Originality of John Williams(?)

I'm of the opinion that John Williams is neither a great composer nor a hack. I don't find his music any more derivative than any other major film composer. I just simply don't like a great majority of his music; film or concert (though Soundings is admiteddly pretty awesome).

I'm of the opinion that John Williams is neither a great composer nor a hack. I don't find his music any more derivative than any other major film composer. I just simply don't like a great majority of his music; film or concert (though Soundings is admiteddly pretty awesome).

Actually I think he introduces a new element to adventure music that is rather majestic. Introduce doesn't mean he's all original, but he combined the right elements on occasion and did a good job at it. It's majestic.

I guess it takes a certain liking. Maybe a certain ear.

Most of his stuff sucks, even though he has some great stuff.

hmm...

I love these discussions. Reminds me of the college days with fellow composers. Well let's ask this.

If Michael Bay, George Lucas, or Spielberg asked anyone on here do emulate Wagner, Richard Strauss, or Shoshtakovich in a new Science Fiction epic and paid you GREAT money, you get to conduct it, pick the orchestra plus royalties, how many of you would audaciously decline the offer?

hmm...

I love these discussions. Reminds me of the college days with fellow composers. Well let's ask this.

If Michael Bay, George Lucas, or Spielberg asked anyone on here do emulate Wagner, Richard Strauss, or Shoshtakovich in a new Science Fiction epic and paid you GREAT money, you get to conduct it, pick the orchestra plus royalties, how many of you would audaciously decline the offer?

Well, if MIchael Bay asked me, I'd most certainly decline. :whistling:

To be the devil's advocate here, We can all debate here whether he is orginal or not. Or if he is a film compoer or not. But at the end of the day, does this really have an impact on what we write? It really deosn't matter. And who cares.

I basically agree with everything Ravich has said in this thread. The only reason I'm even posting is to mention that and to highlight how long I've been waiting for someone to make a decent argument on this subject that isn't born of ignorance, mired in historical fanaticism, or utterly irrelevant.

Speaking of which:

To be the devil's advocate here, We can all debate here whether he is orginal or not. Or if he is a film compoer or not. But at the end of the day, does this really have an impact on what we write? It really deosn't matter. And who cares.

This is not called being the devil's advocate, this is called failing to understand the purpose of a discussion. First of all, that same logic you just put forth could be applied to just about all topics in the history of musical discussion — which makes me wonder if you think we should all just sit quietly and alone at home and write our music without interacting with each other or trying to pursue topics of interest. Furthermore, if that is your view (perfectly valid one, don't get me wrong) then I can't fathom why you would waste your precious music writing time to come into this thread and leave such an intentionally non-contributory (not to mention slightly hypocritical) comment.

If you don't care then don't participate — those of us who do are fully capable of making our own judgments and carrying on discussion on any topic we find worthy, thanks.

:thumbsup:

like I said, who'd on this site, turn down the opportunity to make John Williams money!

Almost any form of art, whether it be a painting, sculpture, or music (both film and otherwise), shows some form of the artist's influence. To what degree can we point fingers and say "that's not original?" To some, the difference between blatant plagiarism and originality might be context. Yes, Williams has borrowed from many classical scores in his film music, but the music that he's either emulating or arranging was most likely not written for film. It takes an artist to develop something written for a whole other purpose and convert it into the context of another medium.

Adaptation of material has been going on for centuries, probably since the first cave man decided to bang two rocks together in an attempt to create some form of sound/rhythm. In fact, it was quite a frequent occurrence in Classical music. Hayden frequently ripped off other composers, as well as himself. I don't hear anybody arguing against him being at least a decent composer. It's only been in the last hundred years or so that musical society has been so hell bent on being wholly original in every way. I would argue that it takes some form of deference on the part of the composer to introduce ideas from another. If I were to use, say, a modified passage from Firebird in one of my scores, it wouldn't be because I was lazy and didn't want to come up with something wholly original on my own, it would be because of the immense respect I have for Stravinsky and the idea that the Firebird would fit the scene very well.

