thanks for the sarcasm. I do not have the musical knowledge he has but I can stand aside and listen to his and to other composers, a lot classical and I can hear greatness and uniqueness. He is tied to his music and possibly cannot truly hear how great he truly is. As an outsider I can.
Listening to classical music and loving it are different things. If you loved classical music as John Williams does, you would understand what he is saying.
He also just says what some people here criticize, that however good or great a film music is, it cannot be compared to Brahms or Beethoven (they are just examples).
And that's really not a problem. Film music just doesn't allow it, it's simply not its purpose.
That said, John Williams also composes classical music, which I really like by the way, but has never achieved here either what Beethoven or Brahms did in their symphonies and concertos.
Johnny is much better than Johannes! (and a much nicer guy too). Brm
I like Johnny, too.
Which is important, it's not how good or not, or how great or not, a music is, but the pleasure we have when we are listening to it, whatever the music is.
Avatarded, if you’re reading this I’d like to try to understand your rationale behind this statement.
It went like this:
Film music is not, and never will be "classical music". Music performed by an orchestra does not make it classical music. It might be based on something classical or romantic or whatever the period, but that's not what it is. It's modern (contemporary) orchestral music. In terms of his popularity, his acclaim, and influence, which Paul mentioned when he said:
(which is ludicrous, when SW actually inspired legions of people to start listening to film music -- and rekindled an interest in more symphonic scoring in Hollywood).
And like it or not, it's pretty true. It's not about how good the music is, or how worthy in direct relation to those classical composers, it's just the reach and impact (and it was of course a positive impact ) Williams has or had is what made me say that. I'm not thinking about it like a small community of film score people on a board like this who can list off 15 other composers of vastly superior talent to Williams, I'm thinking general population, whether it's some refined elitist critic or dude living out of a shack in the Florida everglades. If I'm wrong, that's totally fine. If my statement makes one roll their eyes at how ridiculous it is, that's fine as well. You asked for my rationale, and there it is. It's not really deep, it's pretty on-the-surface type stuff.
Avatarded, if you’re reading this I’d like to try to understand your rationale behind this statement.
It went like this:
Film music is not, and never will be "classical music". Music performed by an orchestra does not make it classical music. It might be based on something classical or romantic or whatever the period, but that's not what it is. It's modern (contemporary) orchestral music. In terms of his popularity, his acclaim, and influence, which Paul mentioned when he said:
(which is ludicrous, when SW actually inspired legions of people to start listening to film music -- and rekindled an interest in more symphonic scoring in Hollywood).
And like it or not, it's pretty true. It's not about how good the music is, or how worthy in direct relation to those classical composers, it's just the reach and impact (and it was of course a positive impact ) Williams has or had is what made me say that. I'm not thinking about it like a small community of film score people on a board like this who can list off 15 other composers of vastly superior talent to Williams, I'm thinking general population, whether it's some refined elitist critic or dude living out of a shack in the Florida everglades. If I'm wrong, that's totally fine. If my statement makes one roll their eyes at how ridiculous it is, that's fine as well. You asked for my rationale, and there it is. It's not really deep, it's pretty on-the-surface type stuff.
Thanks - what I was inferring from your statement was rather different and hard to swallow, but I understand where you’re coming from now you’ve been good enough to explain.
It's the kind of thing that makes me wonder, what made Michael Jackson the "King of Pop", Elvis Presley the "King of Rock and Roll", Aretha Franklin the "Queen of Soul" along with James Brown the "Godfather of Soul". Were they all pioneers or did they have the most influence on their genres? Did they have that broad worldwide appeal and impact?
And then it might be fun to think of how John Williams would fit into the criteria that gave those four their titles. There are probably others but those three were the ones that came to mind first. I don't know what made Brown a 'Godfather' rather than a 'King' though.
Just because some of it mimics Ravel or Berlioz or Strauss doesn't raise its stature beyond what it is. When I hear Williams, I hear film music. Sometimes, with pieces like the Well of Souls or Fortress of Solitude material, I think "This stuff is great and sounds like it could be part of a serious concert piece". But it isn't. It's film music.
