If you're talking about a few individuals who stand out over all the rest of the human race probably for all time, that is genius. I think the reason you don't want to use the word with Vaughn Williams is because he acted unlike a genius. He was not arrogant, flighty, erratic or wild, he was a sturdy, down-to-earth, unpretentious man with a methodical style and method. He lived to his 90s and his last symphony was composed just before he died. So he doesn't seem like the image of ... GENIUS. In many respects he was similar - though with the prototypical English character - to Bruckner, who was a humble Austrian from a rural background. But his particular genius also took him into the rarest company.

I was somewhat conotradictory before - I meant I was not AWARE of those later Goldsmith scores as individual entities apart from the lousy films. But no one seems disturbed by this - that the greatest composer would have to work on bad films. It shouldn't happen. Why does it happen? He is at the pinnacle of success. Is that what a beginner struggles through for years - scoring TV commercials and industrial films and falling into the black hole of library material - to reach? The offer to score shallow drivel like Basic Instinct?

It has become almost a reversal of the past: nowadays, a composer's best chance of getting a film to score that is a worthwhile project is a low budget independent movie, not a studio film. And of course that will not pay much money. To me this is a severely dysfunctional art form.

Paul, that is a fascinating and important point you make about the early schooling you received. In other words, with that humble set up, your teacher was able to concentrate upon the essence of what needed to be learned, instead of getting lost in the maze of computers and internet and "teaching tools."

..

For the record folks, I use the word genius very sparingly. It does belong to Beethoven, Mozart, Bach. If Lennon and McCartney aren't geniuses, who are then in the history of pop song writing? Or Louis Armstrong in Jazz?

Who are the geniuses in film music? Nobody? How about Korngold, a man universally recognized as a genius prior to writing a single note for film. Bruno Walter (Mahler's closest friend and the greatest conductor of the 20 century?) declared Korngold a genius when Korngold was a boy. Can we trust Walter who had the genius of Mahler in his daily life to use the term judiciously?

Korngold's contribution to film is part of the bedrock that established the art in the sound era. Goldsmiths contributions are far more numerous such as unconventional orchestral devices and instrumentation (Planet of the Apes) the first use of Midi and Synthesizers integrated into the orchestra. Not the least his entire approach to scoring in which he changed the entire tablature of sound and instruments to fit the film. His range of styles still dwarfs all other film composers, which can hardly be disputed. And these are just a few of his contributions. Does John Williams have a single innovation to his credit?

Now just consider his writing. The man is a first rate composer by any standard and in any era. How about the choral writing in the Omen? The percussion in Planets? The strings in Alien? On and on.

Having met the man and spent time watching him work and relax I can tell you he exuded genius right and left. Rare was the person in the industry from security guard to orchestra member that didn't recognize it. He had a phenomenal aura and presence.

I rest my case.

Dave Connor

@dcoscina said:

Here's a quote from a current film that says it all:

Mrs. Incredible: I can't believe you don't even want to go to your own son's graduation.

Mr. Incredible: It's not a graduation! He's moving from the 4th grade to the 5th grade.

Mrs. Incredible: It's a ceremony.

Mr. Incredible: It's psychotic. They keep inventing new ways of celebrating mediocrity, but when someone is genuinely exceptional....

How did you remember that so well? You got a bootleg?

Can i have a copy?

[:D]

Evan Evans

@dcoscina said:

Here's a quote from a current film that says it all:

Mrs. Incredible: I can't believe you don't even want to go to your own son's graduation.

Mr. Incredible: It's not a graduation! He's moving from the 4th grade to the 5th grade.

Mrs. Incredible: It's a ceremony.

Mr. Incredible: It's psychotic. They keep inventing new ways of celebrating mediocrity, but when someone is genuinely exceptional....

How did you remember that so well? You got a bootleg?

Can i have a copy?

[:D]

Evan Evans

I have a propensity for remembering dialogue. Especially good dialogue from films.

I heard some woman caller practically berate Brad Bird on a radio call-in show for making the Incredibles "too predictable". She bitched about how Mr. Incredible was your prototypical "stupid" male figure and how Mrs. Incredible was this "faux post feminist" figure. I think this idiot ought to research the genre of film before she criticizes the guy who made it. What a twit!

