 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I interviewed John Scott back in 1991, and asked him about his work as a session player. He didn't go into great detail but did say that John Barry "was so exacting in those days" and that Barry spent a lot of time rehearsing to get things just right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing to add (re: John Barry), but - as an aside - John(ny) Scott is visible as flautist & on alto sax in All Night Long directed by Basil Dearden.
[in case you didn't already know this  ]
https://youtu.be/BJj4ArSqVEE
|
|
|
|
|
|
I recall in an interview that Scott said he performed on Barry's magnificent (can't remember the exact adjective, but it was highly complimentary) The Lion in Winter. Can't recall saxophones in the score, but possibly flute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 22, 2021 - 1:37 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
bobbengan
(Member)
|
I recall in an interview that Scott said he performed on Barry's magnificent (can't remember the exact adjective, but it was highly complimentary) The Lion in Winter. Can't recall saxophones in the score, but possibly flute.
Scott did perform on Lion in Winter, yes, and indeed I believe it was flute.
Addressing his relationship with Barry more broadly...
I don't want to put words in John [Scott]'s mouth that might have been misinterpreted by myself or intended more as 'affectionate lighthearted jabs' at his late friend and former employer, but from what he said to me on a few occasions, it sounds like be became gradually disillusioned by Barry's musical practices as his scoring career blossomed and Barry became (in John's words) increasingly more reliance on orchestrators to flesh out his ideas, to a degree that Scott and apparently found suspect and outright lazy on occasion.
Scott has expressed many times over that he believes "orchestration IS composition" and that the practice of letting someone else dictate even the merest ding of a triangle has always befuddled him, so this view on the trajectory of Barry's music perhaps shouldn't be a surprise.
As I'm sure many who view this thread know, most British composers of Scott's era orchestrated their own music, so I think watching this "Hollywood" practice of hiring an arranger creep in, no matter how trivial said arranger's contribution, was viewed as ill-integral (a stance I don't disagree with necessarily, though at the end of the day the quality of the resultant music is all that really matters - Rozsa, Williams, Goldsmith, Horner, Bernstein etc. created perfectly brilliant music in spite of using orchestrators throughout their careers).
Fun bonus fact - maybe known to others, maybe not - Scott was offered a gig as Elmer Bernstein's new orchestrator sometime circa ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA. Scott gave the opportunity serious consideration until someone (possibly Christopher Palmer?) advised him that if he took that trajectory it would become vanishingly difficult to ever be taken seriously as a composer again, so after much deliberation, Scott decided to pass on the gig and continue to make a go hand-to-mouth as a film composer instead... Whoever gave him that pep talk, Palmer or otherwise, good grief am I glad things didn't pan out as such!
- BB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the U.S. they all use orchestrators. In the end, it's either the composer's music or it isn't. I can't say I've heard any of Barry's music that doesn't sound like Barry, even his later scores that tended towards similar orchestrations. I'm sure Scott didn't have any problem with arranger Barry fleshing out Scott's own "Kinky" composition that Barry recorded in 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, yeah, I know what arrangers do and what orchestrators do. I know the difference between someone turning a melody over to a skilled orchestrator and a composer turning over detailed multi-staff sketches. And by referring to "Barry's music" I am not speaking of just the melody but the finished product, with all its trademark Barryisms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This might shock you, given I'm such as huge John Barry fan, but the word ‘lazy’ might fit, just not in the negatively connoted way it is often used.
Barry, like his music, seemed to work on an ‘economy of motion’ principle.
He, and his music, did what was necessary and not more.
There's an elegance to that.
I believe he was sincere, visionary and dedicated in his music projects, but I also believe he thought once the essence of the creation was down, why do all the remaining work yourself?
Especially if the orchestrators, who are dedicated orchestrators, actually do that bit better than you.
Don't mistake the fact he used orchestrators for chunks of his career that he stopped caring about his product or surrendered ownership of the music, though.
People close to him report that he would slave over getting his music just right.
People closer to him in the studio than I also report that he was very specific about how he wanted his music to sound and wouldn't let the orchestra of the hook till he got the exact phrasing he wanted.
Remember the story of Mark McKenzie, who orchestrated the revised Buffalo Hunt in Dances With Wolves, about how, on the stage, Barry stripped out everything McKenzie did that did not align with his intent.
He owned his music. He just had help with the work of getting it orchestrated.
I have no doubt his style became so well established, and his short-hand with his orchestrators so simple, that he could leave it to them to flesh out the sketches he wrote.
I'd say that was trust that the orchestrator knows what he wanted rather than giving up the creation.
The question over orchestration is something that will always be argued both ways.
There will always be those who say the music isn't yours if you didn't orchestrate it yourself.
There will also be those who point out that there's an elegance to doing only what you need to do, and allowing people to help.
A book is created by a team bringing the author's words to life. That team comprises editors, designers and typographers.
Music is created by a team bring the composer's music to life. That team comprises orchestrators, conductors and musicians.
I don't expect that question to get resolved here, I will simply say that I don't think Barry's use of orchestrators was in any way a creative surrender.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't expect that question to get resolved here, I will simply say that I don't think Barry's use of orchestrators was in any way a creative surrender.
Here is a really interesting interview with Nic Raine on James Bond Radio, where he discusses working for Barry. The "nuts and bolts" of what he actually did for Barry is covered starting at 37:44...
https://jamesbondradio.com/nic-raine-interview-music-bond-podcast-001/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's really up to the composer: How much does he or she have time to do? How lazy is he or she? How many projects did he or she take on?
Rush jobs may require more help. Some composer only want to take or a limited number of projects in one year so they have time to write and orchestrate; they don't have help or especially a team effort.
One composer may say an orchestrator is 50% of their sound, while orchestrators who worked for greats like Williams and Goldsmith, have said they were glorified copyists (maybe here and there finding a woodwind part not written properly or some such little thing that doesn't remotely change the composition). Other orchestrators want to leave their stamp on projects (some of you may recall an infamous orchestrator who apparently was at odds with a composer because he kept trying to make things his own).
This is, of course, barring health issues, instances where a composer is giving an orchestrator a shot to show what they can do and get their foot in the door, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