Whether or not a composer borrows from an outside source is irrelevant. Williams borrowing from Korngold, Horner borrowing from Stravinsky, Zimmer borrowing from Holst (though this is a little bit different, for another reason), or Brian Tyler borrowing from Elfman in the Dragonball score all shows a degree of originality because the subsequent cue is placed in a different context than the original. The original was never written for the scene, and probably wouldn't wholly make sense if just dropped into the timeline. I feel that it's absolutely ok for a composer (film or otherwise), to show his/her influences in his/her music. If something works, use it, though, don't be like Zimmer and deny that you borrowed from someone else. Interestingly enough, Zimmer full on admitted the Wagner references in Gladiator, though for a few years he adamantly denied the Holst references (until he was sued, as The Planets is still under copyright).

For people interested in this subject, the October 9, 2006 Film Score Monthly podcast deals extensively with the subject of plagiarism in film. It's available on iTunes.

Here is an example where is not orginal the ending of Mars From the planets and part of the stars wars score are very similar. Listen and see if you recongise any thing from mars. Anyways, what I meant by that commment is that we shouldn't overact to this.

YouTube - Star Wars Theme

it happens at 1:40-200 min mark.

Oh, Marius, I do care. Just annoyed when others acused others of plagarism.

Marius has spoken.

Discussion over. Basically.

:D

(Plus, original or not, John Williams does very well what he gets paid to do. I don't understand why it's so important whether he's original or not - especially since the word original is so nebulously defined.)

what I meant by that commment is that we shouldn't overact to this...I do care. Just annoyed when others acused others of plagarism.

I perfectly agree. My problem was that the phrasing of your original post didn't indicate this perspective so it just came off as an unhelpful and vaguely dismissive jab at musical discussion in general, hence my response. Thank you for clarifying. :)

Q, first off: :laugh: . More importantly, your comment about the nebulous definition of originality and Andy's comments on the subject bring up what I think is a really vital point in this discussion. It stands to reason that we need to have a solid definition of a boundary before we can accuse someone of trespassing.

Marius has spoken.

Discussion over. Basically.

:D

(Plus, original or not, John Williams does very well what he gets paid to do. I don't understand why it's so important whether he's original or not - especially since the word original is so nebulously defined.)

The point is people think he's good, and the best way to explain why he is good at writing his music is to explain his originality, and since no one can do that, then we can only match him with previous composers. If someone wanted to base an argument, they should provide a decent work by Williams and ask someone to match it up.

Oh shucks. How about Joseph Hs post? Anyone dare to pass up an argument?

We're not really arguing about John Williams, but factors of music that include Williams. So let's try a hands on approach. It won't seal the deal, but it might get people to shut up about it for a while.

I'll just chip this in, though i find it hard to believe this is true.

I read somewhere on the web that john williams actually only writes melodies, like the main leitmotifs from star wars, and the rest of the orchestration is done by a different composer (who allegedly writes everything by hand...)

I know this is probably a pack of lies but since john williams is one of my favourite composers I really hope that it is...

Incidently, I think it is hard to have a discussion about william's film scores since they are written to suit a particular situation, but i really recommend the concerti for some listening - particularly the clarinet concerto (which is up on the itunes store at the moment) and the tuba concerto (which QcC uploaded a link to earlier in the thread).

Ferret

Hey how can you say that John Williams is just copying?

You can find that kind of obvious examples only in Star Wars Episode IV (the first ever made)... why?

Because when George Lucas asked John Williams to make the score, he gave him these pieces of music (King's Row, Mars etc) and asked him to just play these ones without making anything new.

John Williams rearranged them and made something new out of these pieces. George Lucas liked it, so they kept this new score.

But then, other Star Wars episodes are made with 99% John Williams music...

And even if sometimes, when Williams like something he made he uses it a few times in other scores, he's one of the actual composers that create something new very often.

Hans Zimmer & cie always repeat themselves, like Danny Elfman for example, even Alan Silvestri (I really love his work) repeats himself...

