🤣 Well he was only 10...give him a chance!Alan Mencken (1949 - ) didn't start scoring films in 1959, as Williams did.
🤣 Well he was only 10...give him a chance!Alan Mencken (1949 - ) didn't start scoring films in 1959, as Williams did.
I do know the film score composers ("composers of incidental music for films," if you like) whom you mentioned, plus a few others I particularly like (Ennio Morricone, Nino Rota, Victor Young, Hans Zimmer, Paul Dessau, William Walton); but I by no means consider John Williams "third rate." And if there are discussions on this forum about composers whose work I don't personally care for, I don't trash them.Sigh...I believe that anyone who is familiar with the film scores of Raksin, Waxman, Herrmann, Korngold, Alfred Newman, Leonard Bernstein ("On the Waterfront"), Goldsmith ("The Blue Max" in particular), Steiner, William Alwyn, Malcolm Arnold, Arnold Bax ("Oliver Twist"), & others of The Golden Age will see John Williams as a third-rate (& often derivative) composer of film music.
The Academy Awards are simply a measure of the consent about the quality of a work. You can freely decide if this measure has any relevance, but I think we should avoid to say that the judges don't really believe in their choices everytime that something that we don't personally enjoy so much get a nomination.The number of Academy Awards and Academy Award nominations is only a decent measure of the worth of the composers' (Williams and Mencken) scores. Williams would often get nominated and fail to "win", because the voters felt he'd had enough accolades, and it was time to let others have a chance. Same with the Academy splitting Best Score category; they felt that Mencken was getting "too many" wins, and, again, it was time to let others have a chance.
It's possible to compare a symphonic film score in romantic style with an other film score in romantic style.And one cannot make a fair comparison between the two composers . . . they have different career trajectories, different film score counts, have scored vastly different tytpes of films, and started their film careers in different decades.
Alan Menken was already writing music at that age and he won a musical competition.🤣 Well he was only 10...give him a chance!
Yes, exactly. I did know that, and figured that others would be able to suss out that he would have been only 9 or 10 without me needing to point it out.🤣 Well he was only 10...give him a chance!
Quite. Hans is a fan and didn't accept the proposition that Williams only had four rivals for the crown. I don't either, but I don't see a crown in the first place. I'll copy across here a post I made today in another thread that I think is relevant.I guess my real point is that neither is "better" than the other.
You teenk I have brain like children? BOOM-DA-BOOMLionel Bernstein, ... Tiompkin
Hermann's "Vertigo" is quite derivative of Wagner's Tristan und Isolde. Nonetheless, it is a great score.Sigh...I believe that anyone who is familiar with the film scores of Raksin, Waxman, Herrmann, Korngold, Alfred Newman, Leonard Bernstein ("On the Waterfront"), Goldsmith ("The Blue Max" in particular), Steiner, William Alwyn, Malcolm Arnold, Arnold Bax ("Oliver Twist"), & others of The Golden Age will see John Williams as a third-rate (& often derivative) composer of film music.
One of his scores that I happen to like quite a bit is the one he did for Catch Me If You Can, which he later arranged as a concerto for alto saxophone Escapades.
Of course there is nothing bad in melodies. We simply live in a strange era in which unhappy people reject the beauty for some strange reasons. I think that the purpose of the antimelodic trend of today is to keep away the masses from classical music, because if many people would listen to classical music the unhappy people couldn't say that they are special. For them classical music serves the purpose of showing their "high culture".Thanks for this suggestion. I had forgotten all about this score. We tend to remember Williams as a melodic composer (as if writing a catchy tune is benath serious composers) but this score shows how Williams can turn a simple phrase (hardly a tune) and make it sound interesting for a long time because he is such a brilliant orchestrator. Does it downplay him as a composer? Did it work against Ravel being a brilliant orchestrator? Also, being melodic has been the strenght of symphonies like Dvorak´s ninth or Tchaikovsky´s sixth. Music is a many-layered thing and it can be enjoyed in many different ways. Music can be original, it can be technically challenging, it can be moody and elusive but it can also be straight-out melodic (as in "hummable"). That is the part of the music that you are most likely to take with you wherever you go. It is there with you in the traffic jam, it follows you when you are cleaning the house or doing the groceries. It is the part that lifts your mood when you need it. Not technical jargon. Some music can be philosophically interesting but it hardly lifts your mood, particularly when you feel isolated and have to dig inside for inspiration. What is so bad about writing tunes? It makes people feel better, makes them feel "brave" when they would be vulnerable? It makes the world a better place, doesn´t it? John Williams is not my favourite film-composer but I sure am grateful for having many of his melodies in my arsenal when my mood needs a lift.
That is an incredibly sweeping and reductive statement which is not at all true for many classical music listeners, myself included. I seek out new classical music everyday, and find music which I consider engaging and often beautiful.It's clear that John Williams et al have replaced the composers of abstract classical music: they are more relevant for the modern society. The reason is quite simple: the people who want to smile (and most people want to smile with music, not torturing themslves to look like people of high culture who don't follow the masses) listen to their music because they don't follow the strange philosophy of the modern classical music.
That is an incredibly sweeping and reductive statement which is not at all true for many classical music listeners, myself included. I seek out new classical music everyday, and find music which I consider engaging and often beautiful.
I do this because I am interested in new classical music, along with many other genres. I am not trying to "look like people of high culture" - which is an dismissive straw man of your own creation.
Most film music is not something I find interesting. In fact, much of it is some of the least interesting music available. Hip-hop or pop or rock, are more rewarding, and to my ears, more creative.
No, I don't think I was the one who "wrote a post in which you said that Classic FM represents the average audience of classical music more than Talkclassical?" I don't know anything about Classic FM other than seeing a list they came up with, which (like all similar lists) has limited importance.It's simply called "generalization". Weren't you that you wrote a post in which you said that Classic FM represents the average audience of classical music more than Talkclassical?
I don't place any importance on music charts of any genre.Look at the charts of the Classic FM Hall of Fame: in the first positions you will often find modern music along with older music. The older music is usually abastract classical music, while the modern music is usually from film scores.
Why do you think you can speak for "people in general." It is the singular aspect of your posts which undermines whatever point you are trying to communicate.However I was not speaking about people who have a concious passion for classical music. I was speaking about people in general. I don't have scientific datas that confirm that the average listener of music prefer symphonic film music more than the modern classical music inside of the large antimelodic trend, but if you want we can do a 100 dollars bet about the results of a poll inside a general forum for music.
Not to mention the description of people who like 'anti-melodic' music as 'unhappy'.which undermines whatever point you are trying to communicate.
So please, give it up.The question is: do we really have to care about this? I think no.
Film music is not mutually exclusive with hip-hop, pop or rock.Most film music is not something I find interesting. In fact, much of it is some of the least interesting music available. Hip-hop or pop or rock, are more rewarding, and to my ears, more creative.
Yes, films do use pop music, but I thought your were mainly talking about newly composed scores. My favorite soundtracks are for films like Cold Mountain and O Brother Where Art Thou - which are made up of songs. But we don't need films for this kind of music.Film music is not mutually exclusive with hip-hop, pop or rock.
The only person I see wishing to equate film music with classical music is you on this forum.The problem is that composers who write symphonic, abstract music for films are not compared with pop stars, but with saints of music like Mozart, Beethoven and Bach. .
Well, Peace on you.Eh? "No thanks" is an expression of unhappiness?
Funny how words can strike people so differently. For example, "Peace"...sounds like anything but. 🤷♂️