 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Feb 9, 2006 - 2:04 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
Please read before continuing:
THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT COMPARING WILLIAMS TO GOLDSMITH IN ORDER TO SAY WHO IS "BETTER" OR "WORSE"!!! It's solely about discussing WHY people feel the need to make such a duel and if it is at all possible. In other words, meta-comments about the PREMISES for this fantasy duel that people love to put up. So - although I realize it's difficult to control the flow of discussion - please do not add to the pointless and tiresome Goldsmith vs. Williams duel in this particular thread. Thanks.
With Joe's blessing, I've excerpted the relevant discussion from the locked thread down below (mostly by me and Gunnar, really).
This is what we said before we were "interrupted":
-----------------------------------------
By: Thor (Member)
What has perplexed me for MANY years is how people feel a need to "construct" a duel between Williams and Goldsmith all the time, as if it was a sporting event. Apples and oranges.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By: crazyunclerolo (Member)
***What has perplexed me for MANY years is how people feel a need to "construct" a duel between Williams and Goldsmith all the time, as if it was a sporting event. Apples and oranges.***
It's inevitable--and hardly perplexing--that people are going to contrast and compare the two preeminent film composers of their time. Sometimes it gets overheated, especially in forums like this one, and starts to resemble a brawl between parents at a Little League game. What I've been trying to express is my own perception of these two artists, who to me are equal but naturally have different approaches to their work. The phrase "apples and oranges" could be used to close down 90% of the conversations on this message board, but I think it's interesting and possibly illuminating to explore why the music written by these two men was so different.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By: Thor (Member)
***but I think it's interesting and possibly illuminating to explore why the music written by these two men was so different.***
Yes, but the point is that unless Williams and Goldsmith both had scored the same film and we could hear the different versions, it is not really possible to say which is "better". It's much more interesting to look at the different films and how the scores work in them. It IS possible to say something about the two composer's styles and differing approaches to the film medium, but because film is so multi-faceted, a hierarchical value judgement is near to impossible.
NP: DRACULA (Kilar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By: crazyunclerolo (Member)
***Yes, but the point is that unless Williams and Goldsmith both had scored the same film and we could hear the different versions, it is not really possible to say which is "better". It's much more interesting to look at the different films and how the scores work in them. It IS possible to say something about the two composer's styles and differing approaches to the film medium, but because film is so multi-faceted, a hierarchical value judgement is near to impossible.
NP: DRACULA (Kilar)***
We're in complete agreement on that, Thor, which is why I use the word "favorite" rather than "best" or "better" when discussing any artistic works. I also wanted to demonstrate to Dan Hobgood that I have a true appreciation for Goldsmith that doesn't in any way detract from my opinion of John Williams' skills as a film composer. He does a disservice to both men when he continually defends Goldsmith at Williams' expense. I agree with Dan that Goldsmith was a great film composer and that he didn't get the acclaim or the awards he deserved in his lifetime...none of which has anything whatsoever to do with John Williams. I suspect that Dan has taken this approach to honoring Goldsmith in order to provoke angry attacks, so that he can position himself as Goldsmith's Great Defender.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
By: Gunnar (Member)
***... the point is that unless Williams and Goldsmith both had scored the same film and we could hear the different versions, it is not really possible to say which is "better".***
Of course, this would be the perfect experiment, but unfortunately one that is impossible to conduct.
However, there is still the possibility to do a comparative study of the effect of types of film music that follow different paradigms. All you have to do is compare the audience's perception of a Goldsmith-scored film with and without the music, and do so likewise with a Williams-scored film.
Assess the audience's ability to "understand" a film in terms of character motivation, underlying themes, plot development, filmmaker's intention etc. through the means of questionnaires and ultimately compare statistically if
a) the audience gets a better grasp of the film in the case of added music, and
b) if the increase in understanding is larger in the case of the Goldsmith-scored film vs. the Williams-scored film.
This will of course not change the subjective way each of us is affected by a certain type of film scoring, but it would give some insight into the question whether one scoring approach is in general (i.e. for the majority of the audience) more suited to "help the communication of a film".
As I am in favour of the null hypothesis that both scoring approaches work equally well, I fortunately don't have to do this experiment to objectively (i.e. open to scientifc scrutiny) show the alleged benefits of one approach over the other.
Personally, I'd like to side with franz_conrad. I believe that a film as a work of art is allowed to challenge the audience by not spoon-feeding each and every bit of its "message" to them. And although I don't necessarily like films where I have to see them a second time just to understand what the hell was going on, I definitely like it if films hold some details in store that only become apparent on repeated viewings. This also applies to the music.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By: Thor (Member)
***All you have to do is compare the audience's perception of a Goldsmith-scored film with and without the music, and do so likewise with a Williams-scored film.
Assess the audience's ability to "understand" a film in terms of character motivation, underlying themes, plot development, filmmaker's intention etc. ***
But "understanding" a film is not all there is to it. To FEEL a film or GET IN THE MOOD of a film is equally important, for example. Film is more than story-telling. It depends on what the film in question wants to prioritize, and that's what makes comparisons like this so difficult. As I said, I think it's possible to map both Williams' and Goldsmith's approach to scoring (in general) and exemplify with the films they've done. But you'd be hardpressed to say that PATTON is better than E.T. because they're very different films with very different agendas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By: Gunnar (Member)
Thor, I put "understand" in quotation marks because I meant to extend the term also towards things like grasping the emotions or mood within a film. Sorry for making this not clear enough.
