very important to me, if only to keep the creative juices flowing while I’m working on it. And also, because I like to listen to my own music the way I listen to other people’s music: it has to give me a certain amount of purely musical pleasure.

_


----------



## ryanstrong (Oct 29, 2012)

re-peat @ Mon Oct 29 said:


> No website or soundcloud-page, Rystro. Sorry. I sometimes post a bit of music here in the Members' section, that's all. I can PM you a few links if you like though.
> 
> By the way, for quite some time now I've been meaning — honestly — to congratulate you on _your_ website and, even more so, on all the activities you seem to be involved in. Verrrry impressive work, in all areas. I rarely bookmark websites but yours immediately ended up in my menu, as a reference and an inspiration.
> 
> _



You always have an interesting point of view on music and things discussed here that made me very intrigued about your actual work! I have to assume it's just as thought provoking.

And how kind of you to say regarding my diversity of work!

You know taking this current subject of John Williams, for me he's such a interesting person to look at. I wear so many hats creatively: composer, fashion photographer, cinematographer, graphic and web designer etc., but John Williams is/was a MASTER at what he does... composing, and when I look at the amount of things that interest me a great deal my work spreads across so much that I struggle with the idea of whether I should let go of the reigns on some things that I'm involved in and focus my attention on maybe one or two things? BUT for me and my personality that would be impossible. I'm too curious. I just really really LOVE everything I'm involved in, and I study and research as much as humanly possible in each gifting to become better at what I do.

Zooming out a little you look at how the artist has evolved over the past 25 years technology really has allowed, and in same cases mandated, individuals to become efficient in many different mediums of the arts.

A prime example are most individuals here in the forum. Most composers 25-50 years ago were not verse in programming as the "modern" composer is now who does the writing, the programming, even the mixing and so on.

Another good example from a composer I admire very much is our very own Mike Verta. Not only a fantastic composer but also a very talented CGI/visual effects designer, and a very good teacher.

This is certainly a great discussion beyond Williams' Lincoln and his work but I believe it is a reflection on the generational difference that we are seeing and how it influences music and the arts.

It's an interesting thing what the computer has done for or to the artist.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 29, 2012)

[/quote="rystro @ Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:31 pm/]



This is certainly a great discussion beyond Williams' Lincoln and his work but I believe it is a reflection on the generational difference that we are seeing and how it influences music and the arts.

It's an interesting thing what the computer has done for or to the artist.[/quote]

Now that's a whole 'nother interesting discussion.


----------



## Leosc (Oct 29, 2012)

re-peat @ Mon Oct 29 said:


> And the funny thing is (in my view anyway): music really doesn’t get more ‘serious’ — in the sense of: profound, pure, honest, great — as it does in Williams’ best film music.



Piet, that is something I've been reflecting on for some time now. As somebody who practically grew up on films with Williams' music, and who only got into classical music way later, this is also a personal matter to me. And what I always concluded - and I'd love to hear your objection to it - is that no, I always feel somewhere deep in me that ultimately, his music lacks some last touch of the eternal, or just simply - a final depth.
Not to be misunderstood: I admire his work, more than any other film composer I can think of, and in fact most other composers I'm aware of as well. 
But if we move out of the world of film music and into that of classical, romantic and even "new" music (and I consider _myself_ a "classical" composer), I always hear a quiet voice whispering "No, it's not quite there". No, Williams never reaches the earth-shattering, galactic triumph of the finale of Mahler's 8th symphony, and he never composed as personal and profound an uttering as his 9th. Williams' themes never touched the longing of Brahms's (although E.T. comes close), and I can't think of him composing with such wit, lightness and beauty as Brahms in his first piano concerto. 
I could string together probably a dozen more of these anecdotes - none of them do the music justice - but that's not the point. Am I totally wrong-headed here? Because I'd love to shut that nagging voice up.


----------



## re-peat (Oct 30, 2012)

> Acall @ Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:29 pm wrote: (...) and I’d love to hear your objection to it (...)


That is good, cause I’m going to object. But no, you’re not wrong-headed at all. You are in fact spot on. It is true that there’s nothing in Williams that can be said to explore the same depths — or heights, if you like — as the greatest works of the classical repertoire sometimes do, but in my view, that’s overlooking a few things. 