From my perspective the quality of the music is immaterial to the medium it was designed for. Mendelssohn's A Midsummer Night's Dream is incidental music written for the play -- effectively the "film music" of its time. Daphnis et Chloe and The Rite of Spring are ballet music -- written to accompany a visual presentation. Yet all of these are acknowledged to be valid listening experiences, even when divorced from the stage performances they were intended for.
I personally make no distinction between recordings of John Corigliano's film scores and his concert works -- especially when the first movement of Corigliano's Symphony #1 is mostly a re-purposed cue from Revolution. Is his symphony concert music, or is it film music?
And of course some composers -- notably John Williams -- make special arrangements of principal themes for album presentation, to create a better-flowing listening experience. Are those arrangements technically "film music"? That's debatable. Their melodic building blocks may be inspired by a movie, but they are not written to accompany images nor is their development confined to the timings or dramatic parameters of a film.
Richard Addinsell's Warsaw Concerto was written for a film, but became a massive success in the concert hall, as did Corigliano's Chaconne from The Red Violin. Some of John Williams' "fake" Christmas songs for Home Alone have gone on to become popular holiday standards themselves.
This all says to me that "film music vs. absolute music" is a very blurred line in today's culture.
It's the kind of thing that makes me wonder, what made Michael Jackson the "King of Pop", Elvis Presley the "King of Rock and Roll", Aretha Franklin the "Queen of Soul" along with James Brown the "Godfather of Soul". Were they all pioneers or did they have the most influence on their genres? Did they have that broad worldwide appeal and impact?
Well, in the case of Michael Jackson, it was a matter of his reps sending out a press release stating, in effect, "From this day forward, he will be referred to as 'The King of Pop'" and the media mindlessly going along with it. True story.
What is this "classical music" anyway? Something they used to make, but don't anymore. Of course new works are being premiered all the time, but how many get recorded, how many are worth a second listen. My favourite classical stuff comes from the first half of the 18th century, I listen to that & other classics & favourite film music & (mostly) seventies pop, say, Rameau/Goldsmith/Sparks, & I really couldn't care less what any critic thinks.
From my perspective the quality of the music is immaterial to the medium it was designed for.
Well, live concert music isn't close-miked so the balance within the orchestra (and voices) has to work without manipulating the emphasis of individual instruments that can happen with a soundtrack. When a soundtrack is played in a concert and sounds less impactful, we often blame the conductor and orchestra or even the venue, when in fact it's sometimes the composer's fault for writing music that simply can't be performed live in the way it is heard in the film. Much the same as an opera composer needing to make sure his singers aren't drowned out by the orchestra. I seem to recall reading that the Herrmann aria in Citizen Kane would be impossible to perform live as it is heard in the film because without studio recording balance adjustments, the soprano would struggle to be heard over the loud orchestra.
It's the kind of thing that makes me wonder, what made Michael Jackson the "King of Pop", Elvis Presley the "King of Rock and Roll", Aretha Franklin the "Queen of Soul" along with James Brown the "Godfather of Soul". Were they all pioneers or did they have the most influence on their genres? Did they have that broad worldwide appeal and impact?
Well, in the case of Michael Jackson, it was a matter of his reps sending out a press release stating, in effect, "From this day forward, he will be referred to as 'The King of Pop'" and the media mindlessly going along with it. True story.
Henceforth you shall refer to Mr. Marshall as "King of Poop"* Brm
It's the kind of thing that makes me wonder, what made Michael Jackson the "King of Pop", Elvis Presley the "King of Rock and Roll", Aretha Franklin the "Queen of Soul" along with James Brown the "Godfather of Soul". Were they all pioneers or did they have the most influence on their genres? Did they have that broad worldwide appeal and impact?
Well, in the case of Michael Jackson, it was a matter of his reps sending out a press release stating, in effect, "From this day forward, he will be referred to as 'The King of Pop'" and the media mindlessly going along with it. True story.
Henceforth you shall refer to Mr. Marshall as "King of Poop"* Brm
From my perspective the quality of the music is immaterial to the medium it was designed for.
I agree, but there can be limitations due to the medium.
In film music, a composer who needs to score 2 minutes here, 3 minutes there, a fanfare here, a polka there etc. just can't reach the same as in a symphony or a string quartet.
