 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You don't work at Wal-Mart, do you?
No, I work in a vampire store. How can you disagree with me now?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think "romantic traditionalist" is an irrational label for Williams' body of work. Not that I would label him as strictly, avant garde either, but that aspect does exist, which was the point of my post. As long as it expands what is accepted, it is avante garde. It doesn't have to fly in the face of everything that came before.
If there were any label he should get, it would be "Film Composer" and sometimes "Concert Composer"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes I think John Williams is over-rated. Then I listen to James Horner to remember what the definition of "over-rated" is.
I think John Williams is an excellent craftsman. And I say that in the best possible light. He understands the craft of film composition.
I think he is sometimes brilliant.
I also think he is sometimes under-inspired, probably because he is something of a "house composer" for certain directors, and because of that, knows he is always going to have a job.
In other words, he doesn't have to worry about going without a meal.
There are long, intermnible passages in the more recent Star Wars films that are little more than time fillers. Sorry, I don't mean to offend, but that's how i see it.
However, then I listen to something like his "Amastad", or "Angela's Ashes", and I'm transported back to the first time I heard "Jaws", or "Star Wars", or, especially, "Close Encounters", and I think "My God, this guy is unbelievable"!
For me, regarding Mr. Williams, I think it's all about familiarity. I've become so familiar with his craft, I sometimes overlook his art.
Shame on me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 29, 2004 - 7:28 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
TownerFan
(Member)
|
I am a HUGE John Williams' admirer... so it's very hard for me to write something about his music that is not touched by my personal "devotion" to him.
BTW, I wanna try now. 
I think it's very, very hard to find something in Williams' output that is not greatly written or not crafted in a masterful way. As David Coscina as already written here, it's almost "irritating" to hear how damn good he is as a composer!
Coming to Williams' approach as film scoring, I have to agree by and large with others that said he reacts to a movie in a very simple, visceral way. He scores a film from the true perspective of the "casual" viewer. He's an advocate of simplicity and interprets film scoring in the most traditional way and in this sense he's truly the great heir of the Golden Age school.
But I think John Williams' music has maybe even more "freshness" than its illustrious predecessors, mostly because he's SO aware to follow the large footprints of Golden Age greats (and the classical masters too, of course). He's aware to continue a great tradition and he shows an exuberant, intoxicating fun for it. He said many times he consider himself very lucky being able to write in the same way Korngold, Steiner, Waxman and Ròzsa did. I believe he's deeply sincere when he says this and I think this sheer excitement is evident in his scores (especially the "big ones" like STAR WARS, RAIDERS and SUPERMAN).
But John Williams isn't a "predictable" composer. He may be simple, but he's not trite. He also showed a great deft hand in more mature and complex pictures, where music has a more complex, edgy and subtle role than in an adventure epic or a space fantasy. THE ACCIDENTAL TOURIST is a good example; I believe SLEEPERS is really one of his (if not THE) most underrated works in this sense... and A.I. is maybe his masterpiece of this part of his career.
I think John Williams' music, as almost everything concerning art, is subject to our tastes, our moods and our preferences. So it's easy to find things to like and things to dislike. But it's fair to acknowledge he's one of the film music greats of all time and that he's a damn good composer like there are few around.
In conclusion, I have to say (well, it's personal, I know) that I feel deeply touched almost by all the music written by this man... he's such an integral part of my life (both as a cinema-goer/lover and as a human being) that it's impossible for me to separate it from my soul. And maybe I will NEVER be able to say or write something about Williams' music that is truly unbiased or detached.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 29, 2004 - 7:34 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Tall Guy
(Member)
|
Don't let it bug you. People adding "IMHO" all the time is repetitive and boring. You don't see opinion columnists or movie reviewers doing it, why should posters do it? They're stating something as they see it. It's not forcing YOU to feel it.
So...relax. And if you need to, mentally add "IMHO" to these posts.
Like this one. 
Hi John
You don't see me making a point of this on anyone else's posts. So why Dan's?
