@BadOrange said:

There is a Tristan and Isolde movie that was released recently. That would quite possibly be the worst assignment as a composer, or perhaps the easiest if you just rip the original overture and arias but like that would happen. To compose film music for the guy that pretty much invented all the conventions the great film composers took their cues would be daunting. I suppose I could check IDMB but these things always end bad with the wrong composer doing the wrong thing because the director just doesn't understand the rather complex issue at hand when dealing in underscoring a movie with such ties to the great composers. My guess is a Rabin meets Early 2000 Zimmer fiasco with pedal tone madness, I do feel that the director should think more about the music in these cases and if at all possible, use music that was around at the time. An abled orchestrator could tie in any loose material but I think the music should really be a collection of pieces from the era at hand than a thru composed poorly written score that hints at some obvious themes that makes no impression on the laymen and just makes the more knowledgable film viewer shudder.

Yeah, I feel like using Wagner in a modern Hollywood period piece would just feel ridiculously out of place, but I think that says more about the movies in question than it does about Wagner.

This is too interesting not to respond - what do you think of the use of Wagner and Carl Orff Carmina Burana in "Excalibur? "   Of course it is not a current film, but at the time that came out - early 80s - it was a very striking film and use of music, though obviously a temp track that stuck.  But like 2001, it worked so well for the film it was extremely effective.  The images were cut to the Siegfried Funeral music perfectly, and the 1st section of Carmina  Burana was so powerful in that context (like Arthur riding to save the kingdom, etc.) that I think it may have caused the recent obsessive  use of loud chorus - especially staccato shouts, etc. - in so many medieval flavored (not to mention other action) films.  Like LOTR's use of choir - that is directly out of Carmina Burana.  And it may have originated in this Excalibur's use of that particular music.  What else?  Though it has now become a cliche - I expect a huge violent chorus to announce the arrival of Leonardo de Caprio on the streets of Brooklyn these days.

You make an interesting point, and I think what's happened is that we're still living with the style and size of the gestures that Wagner invented, but not so much his harmonic language. I think for the most part, mainstream audiences have lost their taste for functional and expressive chromaticism in film music. 

Haha I kind of despise choirs of any kind in films these days because, like you say, they're so overplayed. They no longer mean what they used to, and instead just feel like an insincere and manipulative gesture 99% of the time. It's like the film and the composer don't really "earn" them -  or else it just feels tonally inappropriate (see: every movie trailer meant to feel "epic" - including harry fucking potter). Or another good example is comparing the original Star Wars trilogy score to the new prequel trilogy. Battles that used to be underscored by Stravinskyish/Holstish/early 20th century post romantic type cues with loads of chromaticism are now replaced with big surging Orff choirs singing long diatonic phrases, and even though Williams is really a very decent and thorough guy, it still feels lame and pretentious to me. I guess you can make an analog to how the gritty and functional production design and VFX of the original trilogy was replaced by clean and pristine CGI. 

But I'm also a huge hypocrite and philistine because I love the LotR score pretty much all the way through, although it's not quite interesting enough to listen to on it's own.  But Howard Shore is a real dude, and there're reasons why directors like Cronenberg, Scorcese and Fincher have used and continue to use him. 

I wish there was danger of getting cancer for gratuitous, vulgar, easy-way-out usage of wordless choirs in films (not really....) I understand how VSL wants to make money and releases the product, but I have to congratulate East-West for going all the way and providing the Word Builder (no matter what the shortcomings are or the difference of quality between libraries) - I hope VSL will follow suit.

I can't agree on anything bad said about John Williams who scores every bloody insignificant scene, where the least happens, a stupid transition, with proper symphonic backing, counterpoint and all, where others feel they're getting paid to just rest their giftless fingers on the white notes of their synth until that scene is over (if they don't do that for most scenes anyway...). That is one of the subtle that separate the men from the boys in the profession. Even his choral offerings in the prequels (maybe Lucas insisted), or even in other films ('Saving Private Ryan', 'Empire of the Sun', etc.), always sit beautifully with the orchestral part, which is so musical and interesting that the total doesn't seem empty as is the case with most everyone else's attempts. I am not saying these tracks are his finest hour, but they are heads, shoulders, legs and feet above everybody else's.

