John Williams discussing writing for film

There has been quite a bit of conversation lately about film scores and how many of them seem to be too simple, some feel film scores are below the quality of other compositions in different genres while others feel they should be compared equally (with the same sets of standards) to other compositions regardless of function or environment. I personally think is it really apples and oranges: similar in some regards and very different in others. Here is John Williams discussing the need to keep a film score somewhat simple and accessible to the viewer because of all of the other requirements on the ear (sound design, dialog) as well as the mind taking in the visuals as well. Very interesting.

I'm including the second section only because that is where he discusses this point, however the rest of the interview is equally interesting and I highly recommend you check it out.

Thanks,

Nathan

The referenced part starts at 2:05 :)

Man I zone out for a second and I have no idea what he's saying... ::rewinds::

Ok got through the part you were talking about. I feel he's right, but knowing only a few of his film scores well - I dunno, I think he's dumbing down (for the benefit of the movie) the concept of leitmotif. I'm not sure however, that what he's talking about can't be similarly applied to complex themes and textures.

The most interesting part of this is the last part - his admission of illegitimacy with reference to language in the choral part (which I don't remember, but Phantom Menace sucked anyway). I think that his comfort in being illegitimate is a fascinating look at the limits of practicality for legitimacy.

Anyway, someone should track down a silent video clip for scoring :)

I'm really not sure what your point is and why you're using the word: illegitimacy. Just to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding your use of the word, I looked it up:

Dictionary: illegitimacy

(ĭl'ĭ-jĭt'ə-mə-sē)

1. The quality or condition of being illegitimate.

2. Bastardy.

Thesaurus: illegitimacy

noun

1. The state or quality of being illegal: illegality, illicitness, unlawfulness. See crimes, law.

2. The condition of being of illegitimate birth: bastardy. See kin, law.

Are you suggesting that John Williams used the choral text illegally? Because if you are, consider this:

1) Why would Williams openly admit where he found the source and how he went through the effort to try out the text in various languages on video?

2) If he did use this text illegally, then why didn't anyone object and bring out a lawsuit against him and Lucas? I've not heard of one and the film (as well as this promo clip) have been out for years.

Williams also says that he didn't use the text as is in the poem, but rather took words that worked chorally (and probably rhythmically) and had the choir sing that. Odd are, he (or the production house of the film) sought the author's permission to use the work as a reference- if in fact there was enough of the original source there. However, if it was simply saying "tree" "fight" "bad" "danger" "doughnut" (or whatever words used) in Sanskrit then perhaps that it needed no permission. No author owns words themselves. (Remembers how Paris Hilton wanted to file a patent for "that's hot". Rolls eyes.) They just own an arrangement of words and there is always some leeway legally to see if similar texts are truly copyright infringement or if they're just similar.

Or are you upset that he is using a text that he didn't write? Because that is what the word illegitimacy means. Many composers write choral works to text they themselves didn't write. So, what is your point exactly?

Nathan

I was referring to the fact that he is (mis)appropriating the language by ignoring stylistic conventions of Sanskrit writing.

And yes, you're right, everyone does this, but the reasons for doing so are always interesting to me.

Uhm well film scores, such John Williams' perferred film styles, adventure and drama, of adventure and drama films "today" are really atrocious.

Yes there is a correlation to film and soundtrack, just as there was one to theatre and opera and to art and classical.

Today music declination is a sign of a dying generation, and a new generation will take its place. The orchestra will still exist, but you probably won't like it. The music of the future will be cherished more than the past's.

I'm usually sceptical of people who know the future, but your avatar makes me inherently trust your prophetic powers. What you say must be the truth.

I'm usually sceptical of people who know the future, but your avatar makes me inherently trust your prophetic powers. What you say must be the truth.

I concur with this statement.

Yes there is a correlation to film and soundtrack, just as there was one to theatre and opera and to art and classical.

The correlation to art and classical is clearly the strongest of the three. They go together like each other's gloves.

Uhm well film scores, such John Williams' perferred film styles, adventure and drama, of adventure and drama films "today" are really atrocious

No they're not. Prepare to die.

I'm usually sceptical of people who know the future, but your avatar makes me inherently trust your prophetic powers. What you say must be the truth.

Haha. My avatar is pretty suitable then is it?

Most people who can predict the future correctly study the past.