Something to do with the way he presents assertions as irrefutable truths, blithely expecting everyone to conform with his views, perhaps? Is it not a little patronising? (Sorry to speak about you as if you're not here, Dan, by the way.)
By stating that Goldsmith (or anyone else, for that matter) is "probably - no, make that definitely" the most versatile film composer, Dan is sticking his chin out and daring people to take a swipe. Not to respond would be to acquiesce, and I don't. Versatility can't be measured - something is versatile or it isn't. I don't mind if Dan wears Goldsmith underpants - fine; I wear Shostakovich ones. Thor (when he wears them at all ) probably wears Elfman ones. Passion is a good thing, in my book.
But to be SO definite on something that clearly can't be proven is maybe a litle immature and not good writing in my opinion. Dan did the same in his JG obituary, and I kept my considerable nose out of it, partly out of respect for Goldsmith and partly because I was making allowance for Dan's obvious distress.
As it happens, another poster suggested Williams; I would also suggest that Morricone is at least as versatile. See - it's a matter of taste and opinion, and Dan has his, but he's not the ultimate arbiter of either.
Call it constructive criticism, if you like. I don't mean any ill. But, Dan - please curtail your extravagant claims on behalf of the late, great Mr Goldsmith. I don't think it does him any favours. You'll be claiming he discovered penicillin next....
Best
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 29, 2004 - 7:35 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Gunnar
(Member)
|
“I also think he is sometimes under-inspired, probably because he is something of a "house composer" for certain directors, and because of that, knows he is always going to have a job.
In other words, he doesn't have to worry about going without a meal.
I am not sure if the ‘worrying about the meal’ issue is actually playing such a big role regarding the question of being ‘under-inspired’. Most probably, Williams wouldn’t have to worry about meals, or his nice house, or whatever, even if he and Spielberg and Lucas had parted ways after 1977.
But you are right: Even if we leave the ‘house composer’ issue out of the equation, it may happen to Williams – as to every other film composer – that the material he has to work with doesn’t always inspire him 100 %. I would never insinuate that Williams has been on ‘auto-pilot’ while writing any of his scores – basically because I don’t think this is possible at all. There is no score of him that sounds like he just went down into his library and assembled some sheets of music. But I think it is only human to connect to some films more than to others.
”There are long, intermnible passages in the more recent Star Wars films that are little more than time fillers. Sorry, I don't mean to offend, but that's how i see it.”
Do you mean there are passages in the Star Wars films or the Star Wars scores that are ‘time fillers’…?
I haven’t seen the prequels in a long time, so I don’t know what passages you are referring to specifically. But isn’t the issue of music as a time-filler much more a problem of the director’s wish where music should go and where it should stop? I don’t know what a spotting session looks like, but my guess is that it’s the director or producer who has the last word as to where music should be in the picture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 29, 2004 - 8:28 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Jaquandor
(Member)
|
Whoever's deifying Goldsmith should stop--but I certainly haven't seen it done here in this thread.
Well, there's a surprise....although I actually wasn't really referring to this thread. (So on that score, my aplogies to the thread originator. But I thought I made quite clear that I was referring to a general tone of the board in general lately.)
By virtue of the undeniable FACT that a film score is a distinct thing with unique characteristics and purpose, we can make valid inferences about what it should and should not resemble.
This is precisely what I consider to be "deification": the idea that we can factually establish, beyond any possibility of doubt, that there is one, and only one, approach to writing a good film score, and the ever-present assumption that Jerry Goldsmith is the ultimate exemplar of that one, and only one, approach. I deny that your "undeniable fact", as quoted above, has anything remotely resembling the implied corrolaries whose existence you assume. But again, we've covered this all before, so in the words of the Prime Minister of Great Britain, "I refer the right honorable gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago".
BTW, to offer my own critiques of Williams, who is my favorite film composer: when he does "happy" music, I almost invariably end up feeling like I've imbibed a mug of molasses. (I'm referring to stuff like HOME ALONE, the first two HARRY POTTER scores, STEPMOM, and the like.) I love his orchestrations, but he tends to stay in the same area of "safety" with regard to that -- he doesn't really do a lot of innovating, and thus there can be a certain "sameness" to his work over time. Ditto his harmonies. Basically, I don't think that Williams really stretches himself enough (a failing which I think equally applied to Goldsmith for at least the last decade of his life); whether this is because of Williams or because of the demands of the filmmakers with whom he works, I don't know.