I know what you mean, cause I am also a very very big John Williams fan and apologist. But you have to agree it gets boring to repeat the same tried accusations over and over again against the Media Ventures horde, and even the best OG film composers aren't above scrutiny. 

Duel of the Fates is obviously very thoroughly made by an excellent craftsman, and I looved it as a kid, but even a very thoroughly made Orff rip off will never really be more than an Orff rip off. Yes, a lot of the music in "A New Hope" takes its cues from Holst and Bruckner and Stravinsky, but by a different order of magnitude imo - in other words,  maybe every great artist steals, but I would argue not to the extent that John Williams ripped off O Fortuna with "Duel of the Fates."  Or I guess with a title like that, you can call it an homage, but it's the same thing at the end of the day.

Which, honestly, would be fine except that to me the #1 criterion  of film music is not originality, but whether or not the music fits the movie, and helps the movie's identity. As far as problems with the Star Wars prequels as films, I think there are about a million you could get at before you touch the score, but that doesn't mean it's still not a big step back from the original trilogy. Star Wars at it's heart is a space fantasy film, a modern day Flash Gordon serial. It simply doesn't have the pathos to support a style of music that was originally conceived to try to encapsulate the nature of fate and luck - it seems pretentious as fuck, because you end up with movies about space cowboys and space wizards fighting each other to the tune of a piece called "Duel of the Fates," and that's going to be pretentious no matter how well written it is.  As we all know, when you follow this line of thought you end up in a cycle of dramatic and musical inflation where everything has to outdo what came before it in being "totally epic bro". If George insisted, well, it's still John's fault for not standing up to him - Lucas has notoriously bad taste (watch "Empire of Dreams" read between the lines to see how his ex-wife saved the original film through editing) and Williams would have absolutely had the clout to say "no bombastic choirs George, remember what film you're making here." 

Sorry I brought this so off topic :)

JW is a most consummate professional and he certainly won't "stand-up" to a director/producer of Lucas' experience, he could just walk away from the project. Like I said, comparatively to what is currently around, the 'Duel of Fates' is magnificent, and it certainly doesn't comprise the whole soundtrack. The rest of the music is beyond superb, and (as with the original trilogy) 1000 times more than what was called for. I don't consider myself anybody's apologist and know enough about music to know approximately where JW sits as a composer in the grand scheme of things (as I also know quite a bit of his concert music). I just wanted to bring one more detail to the table, JW was 40-something (at the height of his physical and mental powers, still hungry, "eye of the tiger" etc.) when he was scoring 'A New Hope' and 70-something when he was scoring the CGIs. Even with Potter you can tell that although the music is still scintillating and energetic, and in the CGIs absolutely masterful, there is just that extra high-frequency vibration missing (naturally), something that was just there, as icing on top of the technical prowess in the days of Star Wars and Indiana Jones. I find that's the case with most composers - allowing for the odd exception.

It's not at all unprofessional to disagree with a director, and in fact I would find it more unprofessional for a composer to act as a Yes-Man. And experience has little to do with it - before "Phantom Menace," Lucas had only directed American Graffiti, THX and A New Hope, and he had been out of practice in the directing world for 22 years (and it shows). Williams was infinitely more experienced than Lucas, and if Lucas had any sense he would have trusted Williams 100% of the way (which, for all we know, he did).  If Lucas had insisted on that particular tone of the music to the point where Williams, had he disagreed, felt that he had better leave the project, well, that would have been professional of Williams as well. Of course we're talking entirely hypothetically here, who really knows what was going on. But there's a good argument to be made that the disaster that was "Phantom Menace" was entirely the result of George surrounding himself with Yes-Men - whether or not Williams was one, well, who knows. It's not really the point, the point is that a composer as famous and rich as Williams is 100% responsible for any music he writes in a film, no question, regardless of whose idea it was, unless the director I guess played tricks during the editing or the mixing. Given the standard to which Williams clearly holds himself to, I'm sure he would agree with me. At that level, a director may be the boss, but the composer is not his slave. 

