I couldn't sleep last night, so I thought I'd see what was on PBS. They were broadcasting one of John Williams' Boston Pops performances. I hadn't seen one in a long time. I'd almost begun to take for granted what a genius he is. During the performance, he played a section from the beginning of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade without a musical score (but with the other sounds) and explained what the thought process is like when he's composing. Then he went back through the clip and had the orchestra play the music along with the movies. He explained how they were all wearing earpieces playing click-tracks at an appropriate tempo (in this case, set to about three clicks per second), and the screen had indications of cues for the musical changes (around 40 in the five-minute clip). The way that he composed the music to match what was going on, to the point of turning Indiana's horse-whistle into a note of the score, amazed me. And the way that he and his orchestra were able to follow the cues so flawlessly... I never realized what kind of skill that took, or how minutely every detail is considered, in order to keep the audience from noticing the music.
After that, he played some more of his film music, including the wonderful theme from Catch Me If You Can . At his age, with all the composition he's done, he's still making classics on a routine basis. He also played some non-film pieces, got on the piano (which he used to play for Henry Mancini before he became famous) and played soundtracks for some silent film clips, and played some really great jazz classics. It was a terrific way to spend an evening of insomnia.
After I saw that, I thought that such an American institution deserves a post of praise. Sometimes I take John Williams for granted. He's scored so many of my favorite movies that I don't think much of seeing another film with his name on the composer credit. His music is so ingrained in our culture that I no longer think of him as being as interesting as some of the more exotic composers such as Tan Dun, Nicola Piovani, Angelo Badalamenti or Vangelis. But I own eleven of his albums, from Star Wars to Minority Report, and I never tire of hearing them. I think my favorite is Schindler's List. But they're all wonderful. I think I'm going to go get Catch Me If You Can today. Long live John Williams.
[By the way, I just noticed that this is my 333rd post. So if it seems a little long or indulgent, just consider it a 1/3 landmark. ]
[ August 05, 2003, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Speed ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
agreed. john williams rocks. Posted by Potemkyn (Member # 5465) on :
Jerry Goldsmith and Holst also rock at his level...check them out.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I knew a guy named John Williams in college. He was huge. We called him JW.
In fact, he was so huge that now when I am discussing huge things with my friends, we use him as a benchmark.
e.g.: "Dude, it was huge." "Like, JW huge?" "No, man, not that huge."
[ August 05, 2003, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: saxon75 ]
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Since Aaron Copland died, I have considered John Williams to be the greatest living composer. He is proof that being commercial doesn't have to be a bad thing, and that you don't have to be highbrow to enjoy great music.
UofUlawguy
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
My favorite JW composition was Empire of the Sun. I never seen the movie but I still tear up everytime I hear it. James Horner is also up there with JW me thinks. Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
If you want a couple hours of good eclectic John Williams favs, get the double CD 1969-1999 greatest movie themes CD. I own it and it's one of my most absolute favorite things to listen to. I am a music major, and with that authority, I say that John Williams is one of the most brilliant orchestrators I've ever studied. He knows how to put his message across, or the message of the particular movie he's writing for. Truly amazing.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
John Williams is good evidence for the destiny theory. Just as Steven Spielberg was destined to be a great filmmaker, John Williams was destined to be his 5th wall voice.
It warms the fuzzies of the cockles of the heart, but I won't get too carried away here because I know there over a hand full of dicks here who like to bag on Spielberg for some odd ass reason.
I remember, I was reading a book on Spielberg, or maybe it was Julia Phillips "You'll never eat lunch in this town again", and the story was told about how all the producers wigged out and crapped their pants because John Williams got paid like $500,000 for the 5 notes in Close Encounters of the Thirds kind.
I love John Williams, always have. He is amazing. I still kick myself for missing out on seeing him with the Dallas Orchestra.
Mr. Williams always seems to rise to the occasion for the movie. If it is a GREAT movie, he writes a great score.
<<<T>>>
Too bad they don't make movies like they used to, natch, eat it you mudballers!
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I got to see him in concert, and perform the world concert premiere of DUEL OF THE FATES ) Such a wonderful evening.
Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
John williams is good. And one can listen to his music for hours on end provided you actually have his music.
But you know who i think is a better pops writter? Andrew lloyd webber, probably the second most popular composer alive today (next to johnny that is).
I think he is one of the most diverse composers. Writing kick ass rock operas such as Evita and Jesus Christ super star. Going towards a more popy approach with cats. And going almost classical for phantom of the Opera. Anyway. Kicks ass.
Highly recommended. Definately rent evita all yous. Its amazing. The music in it is wowifying. Plus madonna and antonio banderas are actually brilliant in their respective roles. Suprising eh?
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote: Andrew lloyd webber, probably the second most popular composer alive today
Why has hatrack become so gayified lately?
Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
Gayified? How do you kow i'm not female?
And I wasn't aware that liking andrew lloyd webber meant your gay. Now the village people on the other hand...
[ August 06, 2003, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Laurenz0 ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
The difference between John Williams and Andrew Loyd Weber is that Weber is a hack. He rarely writes anything truly original, most of it is stolen from other composers or common musical cliches. Yeah it sounds good, because it is the same thing you've heard a dozen times before, just dressed up with new wrapping paper. As a pianist when I've accompanied an ALW piece I get bored playing it. I've never gotten bored while playing JW.
However I do admit to absolutely loving the melodies and harmonies in "Angel of Music" from the Phantom of the Opera because of his use of the minor 6th interval.
AJ
Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
quote: He rarely writes anything truly original
Hm. The only thing i've heard that really sounds like andrew lloyd webber is andrew lloyd webber. Could you give me some examples. thats not a challenge by the way, thats curiosity.
Oh, by the way. Webber's music I've noticed is simpler than william's music. Thats probably why you get bored.
[ August 06, 2003, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Laurenz0 ]
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
Webber? Yuck. I'd rather stick with my assorted Nobuo Uematsu tracks.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Laurenz0, I'd have to go dig out my collge music theory books which I don't think are even in the same state as I am for an absolute specific. I have analyzed the chord progressions he uses, and while there are certian stock chord progressions that everyone uses, normally Mozart, Beethoven, Aaron Copland and John Williams can come up with a little twist that makes theirs stand apart and unique from everyone else's. While ALW writes decent melodies, the stuff underneath them lacks those little twists that trademarks greater composers. Most of the time he simply sticks a seventh chord on the top of the existing progression to add a little dissonance and just leaves it.
Simple does not have to equal boring. The great composers can write a deceptively, simple, naked little melodies that it takes a master to play correctly. In fact often their simple melodies are harder than their more virtuoso works because there aren't as many notes for you to hide behind when you make a mistake.
AJ
Edit: One example of deceptive simplicity is the opening theme to Jurassic Park. It still isn't as deep as Mozart, but definitely exhibits more depth than the majority of ALW's stuff.
Edit #2: In my experience ALW's stuff is much technically harder to play on the piano in orchestral reduction, than John Williams' is to play in equivalent orchestral reductions. This further supports my point that ALW is just using extra notes to hide his inferiority.
[ August 06, 2003, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
Hm, I would almost disagree with you when you say simple does mean boring, when you accompany someone anyway. Simple is less exciting to play, but not less exciting to listen to in my opinion.
For example. The bass line is pachabels cannon (i'm a bass player) is the simplest thing in the world. But the song is beautiful. Its boring as hell to play.
And jesus singing fallceto led zepplin style is unoriginal?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
That is a style, and you could argue easily it is unoriginal. He's stealing Jesus (or Joseph for that matter) from one place, and copying Led Zepplin in another. Neither idea is original in and of itself. Combining the two might be slightly more original, but that is the style, not the actual quality of the music that is composed. The music composed is not terribly original. I do and have already given the guy credit for catchy melody lines, but creating a catchy melody is not the same as being a great composer. TV comercials do it all the time. The reason why the melodies are catchy is because they are based on cliches.
AJ
Posted by martha (Member # 141) on :
I got stuck in the traffic of people trying to get to that concert! Tanglewood is all very well and good, but it certainly makes driving miserable in that area at certain times of day.
[ August 06, 2003, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: martha ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
If you read my posts closely I never said simple=boring. I do contend that unoriginal=boring.