As for Goldsmith, well, Dave, I don't call his actual music "genius" as I've heard techniques he used in Planet of the Apes before in the works of Varese. How he applied music to a scene in a film was innovative. This is where we differ. I think of Williams' music in pure music terms, much more virtuosic and complicated. And I'm talking about the comparison between both composer's forays into diatonic, tonal centred music.

For modernist compositions, Goldsmith wipes the floor with Williams work. I never thought Williams was comfortable writing dissonant or atonal music. Goldsmith always seemed very comfortable with it though. Like the sequence in Papillon where the natives are shooting darts at title character and he's falling in slow motion. Goldsmith employed various brass effects like portamentos, clusters, even quarter tones to underscore the dizzying effect of the poison taking effect and the plunge he takes into the water. Really effective. And in spite of his complaints of Ridley Scott's alteration of his Alien score, I love the opening credit music that has flutes, echo-plex and log drums to evoke the cold, stark, vastness of space. I don't think his post Romantic theme would have worked that well.

dcoscina

Not to be argumentative [[;)]] but you are starting to push a button. it is the old button of "well, the concert composers already did all that. This film guy is just repeating them."

We heard it with your quote of the professor who set me off - the Bartok "knock off."

And now we hear it again with Varese and Goldsmith.

Sorry, but this does not wash. First of all, I have all of Varese's works in every recording ever done of them. He did not do what Goldsmith did, purely musically speaking. He did something similar, in Poem Electronique and in his use of percussion generally. But it was not the same thing, lifted for film use ala Little James Horner.

But secondly and more importantly, this whole idea that because a harmonic idiom or orchestrational technique was already used in concert music does not mean those composers are doing the same thing as a film composer. These are universes apart, and not one of those concert composers wrote a film score in which those techniques or styles were used. (Unless you're talking about Vaughn Williams, Shostakovich or Copland - some of the few concert composers who crossed over.) It is completely different creation to do something in a film score and frankly, most of the concert composers who did what they did were not skilled enough (in film music that is) to do that particular thing. Perhaps they could have become, but they were not. Any more than a composer can instantly write an opera, when his background has been in chamber music. It requires an entirely different artistic achievement to do this, even if you are using the exact same style you write in concert music but adapting it for film. A demonstration of this in reverse is Herrmann, whose concert music is, with a few exceptions like Souvenirs de Voyage and Silent Noon, not up to the standard he set with his film music.

PaulR,

Good point about playing techniques, and the application of computers in the "early" stages of learning. You're probably right about that. To be honest, I can't profess to know how they're being used in the classrooms over here (or there), so I'm standing on thin ice even talking about it. I was thinking of the compositional aspect, which is generally a 'later stage' in musical education, and has changed dramatically with the application of computers. (Richard D. James, aka Aphex Twin, may be a good example of a contemporary genius whose "domain" is computer/electronics-based. He started making tracks as early as 14, which have had a tremendous influence on music, in various genres, for at least ten years.)

Good point also about "crap". I don't know how much crap I've written (and most of it in full score, written out long-hand), but there's a good deal of it! Maybe I'm still cranking it out, too – who knows? [;)]
But seriously, I was just telling a composer friend of mine the other night that he was too cautious about composing – so affraid to write something bad, that he doesn't write anything at all, and so enamoured with "the rules" that he fails to see that even with a knowledge of those rules it's still a trial by fire. You need to get burnt to stand any chance of coming out the other side...

As for me, I'm somewhere in the middle, getting nice and crispy!
"What's that smell? Steak? Chicken?"

J.

Talking about genius, I think we speak too less about Eric Satie. I tend to agree with one of my music history teachers that it will be him who will be presented as the most influential 20th century composer in the books written in 50 years.

William, I don't mean to get anyone upset. I'm merely stating my perspective on this matter. I value your reponses. They give me food for thought. I'm never rigid enough to totally discount a differing perspective.

I think I was simply using the Varese association to underline how I don't like tossing the word "brilliant" around to describe things. Goldsmith himself probably never regarded himself as a genius. He did what he did. And I hear some North in Goldsmith's music too. Not to press any buttons any further but guys like North or Rosenman were the pioneers of modernism in film music.

I think we all have a habit of vehemently defending our preferences in music because of the way our brains function. My father is a neuroscientist and he explained to me once that the right frontal lobe, which is responsible for our higher more evolved brain functions, is the area of the brain where our belief systems are generated from. There was study about how aggression is also linked to this part of the brain, more in men incidently.