First of all, I think Williams is not a musical novellist, he’s more of a musical short story writer. He’s literature’s Wodehouse, Poe or Updike, compared to, say, Joyce, Hemingway or Tolstoy. In other words, there’s a big and very relevant difference in scale.

Secondly, and most importantly of all, there is the *matter of ambiguity* (‘ambiguity of meaning’). In my opinion, a great deal of classical music’s lasting power is based on ambiguity. Ambiguity is the thing that makes (good) art age well. It allows for endless revisiting, for interpretation and reinterpretation, for rediscovery, for reaquaintance, for discussion … in short: ambiguity keeps good art (and what it means to any of us) alive. Ambiguity is the thing that invites, encourages and inspires the listener to “finish the piece” as it were, according to his/her own talent, intelligence, sensibilities, imagination, empathic powers, creativity, etc. 

All great art is to some extent unfinished, in my opinion. The finishing needs to be done by the listener/viewer/reader. And the greatest art allows for a different finish everytime it is experienced. That is what I mean by ambiguity. When you and I listen to Brahms’ first, we both may hear the same music, but we both also hear something very different. That’s because we both “finish the piece” in our own, and inevitably different, way. That’s the power of ambiguity and therein lies, I strongly believe, the ultimate greatness of great art. It speaks to each of us differently but always in complete accordance with who each of us is, precisely because we are the ones, each in his/her own way, who add the final touches to the experience. And while, on the one hand, this is a very powerful individual experience, it’s also an equally powerful universal one, human nature being what it is. 

The greatest music is music where the musical ingredients are both fascinating, exciting and interesting on a strictly musical level AND where the composition of these musical elements also creates a sort of semantic ambiguity. Great music is never one thing, it’s many things. And it can be a different thing everytime you hear it. Music which doesn’t have this ambiguity inevitably starts to become tedious over time. That’s why light music is light music and serious music is serious music. A Strauss waltz, for example, no matter how glorious a piece of music it may be (and I happen to think that a great Strauss waltz is a thing of utter beauty), doesn’t have this ambiguity and hence it is condemned to never be able to touch me as deeply as, say, Beethoven’s 7th symphony.

Tchaikovsky’s Nutcracker music: other good example. No one, certainly not me, will deny its exceptional musical value, charm and appeal, and yet, listen to it one time too many, and the music inevitably starts to loose some of its enchanting power, doesn’t it? As if you’ve just eaten one bite too many of a multi-layered, generously coated cake. Why is that? Lack of ambiguity. The Nutcracker pieces have one and only one ‘musical meaning’ and, no matter how fabulous this music may be written (on a purely musical level), it’s this ‘semantic limitation’ which prevents it from touching us (well, me, at least) as deeply as, say, any of Mozart’s late symphonies. 
For obvious reasons, film music can rarely achieve this ambiguity. Ambiguity of meaning is, of course, often the last thing that is desired in film music. Being written to accompany/evoke very specific scenes, situations, moods or emotions, one of the first things that a composer has to sacrifice, is in fact: ambiguity of meaning. And that is precisely why, I believe, most film music can never be truly timelessly great. (It is also one of the biggest reasons, by the way, why film music is so much more popular than ‘serious’ classical music: lack of ambiguity makes listening easy, satisfying and pleasantly predictable, in a Nutcrackery-sort of way.) 

With all that in mind, I can finally say why I believe Williams, and to a slightly lesser extent Waxman, are such incredibly great composers, infinitely greater than most others: somehow, they manage to give their music — even within the rigid limitations that film music poses on them — a certain amount of ambiguity. Not only is their (best) music wonderfully inspired, fabulously well-written and intellectually stimulating, but I can also listen to it, time and time again, and somehow, it’s always new AND it invites me, every time again, to put my own finishing touches to it. Granted, it doesn’t dig as deep as Brahms, Beethoven or Stravinsky, but it digs more than deep enough for me to know full well that I’m in the presence of total and absolute genius.

_


----------



## Simon Ravn (Oct 30, 2012)

Can't comment on Lincoln yet as I refuse to listen to random 30 sec clips - but the score got a lot of good remarks over at the JW fan forum.

