continued from above:

"Changing Opinion" Songs From Liquid Days
This one is not necessarily the best arrangement or orchestration, but the composition is eons ahead of it's time. And it must be taken 100% with the lyrics, as a film score can only be appreciated with the film. The singing style is very bizarre. It mixes an operatic alto in a folk way. But at the same time the form is more advanced than typical song, and in fact it's over 10 minutes long. Ultimately the whole song is about a hum coming from a refrigerator. God damned. It's pure art. And fantastic. A real unique work of art. The mix of minor and major at key points, and then the juxtaposition of pure piano with extremes of brass is also very unique. It's genius is in how song like it is, and yet how so many elements of advanced melody, rhythm, and form are able to stretch any current notions of what a song is really, and what words really mean if anything. It's a kind of "Sixth Sense" in music. A song that turns itself inside out on itself.

"Knee Play 5" Glass Masters (Disc 3)
This uses singers singing numbers, which count off the meter beats of each odd meter that goes by, with some numbers dropping in and out. Than there is some plain talk in whisper. Also with the counting numbers which are pecking out various chords, is a faint warm organ type sound. If this isn't ahead of it's time I don't know what is. But for now, I don't know of anyone who would like to listen to it. it's VERY intellectual. However, in the future humans will be ready for it. It needs a more evolved brain to get into it. It's not feeling music at all, although it is hypnotic. But then again so is a lecture on coronary artery bypass precedure and protocol. I'm sure Einstein would have found it completely fascinating. It also reminds me of the Glenn Gould work which is just people talking. This one is quite a piece of art. Whether it's annoying or not, it is an undeniable masterpiece of invention. On some levels it sounds trite, but it's way too conceptual to not be thought of that way. It's better to just drop the shackles of pretense, and think about what is really being presented, and try to decode it with your advanced mind. It's like listening to a Rubix cube. There is a middle section that has some ordinary conversation spoken almost sarcastically, or at least without emotion. It makes fun of society, it belittles ordinariness. It makes the simple epic. The bizarre is a part of all of us it tries to say.

I also think that this one is worth preserving for the annals of time:

"Akhnaten's Hymn to the Aten," Akhnaten, Act II; iv 13:40
It is very organic. And one of the more musically pleasing of his compositions. I suspect though that unless you enjoy listening to Ives you won't like this, unless you can enjoy the colors.

Also this one is classic, and almost beyond the capabilities of humans to perform:

"Spaceship: Einstein on the Beach", Act IV

Evan Evans

@William said:

My reaction is, if a person could create something so pretentious, insulting and just plain bad ... how can you accept anything else? If someone is a murderer, does it matter that they also regularly bathe?

A good example is John Nash, popularized in the film "A Beautiful Mind". He really struggled with making any appreciated contribution to math or science. Many laughed at him. He spent much of his life coming up with bizarre theorems that no one cared for. He did however come up with a significant contribution, and to ignore it is to be ignorant and having the potential to fail if your field requires his idea. Even after he completed this one small contribution to science, he went on making further attempts at further bizarre theorems, still many of which are taken with a BIG grain of salt. He still works today, and puts out banal theorems and postulates.

I think Philip Glass is the same way. And I think there are plenty of people who can't control their mind the way most people do, who although they consistently do not "fit in", they can have MORE potential than the typical human being to introduce something that can break barriers and new frontiers, either while they are alive or many eons later.

Evan Evans

dcoscina

Okay back to the Goldsmith - Williams comparison. Yes I'm familiar with John Williams music. In fact "Soundings" which is a purely orchestral piece written for the openening of Disney Hall should be a good example of pure composition I think you would agree. Yes it did contain some quartel harmonies, clusters and non diatonic motif's and phrases. In fact it was typical John Williams in that respect. Well it just sounded like bad film music. It was a hogepodge of various ideas stitiched together with seams showing everywhere. I can't imagine Goildsmith coming up with anything so lacking.

My original point is that Goldsmith is one of those rare composers that has the weight and gravity in his music that is found in "serious" (I use the term scientifically, not as a slight.) Alex North (my personal favoritie - and Goldsmiths btw) certainly falls into the same categorie.

I am for more mystefied by JG than JW. Perhaps you are the reverse and that's why the world goes around. You obviously know your music well (by reading your comments.)

Dave Connor

I agree that WIlliams concert works aren't as solid as his film scores. It's clear that he's used to working with a solidified narrative and consequently he's inspired by them.