Anyway, you didn't really respond to anything I said - we're in agreement that "Duel of the Fates" is well made music, but you didn't address anything I brought up re: it being a pretty close replay of Orff, or more importantly the pretension of music that was made to encapsualte huge ideas being the score for a movie about space wizards. 

It's not at all unprofessional to disagree with a director, and in fact I would find it more unprofessional for a composer to act as a Yes-Man. And experience has little to do with it - before "Phantom Menace," Lucas had only directed American Graffiti, THX and A New Hope, and he had been out of practice in the directing world for 22 years (and it shows). Williams was infinitely more experienced than Lucas, and if Lucas had any sense he would have trusted Williams 100% of the way (which, for all we know, he did).  If Lucas had insisted on that particular tone of the music to the point where Williams, had he disagreed, felt that he had better leave the project, well, that would have been professional of Williams as well. Of course we're talking entirely hypothetically here, who really knows what was going on. But there's a good argument to be made that the disaster that was "Phantom Menace" was entirely the result of George surrounding himself with Yes-Men - whether or not Williams was one, well, who knows. It's not really the point, the point is that a composer as famous and rich as Williams is 100% responsible for any music he writes in a film, no question, regardless of whose idea it was, unless the director I guess played tricks during the editing or the mixing. Given the standard to which Williams clearly holds himself to, I'm sure he would agree with me. At that level, a director may be the boss, but the composer is not his slave. 

Anyway, you didn't really respond to anything I said - we're in agreement that "Duel of the Fates" is well made music, but you didn't address anything I brought up re: it being a pretty close replay of Orff, or more importantly the pretension of music that was made to encapsualte huge ideas being the score for a movie about space wizards. 

As for the new things you brought up, it's true that what Williams wrote is very impressive for a 70 year old, and it's also true that it's less vital than Star Wars/Raiders/Close Encounters/Superman era Williams. If you want to pinpoint where the spark died down, I'd go way back actually. I don't even find that his 90s work (yes, even Schindler's List)

It's not at all unprofessional to disagree with a director, and in fact I would find it more unprofessional for a composer to act as a Yes-Man. And experience has little to do with it - before "Phantom Menace," Lucas had only directed American Graffiti, THX and A New Hope, and he had been out of practice in the directing world for 22 years (and it shows). Williams was infinitely more experienced than Lucas, and if Lucas had any sense he would have trusted Williams 100% of the way (which, for all we know, he did).  If Lucas had insisted on that particular tone of the music to the point where Williams, had he disagreed, felt that he had better leave the project, well, that would have been professional of Williams as well. Of course we're talking entirely hypothetically here, who really knows what was going on. But there's a good argument to be made that the disaster that was "Phantom Menace" was entirely the result of George surrounding himself with Yes-Men - whether or not Williams was one, well, who knows. It's not really the point, the point is that a composer as famous and rich as Williams is 100% responsible for any music he writes in a film, no question, regardless of whose idea it was, unless the director I guess played tricks during the editing or the mixing. Given the standard to which Williams clearly holds himself to, I'm sure he would agree with me. At that level, a director may be the boss, but the composer is not his slave. 

Anyway, you didn't really respond to anything I said - we're in agreement that "Duel of the Fates" is well made music, but you didn't address anything I brought up re: it being a pretty close replay of Orff, or more importantly the pretension of a musical style that was made to encapsualte huge ideas like Fate and Luck being the score for a movie about space wizards. 