But not John Williams. If you listen to Star Wars, then Jurassic Park, then Far & Away for example... you'll see that it's original pieces, and they don't look like each others.

(ok I just had to give these details about the Star Wars composition because it was out of place to define this as 'copying' : he was asked to^^)

I read somewhere on the web that john williams actually only writes melodies, like the main leitmotifs from star wars, and the rest of the orchestration is done by a different composer (who allegedly writes everything by hand...)

This is the job of the orchestrator, and only happens, for Williams at least, when there is a huge crunch for time in the delivery of the score. For the most part, Williams will do 90-100% of the orchestration himself and by hand, then pass it off to his orchestrator, who is usually Conrad Pope, for final proofing and copying. If, say, he was behind on a cue, and the music schedule called for a whole different cue to be done by the next day, Williams might write a piano reduction of what he wants, hand it off to Pope to expand and orchestrate overnight, and move on to the next cue.

With the insane music schedules that most Hollywood film follow these days, working with an orchestrator is imperative. Nobody, not even John Williams, would be able to survive on his own on a Hollywood schedule without an orchestrator, (or two or three).

Soundings is a great piece of music. Your ignorance to that style of music shows through here. Did you even listen till the end?

It's quite odd that the segments of Soundings people dislike the most are the segments wherein Williams behaves in the most truly modern classical way, unstructured thought it may seem. The riveting last three minutes - half his film style, half "true" contemporary classical - form the crowdpleaser.

I don't recall anyone telling me they specifically didn't like the start of it.

Then again, most people I know, who have heard it, have liked it.

Here is an example where is not orginal the ending of Mars From the planets and part of the stars wars score are very similar. Listen and see if you recongise any thing from mars. Anyways, what I meant by that commment is that we shouldn't overact to this.

YouTube - Star Wars Theme

it happens at 1:40-200 min mark.

Oh, Marius, I do care. Just annoyed when others acused others of plagarism.

.... and Holst copied that from Mahler's 2nd symphony (first movement).

I think that too often today, people jump to conclusions about plagiarism and the first word that come's to their mouth is "sue!". I see nothing wrong with taking ideas and motifs from other composers and using it in your own compositions/arrangements, as long as it is not copying them exactly.

Personally, I think John Williams is a very good composer and I enjoy listening to the soundtracks from the movies he has worked on. From what I have read from previous posts, lets use Star Wars as an example again, George Lucas came to him with the pieces that he wanted the score to sound like, and Williams made a score in the way that Lucas wanted him to. Isn't that his job? It's good to come up with new ideas, but it is not completely necessary in his line of work, and as long as the director likes the result, everything is good. There was one example I listened to, the Stormtroopers example, I think, that was very similar, and I think this is pushing it a little bit too far.

Overall, I don't think its important to come up with new ideas, but if using old ones from someone else, they shouldn't be copied exactly and a new idea should be added onto the old. There are only so many rhythms and note patterns that can be used, there are bound to be similarities somewhere along the line.

Plagiarism is nothing new among composers. I think of Rachmaninoff's "Rhapsody on a Theme by Paganini" where it's clearly understood by scholars that this was a way of honoring Paganini and giving him great respect using his exact theme and writing variations of it. Also, Mozart wrote several variations on a newly published song in his time ‘Ah! Vous dirai-je, Maman’....which we now know as "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star", or the English "Alphabet song", or "Ba, Ba, Blacksheep". The music is original even it is clearly someone else's original idea. There are only 12 notes in the Western Scale, with millions of musical passages written and recorded in the last couple thousand years, the chances of any composer coming up with something that isn't even remotely similar to some other work already completed are slim to none. "There's nothing new under the sun" is as true a statement as ever.

Percisely what I am saying. Motives and harmonies are protective by copyright. The composition on a whole is, and even the melodies are. Therefore, one can not be said to plagarize other work just because he borrows a motive from somewhere else.

...harmonies are protective by copyright...

What?

harmonies are protective by copyright.(sic)

Ummm... no. Contrafact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ummm... no. Contrafact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks Flint! I thought I was going to have to re-voice my F7sus(b9) - I think McCoy used it on a couple Coltrane records back in '64.