Goldenthal is another interesting beast. I find his film scores and concert works are uniformly quite good. I don't care for BAtman Forever mind you, but COBB, GOLDEN GATE, INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE, ALIEN3 (a classic) and even TITUS are pretty great. Any thoughts?

Regarding Glass I was never speaking of mental illness, or visionairies who cannot fit into society. Probably most of my favorite artists are exactly of this type.

I was talking about mere banality and exploitative phoniness. Something much less tragic and dramatic than John Nash.

I agree to an extent with Dave on the Goldsmith-Williams comparison, but am maybe not quite as negative toward Williams. Goldsmith seems to be more of a "protean" creator in the sense that his most elemental ideas are things that are memorable. Whereas with Williams, it is a more technical accomplishment of providing a perfectly useable accompaniment.

What I really enjoy about this board is being able to talk and debate music using terminology that everyone understands. I've learned a lot!

Although Williams concert works are, for me, more interesting and captivating that his film music. But the best word I can describe for them is "aimless". I know that doesn't give respect where respect is due, so I should say this much ... Williams is a fantastic gifted ... um ... musician. yeah, that much I CAN say. LOL.

Evan Evans

Just a quick comment:

WHAT A THREAD THIS HAS BECOME!!!! LOL

I dream of wonderful intellectual, debateful threads like this at FSM. This rocks!

POST ON!

Evan Evans

Just a brief observation...

I mentioned somewhere above that "drone" may be the most prominent contemporary form. But I've just be listening to some LFO (great stuff, btw), and I realize that I wasn't quite right on that. It's not necessarily drone, but rather a tendency toward 'singluar' forms (?? I remember "binary" and "tertiary"... but what is 'one': "monist"???) -- that is, one "section" only! Or sometimes, they have 2 or more sections, A, B, [...], superimposed over a particular, continuous element from A... this is probably what made me think of drone right away. It's often like this: A/A -> B/A -> A/A, etc. I guess that probably happened in certain early dance forms, which were often drone-based (or at least made heavy use of pedal tones), but it's pretty interesting that it's become such a common way of thinking (formally) these days. You notice it a lot in pop music and R&B stuff (yes, most of it's crap, but that doesn't mean it's uninteresting from a formal point of view!), where the music under the verse and chorus is essentially the same, and only the vocal changes. I really don't think this is laziness, or anything simplistic like that. I think it's coming from a deep, cultural drive to shed the past 300 years of "chord progression". I don't know, but it's interesting.

J.

ps - Evan. Yes, the ripped canvas analogy is very good. And actually, I've long felt like someone who doesn't "understand music"... at least in the traditional sense. In fact, I've put a good deal of effort into trying to empty my mind of much of the "knowledge" I've accumulated. If I don't, I can't get anything done, because I'm always faced with 10,000 reasons why I "shouldn't" do something... Keeping my brain as theory-clear as possible (while composing) lets me simplify the whole process down to just listening and responding. Which is where I most like to be!

@dcoscina said:

What I really enjoy about this board is being able to talk and debate music using terminology that everyone understands. I've learned a lot!

Oh, I just got to this post. YEAH, isn't htis great man!?

EEE

@jbm said:

ps - Evan. Yes, the ripped canvas analogy is very good. And actually, I've long felt like someone who doesn't "understand music"... at least in the traditional sense. In fact, I've put a good deal of effort into trying to empty my mind of much of the "knowledge" I've accumulated. If I don't, I can't get anything done, because I'm always faced with 10,000 reasons why I "shouldn't" do something... Keeping my brain as theory-clear as possible (while composing) lets me simplify the whole process down to just listening and responding. Which is where I most like to be!

Thanks! Funny thing, I just got this iPodFM car iPod playback unit, and we had my iPod on random today. On came a piece of Glass' that was used in the Truman Show. It was the best one, the one where Truman realizes his "self" and stops traffic at his bidding, as he realizes that his world actually revovles around him. My son asked what it was, and I told him, and my wife did too. She said, I actually like this one. That is BIG, becuase she is a huge Glass detester! Anyway, I could care less, LOL, but then I mentioned that by coincidence we, VSL posters, had been talking about Glass and how his music might be best off admired as unique art unto itself, and not as music. She debated for a moment, then I mentioned the "Ripped Canvas" analogy. She realized, it was a good one. She said, "Yeha, but you can't get people to like something they don't like." I said, "I know. But to foster the idea of expanding our minds is something I can't resist sharing." And she said, "Well ... yeah." It was like, I guess so, ... a noble cause (of course I could think of a helll uf a lot of more nobler causes than trying to get people to realize Glass' genius, THAT'S FOR SURE).