AJ
Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
Hm. I would call them catchy because they sound good. And that is the mark of a good composer. And i would call it cliché either. Hes just brought in the fallceto caterwailing to a lloyd webber piece. Works perfectly I think.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
In fact, to quote myself and prove my point, please re-read this closely.
quote:Simple does not have to equal boring. The great composers can write a deceptively, simple, naked little melodies that it takes a master to play correctly. In fact often their simple melodies are harder than their more virtuoso works because there aren't as many notes for you to hide behind when you make a mistake.
I said EXACTLY the opposite and you must have read it incorrectly or been extrapolating some meaning that isn't in standard English sentence constrution.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
It is possibly to write catchy tunes that are not cliches. Andrew Loyd Webber is not a good enough composer most of the time to do it. John Williams is. I guess I'd have to sit down with you with comparative pieces of music and do a chord by chord analysis to prove it to you though.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Haven't you ever listened to opera?! Castrato parts are almost all falsetto caterwalling. The problem being now that there aren't any castratos anymore and that women have to sing the parts because they are too high for uncastrated men.
The reason why you like ALW is because you don't have enough background in the really good stuff to know what is actually good and what is merely mediocre. So along comes something that is one step out of the pigsty and you think it is wonderful just because it isn't quite at the same level of rubbish as most other stuff.
AJ
Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
You have no idea how much i'd love that.
But regardless. it sounds differant. even if chord progressions are the same. I think he does add to new great twists to it. But thats just me.
Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
quote: The reason why you like ALW is because you don't have enough background in the really good stuff to know what is actually good and what is merely mediocre
I belive that assumption is completely uncalled for and offensive. i listen to all kinds of composers and try to write my own stuff.
I listen to every genre pretty much everyday. I love bach and mozart is good too.
I play four instruments experimenting with all the genres they are associated with. thank you very much.
Oh, I also have seasons tickets to my local philharmonic orchastra.
[ August 06, 2003, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: Laurenz0 ]
Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
On a friendlier note (since I really would like to get along)
What of the Bach Cello suites have you heard? He has some excellant stuff in the less popular suites such as suite 6 and 3 and 4.
everybody has heard prelude from suite 1, but he has some other excellant stuff.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Where is Vana anyway? I'd be interested in her opinion since she actually has a music degree. I've only had two years of music theory at the college level.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Laurenz0,
I'm sorry I was getting harsh. I didn't mean to use so much rederic but I happen to be passionate on the subject and you pushed one of my buttons.
Being a piano player myself, I haven't listened to Bach's cello suites in a lot of detail recently, or know already them intimately. So, I can't respond with an educated opinion as to which I like the best.
I will however in a couple of weeks have an excellent celloist living with me for a while. She has been accepted to the Chicago Civic Orchestra for the season which is the understudy orchestra to the Chicago Symphony orchestra and I can ask her!
I'll also see if I have any CDs of them and listen to them again.
AJ
Edit: In Bach's keyboard works one of my favorites is French Suite #5. I also like some of his lesser known Inventions (like #4) and Preludes and Fugas too (I can't remember the number but I played the Prelude and Fuga in B-flat Major, I think.)
[ August 06, 2003, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
yeah, bach's cello suites are excellant. I highly reccomend prelude from suite 6. thats probably my favourite piece.
HIs organ fuges are a must of course. Nothing like walls of sound. The original organ solo. Deep Purple eat your heart out!
yeah, i'm passionate about the subject as well. its what I plan to do. I listen to all forms off music no matter what the simplicity. hell, I even like a lot of hip-hop, but I'm realy a metal/classical guy.
I love the pops to.
Posted by hillarygayle (Member # 4624) on :
Woo! A Nobue Uematsu fan! Go you! Do you have the Majestic Mix CD set? A wonderful set. I love it. I'm also a fan of Yasunori Mitsuda, who composed the music for Xenogears and Chrono Trigger (maybe Chrono Cross, too; I'm not certain). For a great example of his work, Time & Space: A Tribute to Yasunori Mitsuda is AWESOME. It's currently my favorite CD.