As for the new things you brought up, it's true that what Williams wrote is very impressive for a 70 year old, and it's also true that it's less vital than Star Wars/Raiders/Close Encounters/Superman era Williams. If you want to pinpoint where the spark died down, I'd go way back actually. I don't even find his 90s work (yes, even Schindler's List) to be the same standard as his 70s and 80s stuff

I addressed what I felt I should address. Personally I don't find this score any closer to Orff than I find E.T. to Prokofiev or a lot of his stuff to Stravinsky, Shostakovich or Mahler, so I didn't think the point merited any more special attention, and I agree about the space wizards.

I disagree strongly about the Lucas point. It doesn't matter that he is the culprit behind 'Howard the Duck' or 'Slipstream' etc. He is the experienced director and producer of his film and if Williams thought he was crap he simply would not work for him. I don't see Williams as an inexperienced petulant youngster that will - as you put it - "stand up to him"... There is a difference between being a 'Yes-Man' and 'Standing-Up' to directors. In this case, those two know each other very well and I am sure they discussed everything very professionally and cordially and even if we don't know whose idea the choirs were, it was Williams' duty to deliver what the director wanted, unless it really went against his grain, it obvioulsy didn't. And of course he takes full responsibility. Plus, like I said, in my opinion the other 100 minutes or whatever of the soundtrack are just beyond professional and the call of duty.

'Schindler's List' left me rather cold in all respects; I don't think Spielberg is the director for that kind of thing, and Williams, again the consummate professional, turned in the best he could in an area that really isn't his strength at all (lyrical heartfelt melodies). If he didn't walk away from that (let alone getting an Oscar for it, but we know how those work), I don't see how he would have a problem with the 'Duel of Fates'.

P.S.: You can press 'Edit' and amend your posts, you don't need to re-post them.

It's gone a bit off-topic. And as usual, we are now talking about John Williams [:)]

@Errikos said:

'Schindler's List' left me rather cold in all respects; I don't think Spielberg is the director for that kind of thing, and Williams, again the consummate professional, turned in the best he could in an area that really isn't his strength at all (lyrical heartfelt melodies). 

Liam Neeson's  performance under any circumstances should have won an oscar. But oscars are not given out for performances or any kind of quality.  His performance in that film was towering. But Spielberg did with that film what any Jewish director would do - he over sentimentalized as usual. Most of Spielberg's films are laden with sentimentality, providing you're not a Nazi of course. Which is not a bad thing if that's what you like. However, Schindler's List is more about acting performances from the three Irish/British contingent than anything else. Very unlikely that there was or is any American actor that could have done those performances. 

If you look at Spielberg's films through time they are sentimental. And for anything other that an American audience they can appear to be sometimes like saccharine.  On top of that there is a unhealthy obsession with the use of Nazis throughout his films - either in comedy roles such as the Indiana Jones rubbish, or indeed the more serious takes such as Schindler's or Private Ryan. And indeed Private Ryan, while a triumph in terms of technical logistics and acting achievements, again was laden with sentimentality right from the very first scene. Spielbergs best film was probably Duel followed by Jaws. I don't recall too many Nazis in either of those. With Spielberg's obsession with sentimentality and dysfunctional family life, there naturally follows all of that reflected in the music. Namely John Williams scores. Take ET for example. Doesn't get anymore sentimental than that.

On the other hand, take the scores of Herrmann, especially when scoring for Hitchcock. Forget sentimentality from either of those two masters and just watch and learn. David Lean and Michael Powell were two others who knew when to turn in on and off. Spielberg never really got to grips with that.