Yes, history is something more than a bunch of names and dates! (hint: we have patterns. the world is full of them)

Though I couldn't tell you when the world is going to end. I'm not Oprah.

No they're not. Prepare to die.

Alright I am not saying Spielberg or Lucas films suck on a worldwide basis. I'm referring to the new films with bogus composers.

Haha. My avatar is pretty suitable then is it?

Most people who can predict the future correctly study the past.

Yes, history is something more than a bunch of names and dates! (hint: we have patterns. the world is full of them)

Though I couldn't tell you when the world is going to end. I'm not Oprah

Ah, but finding patterns in how things unfolded in the past doesn't not mean that they will unfold the same way in the future. Patterns are often just a construct of the human mind in order to make sense out of the world we live in. You just have a little evidence that what you say will happen could happen, that's about it.

Ah, but finding patterns in how things unfolded in the past doesn't not mean that they will unfold the same way in the future. Patterns are often just a construct of the human mind in order to make sense out of the world we live in. You just have a little evidence that what you say will happen could happen, that's about it.

*cough*Most things are just construct of the human mind, but doesn't make them less important.

Yeah, you're right, knowing patterns doesn't mean that the future will unfold in the same way, but these patterns do give you a clue into how humans behave in certain situations, especially when they behave the same way in the same situation repeated, through out generations.

*cough*Most things are just construct of the human mind, but doesn't make them less important.

Yeah, you're right, knowing patterns doesn't mean that the future will unfold in the same way, but these patterns do give you a clue into how humans behave in certain situations, especially when they behave the same way in the same situation repeated, through out generations.

Yes, but there's a difference between saying, "I think this or that might happen". and saying, "In the future, this is what will happen." This, in my opinion, is especially true for those who use history as an end-all-be-all argument. History is not some science experiment with a control group to compare and contrast different variables with, it's much more dynamic. At best, it's a rough guide to the possibilities of the future which is worth taking note of but not worth staking your life on.

EDIT: BTW, just to stay on topic. What Williams is saying there is fairly interesting but it also seems like if I knew more about film scoring I would be responding to all of his points with, "Duh". I guess ya gotta learn these things from somewhere though. Worth the watch.

Yes, but there's a difference between saying, "I think this or that might happen". and saying, "In the future, this is what will happen." This, in my opinion, is especially true for those who use history as an end-all-be-all argument. History is not some science experiment with a control group to compare and contrast different variables with, it's much more dynamic. At best, it's a rough guide to the possibilities of the future which is worth taking note of but not worth staking your life on.

EDIT: BTW, just to stay on topic. What Williams is saying there is fairly interesting but it also seems like if I knew more about film scoring I would be responding to all of his points with, "Duh". I guess ya gotta learn these things from somewhere though. Worth the watch.

You're right, but there is little difference between thinking and knowing in literary cognitives.

And I must say DOFTS has a good point along with mine ;)

Rkmajora- Are there bad composers out there? Sure. Does it mean that the future of film music is doomed? Nope. Come on man- there were terrible film scores back in the past just as there are some bad scores in present day and there will be some bad scores in the future. It doesn't mean that ALL film music is headed down this terrible slope. I know of several film scores that are pretty recent and really well done.

Have some scope about things. You sound just like those folks that say "pop music was better in the 1960 and 70s. No it wasn't. We just don't remember and listen to the CRAPPY pop music from the 60s and 70s. The creme of the crop rises to the top and that is what we remember and think of as music from this time period. Very few people say: "Hey Phil, but on that really bad song from 1967. You know the one that didn't even make the charts. Yeah.... that's the one! (That is unless they mean it as a joke... something to laugh at.) So for folks that don't know much about history, it can look only awesome records were made in the past but it is clearly not the case. Just like only classic books (you know the ones we're all forced to read in school) were written in the past as well.

EDIT: BTW, just to stay on topic. What Williams is saying there is fairly interesting but it also seems like if I knew more about film scoring I would be responding to all of his points with, "Duh". I guess ya gotta learn these things from somewhere though. Worth the watch.

Keep in mind this film was made for a general audience who likes Star Wars- so not everyone watching will know what goes into making a score. Some viewers wont even know what a quarter note vs. an 8th note is. So of course Williams has to speak clearly and at a general level. Wouldn't make much sense for him to use sophisticated music lingo and leave a good portion of the audience scratching their heads.