As for Williams "having lost it" or something like that, I can't agree just one bit. I think "Tintin" is a very fresh, fun and impressive score. I much prefer it to "War Horse", but there's always a lot to be impressed by in pretty much any Williams score. I for one am still looking forward to anything he writes, even at the age of 80+.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 30, 2012)

http://www.imdb.com/list/FoiEz6pJZ6w/


----------



## choc0thrax (Oct 30, 2012)

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=96524

Will be interesting to see who's hired to score this thing in 2015.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 30, 2012)

choc0thrax @ Tue Oct 30 said:


> http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=96524
> 
> Will be interesting to see who's hired to score this thing in 2015.



Whhhhhaaaaa???!!!!!! This needs a new thread. Hardly know where to begin.

EDIT - as far as Williams goes, I strongly suspect he'll echo Lucas' "time to pass it on to a new generation".


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 30, 2012)

Two points, Piet, not critical, but a sort of correction and a thought-

First, Updike and Wodehouse (both of whom I've read extensively) are best known as novelists as opposed to short story writers. I'm sure you meant that their works were nowhere near the epic length or depth of the other authors you mention, though for my money Updike was amazingly thoughtful about the nature of the American psyche when it came to relationships between men and women.

Second, it appears to me that anyway who cuts Wiliams' film music into "symphonies" could fairly be called a fan, and as such, probably wouldn't be 100% objective about his work. That's fine, and as a matter of fact I think it's crticial in developing a love of music, but I thought I'd mention it. I'm a fan as well, and though I haven't seen War Horse and rarely listen to scores on their own, I suspect I'd find plenty to like about the music. I'd guess Williams' work at 65% trumps a lot of other music.

I'll be skipping War Horse for now, so that call will take some time, but I cannot resist Daniel Day Lewis, so I'll be in early to see Lincoln despite the inevitable Speilbergian treacle poured on it. The one clip I heard (I try not to listen to those either) sounded vaguely Copeland-esque. I guess we'll see.


Great discussion all the way 'round.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 30, 2012)

Exactly Larry. Updike was a serious observer of the social and cultural more's of the US during the time period he wrote, as Joyce Carole Oates is now.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 30, 2012)

I think Europeans often see Americans as being incurious about the world outside the U.S. I think that charge is largely true, however, even for those of us who actually think, the petri dish of the past American century is prety absorbing.

Way OT. Back to Wiliams et al.


----------



## Leosc (Oct 30, 2012)

re-peat @ Tue Oct 30 said:


> ...



It's good that we find common ground again, and I agree with you - for the most part. What you call _musical ambiguity_, I (in my understanding anyways) would call this: Intellectual stimulus. Something - feeling, idea, inherent concept -, more than a stupid melody or chord progression stuck in my head, something that resounds somewhere within me, that makes the music vivid in any way you look at it.
And, as much as I adore Williams' music, that is something I tend not to find in it. To a degree reserved to, say, Mozart or Schubert that is. To me, Williams is always more emotionally than intellectually evocative. Not that that is something bad, quite to the contrary. As the last century has shown us, overintellectualized music is terribly void, pointlessly inward-looking, endlessly delaying any reward (which is, ultimately, the thought behind it of course). But a music that is simultaneously complexly emotional and profoundly intellectual I have only yet found in the old masters. And that is why I can't agree with "music really doesn’t get more ‘serious’ — in the sense of: profound, pure, honest, great — as it does in Williams’ best film music."

But that is not the only point our opinions diverge... I have to disagree with another core principle of what you said: I don't find all great art to be unfinished to some extent. By all means, *most* art is, at least 99,99999...%. 
But here I'm in line with Lenny Bernstein in the last of his Harvard lectures. Music _is_ an equation, like the universal constants, with infinite variables and likely never to be fully grasped by man. But once in a very long while, a uniquely gifted composer solves that equation. 
And to me two of those solutions are the adagio of Mozart's clarinet concerto the Air of Bach's third orchestral suite. Of course, and I agree with you, we do associate feelings and thoughts as we experience them, simply by our human nature. But I can not think of anything _more_ perfect, or anything that we could think or feel that could add to its beauty.


----------



## ryanstrong (Nov 12, 2012)

With the soundtrack released and the film hitting theaters I'd love to revisit this topic, if its not completely dead, once everyone has had a chance to see the film and hear Williams' score in context. I plan to see it this weekend hopefully.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 12, 2012)

We saw the movie last week. It was really well done, the history was interesting...but I have to admit that it didn't grab me the whole time and I fell asleep for a little while.