Even John Williams' classical music sounds very different from his film music.
And he can express much more personal and deeper feelings through his classical compositions.
Mendelssohn's A Midsummer Night's Dream is incidental music written for the play -- effectively the "film music" of its time. Daphnis et Chloe and The Rite of Spring are ballet music -- written to accompany a visual presentation. Yet all of these are acknowledged to be valid listening experiences, even when divorced from the stage performances they were intended for.
Don't forget that Mendelssohn composed symphonies, concertos, chamber music, piano music, oratorios etc.
And the stage music which has found a path to the concert hall is actually really marginal, just a handful.
There's even much more film music which is played in concert than stage music.
Regarding ballet music, and especially with Ravel and Stravinsky, it's a totally different matter since it's not functional music like film or stage music.
It's actually the visual presentation and the choregraphy that serve the music, not the contrary.
What is this "classical music" anyway? Something they used to make, but don't anymore. Of course new works are being premiered all the time, but how many get recorded, how many are worth a second listen. My favourite classical stuff comes from the first half of the 18th century, I listen to that & other classics & favourite film music & (mostly) seventies pop, say, Rameau/Goldsmith/Sparks, & I really couldn't care less what any critic thinks.
Many new works are recorded through labels such as ECM, Kairos, Wergo, Col Legno, New World Music, Albany Records, NMC, MFA, Stradivarius, Ondine, Bis, Naxos, Chandos etc.
And I certainly listen to them more than once, like many other people.
Mahler and Richard Strauss are the fathers of the contemporary orchestral music and their impact was just as significant upon Williams as it has been on most of the other great film composers mentioned here.
Since you seem to love so much Wagner, Mahler and Strauss, you should try Schreker and Zemlinsky if you don't know them.
The Prelude to a Drama (Schreker) and Die Seejungfrau (Zemlinsky), for example.
Zemlinsky was Korngold teacher, through Mahler's recommendation.
There's also something mahlerian in the Adagio of Korngold's Symphony in F sharp, if you don't know it :
Mahler and Richard Strauss are the fathers of the contemporary orchestral music and their impact was just as significant upon Williams as it has been on most of the other great film composers mentioned here.
Since you seem to love so much Wagner, Mahler and Strauss, you should try Schreker and Zemlinsky if you don't know them.
The Prelude to a Drama (Schreker) and Die Seejungfrau (Zemlinsky), for example.
Zemlinsky was Korngold teacher, through Mahler's recommendation.
There's also something mahlerian in the Adagio of Korngold's Symphony in F sharp, if you don't know it :
Thanks for sharing this, as I had no idea Korngold had written that. Plus, that is super cool about Mahler and Strauss and I'll certainly be checking out those recommended composers.
For fun, this is my overall top 10 composers:
1) Ludwig Van Beethoven (mostly the mid and ESPECIALLY the later eras...bulletproof imo) 2) Richard Wagner 3) Gustav Mahler 4) J.S. Bach 5) Alfred Newman 6) Anton Bruckner 7) Richard Strauss 8) Jerry Goldsmith 9) Béla Bartók 10) (tie) Bernard Herrmann and Miklos Rozsa
Honourable mention: (tie) Mozart/Haydn...though there are compositions by both composers I absolutely adore, overall I simply don't like the Classical era as much as the post-, Romantic and early 20th century music. I am also a long time study of the composer Arnold Schoenberg, and for current composers I like Penderecki, Williams, and Morricone, not much else, really. And I'm pretty selective when it comes to those last two composers.
The Korngold symphony never did much for me, but the violin concerto is such a sunny tuneful work, it's my go to piece if I need cheering up (& there's lots of good recordings of it).
In film music, a composer who needs to score 2 minutes here, 3 minutes there, a fanfare here, a polka there etc. just can't reach the same as in a symphony or a string quartet.
Saying music is better because it's longer is silly. It can be more developed, more 'symphonic', perhaps, but mastering the small form is hardly any easier than the long one. Take Chopin, for instance, who is a staple of the piano rep for short pieces. His music certainly "reaches the same" for most people, even though much of it is dance music.