The point is, let's all realise that whatever we discuss here isn't going to suddenly change the reality of the world, where all busts and statuettes of Beethoven sitting on people's pianos will turn to Williams or Goldsmith based on our heated discussion here. It's simply well informed dicussion. And as I said before, I value the level of knowledge posters have on this board. I've learned a lot! Keep it coming!!!

Merry merry!

Dave

..

I think he´s perfectly right, Paul.

..

No, it´s absolutely not based on any academic view. Just look how music is evolving around you. Music is just an every day companion, it has almost no artistic function anymore in every days life. Concert music is certainly dying. There is film music, sure, but this already is companion music.

I´m NOT talking of any mastery or anything. For todays people, there is hardly any relevant expression anymore possible which can be transported entirely through pure music. The Beatles couldn´t be that succesful anymore today, because people wouldn´t care. People don´t connect their idendity anymore with music.

So how will be state for absolute music in fifty years? Probably even less. And Satie is the one who gave the ideologic basis for forgetting music as an independent art form. He was the one who is 500 years ahead. Try to imagine Philip Glass without Satie, not possible. Try to imagine Techno without Satie, not possible. Try to imagine todays radio without Satie, not possible.

OK, maybe these music styles would exist also without Satie, they´re not refering consciously to him, but imagine a musicologist in fifty years. He will analyze the path backwards from his contemporary music surrounding. And all those great masters like Ligeti or Vaugh Williams or The Beatles or whoever will be interesting branches with loose ends. But he will be able to make a straight line from him to Satie. So Satie will be the one featured as the most important figure for them in fifty years.

Sure, controversial, but highly convincing.

Interesting points, Mathis.

But I don't understand your statement that music is no longer connected to identity. I think it still is, it's just that it's also become inextricably tied into fashion (at least on a popular level), so it becomes difficult to make distinctions. What about hip-hop and rap? In fact, it could be argued that music has done little else BUT exert a sort of identity-producing power -- so that the social groups of today are almost created by music, not the other way round. And I think it would be a mistake to suggest that this has nothing to do with the music itself. Anyway, maybe I just didn't get what you were driving at...

I also don't think "absolute" music is dying. I think rather, as I (sort of, almost) mentioned above, that listeners are simply becoming more accustomed to music that moves without the familiar forward motion of melody or harmonic progression. This obviously alters the time-image significantly, which also alters the mode of attention required to appreciate such music. What listeners are enjoying IS this shifted mode of attention. And I see no reason why this shouldn't be considered "socially relevant" – I mean, it could very easily be seen to reflect a social universe where time, space, value, and responsibility have all been turned upside-down by technology. The musical mono-narrative we are accustomed to is losing its relevance, perhaps, but not music itself. Whether this will ultimately kill concert music or not, I can't say. But it certainly is forcing all us concert music composers to re-think what we're doing in relation to the specific venue where we imagine our works existing. This is partly why I brought up the idea of "VSL Records", which fell on completely deaf ears (in another forum). It seems to me that there is most definitely an audience (or a potential audience) for virtual acoustic music. It is not the concert hall, for obvious reasons, and it shouldn't be reduced to simply backing up a storyline and a moving image. Rather, it ought to become a new venue for one-on-one musical contemplation. Cycling74 made their own label, so why not VSL? Anyway, nobody seems to get the relevance of that idea... bummer.

Your points, however, about Satie are very clear, and I agree in that context. In general, I think it's pretty useless to speculate on who the most important or influential composers will be since, with any luck, history will prove us all wrong!

J.

Hey guys, don't get me wrong about Goldsmith. Look, here's an example of a piece I sketched out on EWQLSO Silver last summer. Now does this sound like John Williams or Goldsmith?

http://forums.keyfax.com/user-files/123271-Preparations%20(AVP).mp3">http://forums.keyfax.com/user-files/123271-Preparations%20(AVP).mp3

JBM

I suggested that idea of VSL records long ago - in the dark ages of this Forum. That's why I didn't respond. Obviously I agree with you, it would be very good. But the problem is VSL is a little bit busy doing a sample library. Running a record company is a bit too much to do in addition. YOU should start this record company!