After the screening the writer, Tony Kushner, answered questions. He's an interesting guy.

Of course John Williams' score was good and appropriate.

By the way, I'm surprised that people thought he was at his best 30 years ago. To me he out-John Williamsed John Williams in the Harry Potter films.


----------



## synapse21 (Nov 13, 2012)

No one's mentioned Tintin? It came out about this time last year alongside Warhorse and is pretty woodwind-lively, as expected. I loved it.


----------



## Ganvai (Nov 13, 2012)

Really? Tintin? So well I know it was very jazzy and I think it was very ambitious work, I would never doubt that. But there was not one moment it really got me. Also the movie was quit fun, there was never the point I thought about getting the score.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Nov 13, 2012)

re-peat @ 30/10/2012 said:


> __



I couldn't agree more. In fact: ________________.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 15, 2012)

So, I saw Lincoln tonight, and loved it-I thought it was a well made, brilliantly scripted, inspiring piece of Americana-and a little scary to boot, the intersection of the end of the Civil War being held hostage by Lincoln to the passage of the 13th Amendment-something I didn't know. A story of pragmatism vs. deeply held convictions, humility vs. pride and pragmatism, political manipulation, etc etc. I thought it was thoughtful, slow in places (I agree with Nick on that) but ultimately inspiring.

As to the score-it was almost invisible. I don't think Williams tried to impose his musical will on the movie in the slightest. I can't decide whether that is a good or bad thing overall. I generally expect Spielberg to pour treacle over everything and use his personal musical genius to tell us how we're supposed to feel at every turn. There was little or none of that. I think I'm glad there wasn't.

The use of too much solo piano, which didn't feel particularly "period" or have any real attitude to it might have been Williams' way of phoning it in. If it was, bless him, he's worked hard enough all his career and written so many wonderful pieces. Maybe it was a request from Spielberg? It didn't get in the way, it didn't help much-didn't really do much of anything. Bit of a puzzlement, but if he didn't help the movie with brilliance, he didn't hurt it with too many broad strokes either.


----------



## David Story (Dec 3, 2012)

A great discussion, plus a fun mystery reconstructing Piet's _____ 
As usual I agree with noiseboy and dcosina.

I loved Lincoln, a brilliant portrait of perhaps the greatest leader in American history. Lewis, Jones, Strathairn, Field were all great in a story that's essentially a courtroom drama. With the fate of millions on trial. The score improved the film, helped it flow and have greater emotional range. 

John Williams told me he starts with the rhythm of the film. In a dialog-driven film, those rhythms are a lot more subtle than physical battles. And with great acting, a lot easier for the audience to believe.

ET was a huge challenge, to lift up the film and the audience on a fantastical journey. A light romantic comedy with big stars takes a lot less musical-dramatic skill. Lincoln also needed less from music, the other departments carry the story often. But the skill is there. The film will get award recognition.

War Horse called for a profound score and that's what John Williams gave us. It's as thoughtful and heartfelt as anything he's ever done. But more subtle and pastoral, less showy on the surface. He's helping the film in ways that take several listens to fully appreciate. Of course that's true of any well crafted art, but especially in Williams' later works.

"The more you love music, the more music you love." In my opinion. Try not to go crazy though 
I like recent scores from Shore, McCreary, Newman. JW is in there too.


----------



## Simon Ravn (Dec 3, 2012)

synapse21 @ Tue Nov 13 said:


> No one's mentioned Tintin? It came out about this time last year alongside Warhorse and is pretty woodwind-lively, as expected. I loved it.



I think Tintin is one of Williams most playful and fresh accomplishments lately. At least there are stylistic touches in it which he never used before like the quick string portamentos (not sure if those are notated as grace notes or what...) in what I would call the main theme of the film (which is what starts the last track on the CD, it happens). There is also some very cool suspense writing and parts of the Haddock story music is also very nice. It's not a masterpiece, but it brings a smile to my face, especially that "innovative" violin usage in the main theme.


----------



## Audun Jemtland (Dec 16, 2012)

If a movie sucks, how is a composer gonna get a great feed off of the movie and be inspired? 