Although...

Aniolel...I hope that was a typo and should read: "harmonies are NOT protective by copyright"

If I were to use, say, a modified passage from Firebird in one of my scores, it wouldn't be because I was lazy and didn't want to come up with something wholly original on my own, it would be because of the immense respect I have for Stravinsky and the idea that the Firebird would fit the scene very well.

:laugh:

I did that in one of my pieces!

The very ending of the Firebird, those big brass chords - they're major chords built on these scale degrees: 1, b2, 2, #4, 2, b2, 1... right?

I thought "Hey, that's a wicked chord progression"... So I did the same thing at the beginning of this movement, mm 1-2. Of course the feeling is entirely different... plagiarism? You decide :P

I mean, go ahead and listen to the opening of the Gladiator soundtrack, and once you get a few minutes in, you've basically got exactly what Holst did for 'Mars' in The Planets. And then wait a bit more and you hear a rather large fragment of one of the themes used for Pirates of the Caribbean with a slightly different twist on it, but the same notes, the same shape, the same rhythmic organization, etc.

But what does that mean when everyone acknowledges that Gladiator essentially changed THE "hollywood sound" for the decade that proceeded it? Obviously he did something significant.

You're talking about two different things. He introduced a new style. He brought a more band/electronica-oriented approach to the orchestra, the same way Elfman did in the 80s. He could have done that however without ripping off Holst.

I had a discussion on the obama arrangement a while back. It is very poor.

You sure you're not letting your politics influence you in that, RRR?

Personally I thought it was excellent.

And there really is not much too the other piece at all. You might as well be listening to the orchestra tune their instruments.

So wrong. On your second and your third listening (if you bother) you'll understand much more about this piece. Just because there are sound masses and polytonality, you think there are no motives and no development? Listen closer.

Anyways, I think it would be fitting to call Williams something like an arranger or a music editor or something that denotes the facts that he is brilliant with matching music to visuals and understanding how to get an emotion from the music paired with the visual, but he should not be called a film composer because all he does is take other things and arrange them for the big screen. None of it is original.

That's not what I said in my post starting this thread and that's not what anyone else has said so I think you are alone in your opinion. To put it politely.

I started this thread not to diss Williams but to explore where he was getting inspiration from, and see if other people had examples of him being influenced by other composers.

You can immediately tell an imitator of Williams from the real deal.

At the same time, some of his imitators have got quite good at imitating his early-80s sound (not his more mature 90s-00s style). There's some Disney composer whose name I forget who was hired to do a bunch of the Star Wars videogames... his "imitation Williams" is hilarious, but also really good.

He has a unique stamp that is immediately recognizable as his own regardless of what the wishes of those that hired him to do a job

Some folks say that's his biggest issue. Every John Williams score is a "John Williams score."

This goes back to the issue with James Horner, James Newton Howard and Hans Zimmer, who don't have a "recognizable Horner/Howard/Zimmer style," they have "recognizable Horner/Howard/Zimmer melodies". To some degree, ripping off yourself over and over like they do is a worse sin than ripping off the temp track. Because it shows you don't really care what kind of movie it is, you're going to work in Pirates Of The Caribbean, SOMEHOW. :whistling:

If Michael Bay, George Lucas, or Spielberg asked anyone on here do emulate Wagner, Richard Strauss, or Shoshtakovich in a new Science Fiction epic and paid you GREAT money, you get to conduct it, pick the orchestra plus royalties, how many of you would audaciously decline the offer?

I think I would pay the director to work with the LSO.

I read somewhere on the web that john williams actually only writes melodies, like the main leitmotifs from star wars, and the rest of the orchestration is done by a different composer (who allegedly writes everything by hand...)

Since they show JW in several Star Wars, ET, Harry Potter etc documentaries sitting at the piano orchestrating, either you're wrong or it's a vast conspiracy. ;)

He does appear to write everything in reduction however - I'm sure someone else is responsible for preparing the score and parts.