Mathis -

I agree completely with you. I think Satie is the most innovative, significant composer because he changed the entire nature of what a composer was trying to do. I have all of his works and think now - because of him - it is inconceivable to do music in any other way. Of course I may seem to have strayed from this to an extent, but even my symphony is done in a way that was influenced by him. Even though I may defend it, I am essentially disconnected from the nature of romanticism prior to Satie (i.e. R. Strauss) in form, harmonic progression and orchestration and probably should never have called anything I do romantic anyway. But that is past work anyway, and what I am now trying to do is something much simpler. In this I find a great inspiration in Satie. He dared to do something simple, which is a thousand times harder than complexity.

@jbm said:

But I don't understand your statement that music is no longer connected to identity. I think it still is, it's just that it's also become inextricably tied into fashion (at least on a popular level), so it becomes difficult to make distinctions. What about hip-hop and rap? In fact, it could be argued that music has done little else BUT exert a sort of identity-producing power -- so that the social groups of today are almost created by music, not the other way round. And I think it would be a mistake to suggest that this has nothing to do with the music itself. Anyway, maybe I just didn't get what you were driving at...

yes, you´re right about that, I was thinking about that, too, when I was going to bed. But still I have the strong feeling that there is a difference to yesterdays identification. Maybe this todays identification is more about the the aura, the label, whereas some decades ago musicians as well as audience were naturally positive that music itself could change the world.
But I´m sounding like an old wrack now. Sure, music history books aren´t important actually. I just felt I have to make a strong statement about something completely different. As usual... [8-)]

To bring the Satie thing to a more practical level, I think he IS of great relevance, like Bill said. We live in a time in which, when we look at music material, literally everything is done. You can´t distinguish yourself anymore with inventing or choosing certain musical sounds.
What IS of great relevance is form. And that´s where Satie shows his brilliance. Repeating a boring phrase of music 834 times IS a statement you have to deal with. Like after ripping the canvas or presenting a plain pissoir like it is you HAD to rethink your form of presentation. You can´t just paint some nice motive anymore.
And for all of us who are striving for the third Vienna school I think he is relevant. I mean, when he uses the choir in this totally strange "Messe de pauvres" for just one minute or so after half an hour of weird waiting then this is certainly an ideologic basis for using a fifty piece bassoon section out of the sudden in an orchestral context.

Bill, you must have an AMAZING music collection. How many CDs to you own?

Yes, Mathis, that is the main question in our time: form. Whether simple or complex, consonant or dissonant, acoustic or electronic, it's how the material is presented in time that matters most. That's the only thing which still seems somehow to be insufficiently explored... or maybe it's just that it's the one thing that still offers an infinitude of possibilities. After all, it really IS possible to find an infinite variety of forms, even if there are only so many chords, scales, voicings, cadences, and so on.


William. You sound a little irritated about the VSL Records thing. Are you? I hope not. I mean, I was only partly serious about it when I first brought it up... It is a good idea, though.
Anyway, I would be careful about stating that simplicity is "1000 times easier than complexity". I understand what you're saying, but making broad statements like that always begs for a thousand exceptions. Complexity can be every bit as difficult to achieve as simplicity, it's just a matter of what you're trying to do, and what your level of sensitivity is to the needs of the work. I've been deeply inspired by both Wolfgang Rihm on the one hand, and Arvo Part on the other. Really, both simplicity and complexity can be either phenomenally difficult, or astonishingly easy. That's what always excites me about composition: one day it's as easy as breathing, the next day it's like extracting your own molars with a pair of vise grips!

cheers,

J.

[..

dco,

Of course there is influence from the concert hall to the theatre. Planets draws fro Varese's Arcana no doubt. The difference being that there are innovations is Planets not found in Arcana: several in fact. The writing to picture in that film is absolutely perfect. In both composition and insight into the visual message and emotion is where you have the genius of JG. Even if JW where JG's equal as a composer JG has a far greater gift cinematically. Only Hermann and perhaps North are in the same league imho.

Yes, we all know about North and Steetcar and the beginning of the modern era in film score. Also Rosenman's 12 tone technique. But those guys were not dominating film in the 60's 70's and 80's.

To me on a composition level I hear things reduced to there basic elements be they 4 part or whatever. I still maintain that Goldsmith is as good as they come in that respect and that Williams is a major talent but would never "make it" as a pure composer. It seems Esa Peka Salonen (LA Phil) regards Goldsmith in the same way.

Dave Connor