A movie will to an extent, "create" it's own music.

There's also a big importance that you LOVE what you are doing and not simply say yes to every project.

It's not Williams' "fault" if a score suck :D 
He gave what the directors wanted. How would war horse be better? Should it have a different theme? Could any other composer make it brilliant? Or was this simply as good as it could get?

Movies has become more and more like music videos. Music, music, music. Old movies that have two or three songs in them is so much more powerful. 

Directors sometimes seem like spoiled brats that wants something better than everything else. Bigger,better and more. 

Look at the old star wars movies, the films and music goes hand in hand. Not so much with the new movies. George changed it, and Williams was "forced" to follow.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Apr 1, 2013)

Finally saw this. I am convinced that if people did not like William's score ,it is because we live in an era where subtlety and restraint, which it was a model of, is just no longer properly appreciated amidst all the bombast.


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 1, 2013)

I admire subtlety and restraint. I thought the score was invisible.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Apr 1, 2013)

NYC Composer @ Mon Apr 01 said:


> I admire subtlety and restraint. I thought the score was invisible.



I thought it was perfect, enhancing the emotions of the story without being intrusive or overtly sentimental..


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 1, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Apr 02 said:


> NYC Composer @ Mon Apr 01 said:
> 
> 
> > I admire subtlety and restraint. I thought the score was invisible.
> ...



Well, you're wrong.


:twisted:


----------



## re-peat (Apr 2, 2013)

I never thought we would see the day that Mr. Williams would resort to such dull, dreary, formulaïc and insipid nothingness as he chose to contribute to 'Lincoln'. Not a single spark of his former genius to be heard. Embarassingly empty, it pains me to say.

_


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 2, 2013)

He did not impose his will on the movie.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 2, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Apr 02 said:


> Finally saw this. I am convinced that if people did not like William's score ,it is because we live in an era where subtlety and restraint, which it was a model of, is just no longer properly appreciated amidst all the bombast.



I've still seen neither the film nor heard the soundtrack, but just to re-state - the BBC's main film review radio programme, Kermode and Mayo, singled out the score as the only weak link in the film. The reason? It was too BIG, over-emotive. Spielberg spoke of the film needing a "quiet lens", with none of the usual tricks, but they felt the score didn't fit into that ethos. So while you say it was subtle and had no bombast, and Larry thinks it was invisible, these critics thought it was the exact opposite - too overbearing. (again, I have no view myself, just reporting what I heard... and Kermode cares greatly about music in film).

The recent thread here about minimalism was really interesting - I think quality TV drama may have revised downwards the intrusiveness of scores in drama.


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 2, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Tue Apr 02 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue Apr 02 said:
> 
> 
> > Finally saw this. I am convinced that if people did not like William's score ,it is because we live in an era where subtlety and restraint, which it was a model of, is just no longer properly appreciated amidst all the bombast.
> ...



I don't know those critics, but there was no bombast to the score, trust me. There wasn't much of anything. There were pretty good portions of solo piano, not particularly evocative. It's not inspiration and wonder, it's not shock and awe, it's just...there.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Apr 2, 2013)

Scores from Mr. Williams that I have loved to death since the 90's and feel are as good as the old stuff - some perhaps even better - my opinion of course!


1. Jurassic Park

2. Schindler's list

3. Saving Private Ryan

4. Star Wars Episode I

5. Artificial Intelligence

6. Harry Potter I

7. Minority Report 

8. Harry Potter II

9. Catch me if you can

10. Harry Potter III

11. The Terminal

12. Star Wars Episode III

13. Memoirs of a Geisha

14. Munich

15. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

16. Tintin

17. War Horse (Least favourite out of the above but still great melodies and orchestration)


The above mentioned 17 films carry enough material to challenge almost any other film composer's life work in terms of excellence as far as body of work is concerned. And I haven't even mentioned his earlier work!

I think, he has still got it. Lincoln is not my favourite but I have not listened to it fully and not seen the movie yet. 

The man has given enough and has absolutely nothing left to prove. We are also forgetting some of his best work in the following two non-film music albums:

1. American Journey

2. Yo-Yo Ma Plays the music of John Williams (One of my personal favourites from all of Mr. Williams's music).

The magic we are talking about also depends on what the movie was like and what sort of cultural context it had at the time. When Jurassic Park was out, people were going crazy about it but not for Tintin. These things do play a role and with age, we perceive things differently in music as well.