John Williams: I'm a fan, too. My favorites are the Harry Potter CDs; I like Chamber of Secrets better than Sorceror's Stone. Both remind me intensely of Christmas music.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Yes, Mitsuda also did Chrono Cross, which, I may add, is an EXCELLENT CD set to relax to. Beautiful acoustic goodness.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I'm a cellist, actually...and I can attest that the suites are all, without exception, wonderful. The fourth and the sixth, however, are harder than heck to play.
Anyway, if you have a music theory question, toss it out! I've got two degrees in the darn subject, and I'm in the planning stages for a dissertation on film music.
Edited to add: It usually isn't chord progressions, per se, that make tonal music sound original. It's texture, or orchestration, or melody that is somehow inherently different. If you're using a tonal vocabularly, even neo-tonal, like Copland or John Williams, your choices are somewhat limited if you want to sound at all coherent.
[ August 06, 2003, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: Megan ]
Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
quote:The fourth and the sixth, however, are harder than heck to play.
Well, technically you're supposed to have a 5 string cello for the 6th suite. Have a lot of money to spend on somethign?
And its all the bloody accidentals in the fourth that get me. Grrrrrrrr. Accidentals are not much strong point.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
This is a horoscope excerpt from the Onion. I'm paraphrasing, and I'm just making up the astral sign and date, though. Thought you might like this.
Cancer June 22 - July 23 The ghost of Gustav Holst will appear to you before you go to sleep and refuse to leave until you admit that John Williams has been ripping him off for years.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Well, technically you're supposed to have a 5 string cello for the 6th suite. Have a lot of money to spend on somethign?
Sure, but everyone expects us modern cellists to play it on a regular ol' four string cello, and display our vast virtuosity. Unfortunately for me, I was never much of a virtuoso, so it never quite worked out.
quote:And its all the bloody accidentals in the fourth that get me. Grrrrrrrr. Accidentals are not much strong point.
For me, the problem with the fourth suite is that it seems to have been designed for someone with much larger hands than me. Even when I was practicing full-time, I had difficulty with the type of extensions required of the cellist in most of the movements of the fourth suite. I just couldn't do them quickly enough to satisfy what I wanted to do musically with the movements.
quote:The ghost of Gustav Holst will appear to you before you go to sleep and refuse to leave until you admit that John Williams has been ripping him off for years.
Oh, he's "ripped off" more than just Holst...he runs the gamut from Wagner to Stravinsky and hits nearly everyone in between. For all that, though, his THEMES at least are mostly original, and he does his own orchestrations, which are a) quite good and b) quite unusual in Hollywood film scoring. Still, though, it's a common complaint about Williams that much of "his" style is borrowed. To my mind, however, he's borrowing from sooo many people that he very nearly creates a synthesis. Anyway, it's effective, which is the whole point of film music, and he's got enough money by now that I doubt the critiques of academic musicians concern him too much.
[ August 06, 2003, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: Megan ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I know John Williams is a bit of a musical hack too, but I don't think he's quite as bad as Andrew Loyd Webber.
I also know it isn't all chord progressions either but I was trying to pick one of the more easily defined aspects rather than something more intangible.
For that matter though everyone was borrowing and redoing everyone else's stuff back in Bach's day too, but he was the one that made it sound the most unique.
I listened to the Chicago Symphony Orchestra play the premier of some recent compositions of this 90-year old american composter I'd never heard of. His interpretation of some poems. They were mostly atonal and hard on the ears. Mo matter how compex the theory might have been and how difficult they were to play. I would take even Andrew Loyd Webber over that!
AJ
(note "composter" was an accidental typo but I think it might have been something subconscious so I left it)
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
BannaOj, do you happen to remember the name of the composer at all? If he really was 90ish, then he probably did most of his musical maturing (maturation?) in the 30's-40's, when atonal was the absolute standard of compositional education. It still is in some circles. To me, atonal music is an acquired taste; it took me a while to get used to the language, but once I did, I found it quite as powerful as most of the over-emotional music of the romantic era (like Wagner and Mahler). You're in good company disliking it, though; plenty of people hate it forever, even in academic music.
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
]![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
) Such a wonderful evening.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)