Anyway, the "ripped canvas" analogy seems to work well. It "cut" right through, pun MAYBE intended. [;)]

Evan Evans

@William said:

Regarding Glass I was never speaking of mental illness, or visionairies who cannot fit into society. Probably most of my favorite artists are exactly of this type.

I was talking about mere banality and exploitative phoniness. Something much less tragic and dramatic than John Nash.

Oh. I am not sure I can "put" Glass on that. But I respect that you may have enough connections with your evidence that you can draw such a conclusion. I guess I'll just have to take it as you're the detective that thinks my brother did it, but I still know in my heart he couldn't have. And we can leave it at that.

Evan Evans

P.S. I don't have a brother. lol.

@dcoscina said:

Yes, this does stem from being involved with jazz. Sorry if that goes against your compositional beliefs but that's how I do things.

Oh that's cool. Don't apologize. It's a definite formidable approach. I don't discount any approaches. It's hard to explain. I have a completely open mind, AND my own viewpoints. So, no offense ok? None was meant.

Certainly, anyone, who chooses their path is going to be up against resistance. But, I think, the more the struggle, the merrier the cause. As long as it's not sick and twisted ... like what I do! [6]

[:D]

Evan Evans

@William said:

I agree to an extent with Dave on the Goldsmith-Williams comparison, but am maybe not quite as negative toward Williams. Goldsmith seems to be more of a "protean" creator in the sense that his most elemental ideas are things that are memorable. Whereas with Williams, it is a more technical accomplishment of providing a perfectly useable accompaniment.

Absolutely. I feel the same way. Williams is about fluffing up his wonderful songs, and Goldsmith is about covertly presenting his red hot core.

Evan Evans

@William said:

I agree to an extent with Dave on the Goldsmith-Williams comparison, but am maybe not quite as negative toward Williams. Goldsmith seems to be more of a "protean" creator in the sense that his most elemental ideas are things that are memorable. Whereas with Williams, it is a more technical accomplishment of providing a perfectly useable accompaniment.

Absolutely. I feel the same way. Williams is about fluffing up his wonderful songs, and Goldsmith is about covertly presenting his red hot core.

Evan Evans

I'd almost be willing to agree with you on this point Evan..to a degree. Williams often employs coloristic devices such as ornamentation and runs in the winds that are ancillary to the piece. To my ears, I like this. But sometimes it can get a little tired. Goldsmith does present his ideas in a more unadorned fashion. Certainly they work amazingly well against picture and most of the time play well on their own. But sometimes I find his writing a little too economic and I prefer to hear the "fluff".

On the other hand, I LOVE Goldsmith's Tora tora tora score. The intermission piece is really awesome. I wish a high qaulity recording of this score would be released. I have the FSM original and while I'm happy to have it at all, I'dlove to examine the sonorities in greater detail with a better recording of the music.

My ultimate feeling about John Williams is that he is a national treasure and I wouldn't change a note of his film music. He is a hugely talented musician. My initial comments were based upon the notion that he is a superior composer to Jerry Goldsmith who I think towers over Williams in this respect. Whereas Williams is a wonderful musical personality, Goldsmith is a flat out genius. So inventive and creative with complete mastery of the orchestra and able to say new things over and over within a single film.

I love William's music but he doesn't astonish and exhilarate me the way Goldsmith has countless times. I have a visceral response to his scores. Patton! Not just perfectly scored but a treasure trove of numerous musical innovations as well as traditional composition (the main title a classic piece of Americana as good a tune as any in the national lexicon - yet it contains the innovative trumpet through echoplex as reincarnation theme: all on top of a organ chorale!) This is one cue in one film we're talking about here. Planet of the Apes? Chinatown? Two many incredible scores to count and for too many reasons.

I could go on and on about John Williams scores but not for the same reasons. It's not a knock on him, it's just that there's a veritable Mozart out there and I don't know if JW is quite a JS Bach in comparison.

Dave Connor

I agree completely on that. Those are great examples too - Planet of the Apes - there is so little actual music in it, but what is there is so good that it is more significant than most operas. I find myself humming every cue of that. People on both TV and film have been imitating that score right and left for the last 35 years. And Chinatown is even better if that is possible. Not only for the melancholy dark jazzy trumpet tune, but for tiny moments here and there, like the empty riverbed with its incredibly desolate strings and chimes, or the extreme unease and indefinable vocal and percussive sounds in the "investigation" scene. Goldsmith does what is probably the essence of the best film music - not reinforcing what is on the screen, but instead revealing the hidden psychological depths beneath it.