Of course, this is just my opinion.


Tanuj.


----------



## re-peat (Apr 2, 2013)

I've restored all my previous posts in this thread (including the ones on Bernard Herrmann). Quite like some of them, and there's even one (higher up on this very page) which attempts to tackle that eternally difficult problem of "why great music is great", an issue which also came up in another thread, when we discussed "music has no intrinsic value".

Anyway, for what it's worth.

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Apr 2, 2013)

It is a FILM score. It's primary purpose is not to be great music, it is to serve the film, and it does.The film is so much about the dialogue that there is simply not the opportunity for a bravura score. It needed and understated one, disciplined, and yet poignant, and that is what JW did IMHO.

It is simply silly to compare it to i.e. Star Wars or E.T. . It is a totally different kind of film and therefore required a totally different kind of score. Spielberg, fortunately, understands that.


----------



## Darthmorphling (Apr 2, 2013)

Having watched the film I can say, in my opinion, the score worked very well supporting the film. Listening to the soundtrack is a pleasure as well.


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 4, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Apr 02 said:


> It is a FILM score. It's primary purpose is not to be great music, it is to serve the film, and it does.The film is so much about the dialogue that there is simply not the opportunity for a bravura score. It needed and understated one, disciplined, and yet poignant, and that is what JW did IMHO.
> 
> It is simply silly to compare it to i.e. Star Wars or E.T. . It is a totally different kind of film and therefore required a totally different kind of score. Spielberg, fortunately, understands that.



I wasn't LOOKING for a a bravura FILM score. I was looking for a subtle but incredibly moving one. I didn't hear it. The music faded into the background and supported the film in a way any composer could have done, and many much better. There is no bigger admirer of Mr Williams, but this is not very good work, much less anything close to his best. It was simply...there. It didn't add, it didn't detract. It supported without shining in any way.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 4, 2013)

Just for anyone interested in what some score-loving film critics made of it, here's the exact moment where BBC film guru Mark Kermode discusses Lincoln's score and finds it wanting - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... Vs0#t=533s (should jump straight to 8m54s) . Interesting that, for him, it was too much, but it wasn't enough for you Larry (do I have that right?)


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 4, 2013)

I didnt want it to be any more forceful. I wanted it to take a stance. For me, it didnt.

However, I've come to realize this is mostly a ridiculous debate. There are people who think they can tell other people what is definitively 'good' or not. I'm not one of them.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Apr 4, 2013)

NYC Composer @ Thu Apr 04 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue Apr 02 said:
> 
> 
> > It is a FILM score. It's primary purpose is not to be great music, it is to serve the film, and it does.The film is so much about the dialogue that there is simply not the opportunity for a bravura score. It needed and understated one, disciplined, and yet poignant, and that is what JW did IMHO.
> ...



I understand. You were looking for an "incredibly moving score." My point is that if Spielberg says to JW (or JW's own instincts say to him) " John, Tony Kushner's words and the actors' performances are so emotional and strong that they carry the film and need very little help. Let's make sure that the music is very restrained so that it does not turn it into kitsch" then this is the kind of score you get and should get. As to any composer being able to do it, it is harder than it looks and anyway, it was John's gig to do.

IMHO, and I respect that you differ Larry, is that an "incredibly moving score" not only was unnecessary, it would have cheapened the picture.


----------



## Jimbo 88 (Apr 4, 2013)

Well I think the score could have been better. It would have been way better had I'd been invited or at least informed of the recording....which took place blocks from where I live and work!! And I had no idea.

Man I wish I could have been there. I could have been a fly on the wall...


----------



## Jimbo 88 (Apr 15, 2013)

Ok I just watched Lincoln a 2nd time. This time in my house.

The score is OUTSTANDING! 

There is one scene where Lincoln slowly rides thru a battle field and I wish that was scored differently. I like the notes played, but I don't like that scene with a solo piano. Piano is too much an "inside" instrument for me. An out of tune violin doing the same piece would have been better.... in my mind.


But other than that Williams score is counterpoint and underscore to the speeches and scenes. 

Brilliant.

I loved it....


----------