What I love most about Williams are his melodies, his sense of rhythm, and what I consider to be the "unity" of his scores. (As we've covered many times before, I reject the idea that a score with more then one theme is by definition "disjointed", "not united", or whatever word you may choose.) And I think he has the gift, shared by all the very best film composers (Goldsmith included), of identifying the emotional high point of a scene or film and constructing his scores so they reach their emotional high points accordingly. At least, when the film editors aren't kneecapping his work in the cutting room.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 29, 2004 - 8:45 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Dan Hobgood
(Member)
|
Hi John
You don't see me making a point of this on anyone else's posts. So why Dan's?
Something to do with the way he presents assertions as irrefutable truths, blithely expecting everyone to conform with his views, perhaps? Is it not a little patronising? (Sorry to speak about you as if you're not here, Dan, by the way.)
By stating that Goldsmith (or anyone else, for that matter) is "probably - no, make that definitely" the most versatile film composer, Dan is sticking his chin out and daring people to take a swipe. Not to respond would be to acquiesce, and I don't. Versatility can't be measured - something is versatile or it isn't. I don't mind if Dan wears Goldsmith underpants - fine; I wear Shostakovich ones. Thor (when he wears them at all ) probably wears Elfman ones. Passion is a good thing, in my book.
But to be SO definite on something that clearly can't be proven is maybe a litle immature and not good writing in my opinion. Dan did the same in his JG obituary, and I kept my considerable nose out of it, partly out of respect for Goldsmith and partly because I was making allowance for Dan's obvious distress.
As it happens, another poster suggested Williams; I would also suggest that Morricone is at least as versatile. See - it's a matter of taste and opinion, and Dan has his, but he's not the ultimate arbiter of either.
Call it constructive criticism, if you like. I don't mean any ill. But, Dan - please curtail your extravagant claims on behalf of the late, great Mr Goldsmith. I don't think it does him any favours. You'll be claiming he discovered penicillin next....
Best
Chris
Didn't he? But, no, seriously.
We can certainly assess versatility in an objective manner. I won't post anything further about this, though, because my last response in regard to the topic was sufficient.
I would describe myself as a cautious absolutist. I don't state an assertion as true unless I can validate it. [Case in point: my JG obituary, which, by the way, to ensure accuracy and non-contradiction, took me thirty-six solid hours to write.]
I, too, don't mean offense by anything I write. Yet I'm certainly not going to shy away from conclusions that can and should be inferred.
Dan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 29, 2004 - 10:18 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Jaquandor
(Member)
|
Maybe the best thing to do is this: ask you what you think my argument is. Overwhelmingly, music in film should be organized in in a melodically-unified way, but my argument is not accurately depicted by the contextless assertion that every film deserves such a score.
Wait a minute. Do you therefore grant the possibility that films might exist for which such a score would either be inappropriate or, perhaps, equally capable of serving the film as another type of score?
Very simply put, the purpose of a film score is to complement the film to which it's wed. Again, overwhelmingly [but not always], it is warranted for a composer to write a linear, or theme-and-developmental-variation score.
My beef isn't so much with this statement, so much that it's with your belief that a multi-themed, leitmotif-based score is not linear, unified, well-suited to complementing the film, and incapable of development. The very best leitmotif scores are as unified as any mono-thematic score; admittedly, their unity arises in a different way, but I don't grant that this different "road to unity" is to the leitmotif-based score's detriment.
It would never occur to me to claim that the STAR WARS films, for example, are not complemented by their scores nearly perfectly. To say that a score with more than one theme is not "unified" makes about as much sense to me as to say that, for example, the first movement of Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto is disjointed because it, too, contains two melodies in a sonata-allegro structure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gee, I love it when internet message boards become personalized.
It's so.....um.....adult.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