Different strokes for different folks I guess. While I like much of Goldsmith's music, none of it "astonishes" me. I reserve that for the likes of Mahler, Gershwin, Charlie Parker, guys like that. Williams' music impresses me mightily though. Let's be honest- in the past 7 or 8 years, Goldsmith had taken to writing scores that had pop-styled progressions. Very simple ones and not a whole lot of modulations. On a purely musical level, I find most of his post 1997 scores...well saccharine. I still listen to Mulan but I don't think it's on par with his superior Tora Tora Tora score. I don't even want to make a comparison between The 13th Warrior and Wind and the Lion. I heard Hollow Man but cannot really comment as I don't have the score. But much of his originality seemed to have waned. Now one can attribute this to his failing health in many respects. But we're talking music here. I get a lot more out of listening to Angela's Ashes, A.I. or Minority Report. On the other hand, I think the music application of Harry Potter is awful. It was on the other night and I found the music to have a total disregard for what was happening on screen.

Catch Me if You Can and The Terminal have moments of real brilliance but don't make for a complete listening experience. And the new Star Wars films have almost undone the magic and awesome qualities of Star Wars and TESB.

The other thing I must consider is that I go through stages of liking one composer over the next. Sometimes I'm more in a Goldsmith mood than a Williams mood or vise-versa. I've been listening to Giacchino's The Incredibles a lot lately. Although now I've taken a break and re-vsisted Goldenthal's early '90's scores like Demolition Man, Cobb, and Golden Gate.

There are few composers, even great ones, that I can always listen to and enjoy whenever. Vaughan Williams happens to be one of them. Was he a genius? No. But there's something in his music that I really appreciate.

I've also been on a Chris Young kick of late. I had a chancde to hear his first forray into film scoring with a score to PRANKS. A low budget slasher film from 1982. For this, Young eschewed the typical scoring devices of cheesy synths and went with a string orchestra, mixed percussion, 2 pianos and a bass harmonica. A surprisingly excellent score. Frankly, if there was ever a person to follow in Goldsmith's footsteps, I'd nominate Young, except he doesn't seem to be getting the high profile jobs that many film score fans hoped he'd get.

Vaughn Williams is not a genius?

You must be joking.

He is one of the greatest composers of modern times. The 4th Symphony is an awesome work beyond 99% of all composers who ever lived. The 6th is equally great, and the 9th is even greater. And those are just his symphonies.

So I disagree just a wee bit about old Raiph.

However, you may be right about Goldsmith's later scores. I was not talking about those at all. In fact, I haven't heard them. I have heard almost everything he did from the 70s back, but not much of the newer stuff. But I have a suggestion as to why his later scores might not be up to the earlier.

The movies he scored are pieces of shit.

Basic Instinct, Rambo, etc. etc. etc... gag. These are garbage films but done on a big budget. And the venal low-life producer hacks who dump this crap hire a great artist like Goldsmith to do music so it will be "classy." But the rotting stench of these film ideas must ultimately have an effect upon someone like Goldsmith, even someone as professional as he was.

This in fact is something that enrages me, and which prevents me from wanting to touch normal film composing today with a ten foot pole. I cannot accept the stupidity and wretchedness of today's films. And if you want to find a reason for why even a great composer like Goldsmith "waned" - where the hell else do you really need to look?

Yes William, poor Jerry seemed consigned to mostly crappy movies. Funny enough, scores for Mulan, LA Confidential, The Edge, and perhaps the last truly great film he scored Six Degree of Separation, all contained very interesting, effective music. I notice a difference when ANY film composer works on a great film as opposed to a marginal piece of trash.

As for Vaughan Williams, he's one of my all time favorite composers. He's seen as middle of the road by academia because he wasn't doing anything "original" in a time when modernism was at its height. But I love all his works. The Tuba Concerto, Oboe Concerto, Five Variants of Dives and Lazarus, Tallis Fantasia, Symphonia Antarctica, but mostly the slow movement from his 5th Symphony. It's so bittersweet but doesn't go anywhere near shmatlz. It's one of the most moving pieces I've ever heard and it still retains its effectiveness even after I've heard it more than 100 times.

Bartok appeals to my mind while Vaughan Williams will always touch my heart and soul.