Man do I agree with you regarding Spielberg's saccharine movies - I wouldn't even call them sentimental, they're way beyond that... That's why I was one of the very few young teens who hated 'E.T.', but even as a child in mid-primary school I remember thinking how I also could not relate - and most of us in Athens back then - to those dysfunctional families like in 'Close Encounters', then 'E.T.', etc. And even back then the over-sentimental, the over-wearing-your-heart-on-the-sleeve was incredulous if not sickening... Be that as it may, I don't think Spielberg is oblivious to this or cannot imitate better directors; I think it is his trademark and that he deliberately exploits it for he knows where the big box-office receipts lie. Knowing that you don't possess talent to mix it with the big boys, why not make some tons of cash instead? And I have to say, that only he could make 'Indiana Jones', which as much as it isn't a cinephile's top preference, it certainly provided this 13-year old with awe-inspiring entertainment, helped a lot by the great soundtrack. For me, the music of the Indiana series is rivalled only by 'Star Wars' in Williams' output. And I have to give it to Williams. I mean Herrmann was scoring some pretty good flicks. WIlliams has been scoring 'Star Wars', Superman', 'E.T.', 'Home Alone', and 'The Prisoner of Azkaban' for Christ's sake. To be able to come up with such awe-inspiring music and breathe life and character into such non-entities as M a r k  H a m  i l l  people(!!), I admire that!

 Yes Paul and Errikos, but the Spielberg movies that made him so rich are worse than sentimental - they are juvenile.  They are responsible - along with Lucas's films - for the juvenilization of adventure films.  If you think back to the great adventure films of the past - "Gunga Din," Korda's  "Four Feathers" or perhaps "Mutiny on the Bounty" - here are rip-roaring adventures but they are intelligent, and for adults (though not inappropriate for children either). This has all been changed due to Spielberg-Lucas being wildly successful and everyone copying them. 

 BTW is that new Bruckner film good? 

I haven't seen the Korda 'Four Feathers', I saw Sharp's one in a hotel somewhere, again I was quite young and was impressed; I don't know what I would think of it today.

Yes, Spielberg and Lucas are responsible for the state of sci-fi/adventure today and I agree on all points. I must admit though I never left the cinema cursing I had spent the ticket money and wasted two hours of my life during the early 'Star Wars' and 'Indiana Jones'; in fact I had really enjoyed myself. I was a child to a young adult of course, and maybe that's the demographic these directors are interested in, and I never remember either of them betraying artistic pretensions in interviews - "I really wanted to say a lot with this film" or "there are onion-like hermeneutical layers in this" or words to that effect. I think they both have been comfortable with who they are and what they serve. Who's fault it is for them having become the dominant forces I won't explore here.

They do however have my sincere and heartfelt thanks, not for the multiple 2-hour action entertainment and phantasmagoria they have put out all these years, but for having engaged the best composer for the specific jobs. Well done for having been able to recognize and demand that kind of quality in the music department. After all, it is the saddest case of affairs to notice that only Williams and Morricone (Barry's retired) are the only ones left (and over 80?) that could mix it with the previous generations of composers. Everybody else, like YOU-KNOW-WHO (don't say his name!), would have been assigned to coffee-duty!

P.S.: I would also appreciate a trustworthy review of the Bruckner film - for the life of me I can't see how they could have constructed a riveting narrative from that guy's life...

@BadOrange said:

. I think composer films should not focus on the composers themselves but rather the time setting. Like a film that takes place in France in a salon and at the piano is Chopin. Not really all about the composer but more so the art community as a whole.

I very much agree. Why doesn't someone do a film about a fly on the wall, or a secondary character (one of those countesses) during the times of Chopin, Brahms, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Rakhmaninov, Prokofiev (not the Coco Chanel CRAP). Not to mention the literary, artistic, and scientific figures of the times. Put as many as you can in, and go nuts as the real meeting between Picasso, Proust, Joyce, and Stravinsky (wasn't that the quartet? It's really late here and I have been drinking brandy for the last hour and a half), was real boring...

If I had a couple million lying around I would commission a film about Satie, Cocteau and Picasso. Those three had enough personality for a 20 part miniseries. And just a general biopic on Satie would be great (well, if it were done well, obviously).

What's this about a Bruckner film? Haven't heard of it