Of course you are right that comparing Patton to E.T. is not very sensible. But I think that assessing the function of music within a given film could be possible along the lines I mentioned above. Of course, you''d still need a non-music soundtrack of the respective films, but that might still be possible, whereas having Jerry and John score the same film is, sadly, impossible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By: Thor (Member)
***Of course you are right that comparing Patton to E.T. is not very sensible. But I think that assessing the function of music within a given film could be possible along the lines I mentioned above. Of course, you''d still need a non-music soundtrack of the respective films, but that might still be possible, whereas having Jerry and John score the same film is, sadly, impossible.***
I get what you're saying, but I think there are some methodical problems related to such a comparison. Sure, you could play the films with and without music and then analyze the comments from the audience afterwards. You would most likely get some interesting answers, both related to the Williams and the Goldsmith screening. But then what do you do? Do you ask: "So, which score enhanced the understanding of the picture best?" Such a question is too broad, as I'm sure you agree. One film may base its "understanding" (WITH your quotation mark-meaning) on purely audiovisual elements (BLADE RUNNER comes to mind...or films by Antonioni, Eisenstein and Ozu) while another is a more traditional Hollywood narrative. Yes, both Williams and Goldsmith are Hollywood composers, but even two Hollywood-produced films may prioritize VERY differently.
But basically, I think we agree. We can see the benefit of both ways, and we also like to include scores that refuse to "spoon-feed" the audience (which is what the big D seemingly prefers).
NP: ROMEO AND JULIET (Rota)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By: Gunnar (Member)
***... Sure, you could play the films with and without music and then analyze the comments from the audience afterwards. You would most likely get some interesting answers, both related to the Williams and the Goldsmith screening. But then what do you do? Do you ask: "So, which score enhanced the understanding of the picture best?" Such a question is too broad, as I'm sure you agree.***
Sure thing, Thor, I agree with you on that. What you would have to do is ask questions about the film that reflect the level of understanding that the audience was capable of. I think the field of psychology has a lot of expertise how to judge a person's level of understanding/emotional involvement etc. So, with the proper statistical follow-up, I think it is technically possible to answer the question that Dan keeps on asking/believes he has answered about the "better communication" in a film. Naturally, the general narrative set-up would have to be similar, and films shouldn't be chosen for this kind of experiment from opposite ends of the spectrum. But by keeping all the other factors constant and then compare within each film the change in perception and "understanding" that music adds to the picture, I think you might be able to answer the question. And I must confess I would be interested in the results. But that is just because Dan has brought up this point of "enhanced communication" so often. For me personally, it is a bit too much objectivity where it's not really that relevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By: Thor (Member)
***I think the field of psychology has a lot of expertise how to judge a person's level of understanding/emotional involvement etc. So, with the proper statistical follow-up, I think it is technically possible to answer the question that Dan keeps on asking/believes he has answered about the "better communication" in a film.***
I still think that "better communication" is a term that doesn't cut it. Let's say you picked two films with fairly similar subject matter, narrative, genre and style, such as you propose. Let's say DENNIS THE MENACE and HOME ALONE. The Culkin vehicle is probably the better film (which is easier to assess), but disregarding that for a moment, what about the music? YES, it is possible to discuss each score within its own context. YES, it is possible to say something about the two composer's differing approaches to the medium (and making a comparison in this regard). BUT....I DO NOT think it's possible to apply the 'better' or 'worse' terms unless you started to break the two films into THEMATIC boxes that both films have in common (e.g. 'mischievous activities', 'kid's love for mother' etc.) and asked the audience which score got this point across more clearly. And even then, you have a whole lot of problems. Are you really talking about the FILMS as films anymore? And what if the 'mischievous activities' theme is intended to work differently in the two films?
Do you see what I'm getting at? I do think that comparisons between Williams and Goldsmith is possible. I just don't think you can come to any conclusion about which is BETTER or WORSE from a communicative standpoint (because communication in film can be so many things). You should rather look at the individual film and what it demands. That's also far more interesting, IMO. The Williams/Goldsmith duel bores me to tears. It's utterly pointless.
NP: GLADIATOR (Zimmer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By: Gunnar (Member)
Thor, I am all with you when we are talking about what is really interesting and worthwhile to discuss – i.e. the function of a score in its respective film. And just like you, I am also generally bored by this “my composer is better than your composer” attitude. I guess I am getting too old for this, as I can recite arguments and counter-arguments in my sleep by now.
And I, personally, am not interested at all in handing out questionnaires to see which score made audiences get better grades at the post-film quiz. It tastes a bit of market research, along the lines of “which bikini girl in the advertisements gets us to move more yoghurt drinks?”.
All I meant is that, under a slightly different experimental paradigm, you could still do a comparison of the effects that Goldsmith’s and Williams’ scoring approaches have on the audience. I, however, see the atomisation of a film into “thematic boxes” as a great problem, because, as you pointed out yourself, this wouldn’t be looking at films anymore. When I thought about this kind of experiment this morning, I rather thought about having a questionnaire with lots of questions, but ultimately somehow condensing this into an “audience grasp index” that would apply to the whole film.
By the way: I guess that the problems you correctly pointed out in such an experiment would partly also apply to the original experimental idea of having JG and JW score the same movie.
So, yeah – if I had to decide what to devote lots of time or money to – thoughtful film criticism and analysis or some borderline scientific psychological experiment, I’d always go for the former (although, as I’ve said, I’d still take the time to read an article on the latter). It’s just that if you want to drag something into the scientific realm, you can usually do that. Whether it makes sense to do so is a different question. But since I’ve seen studies on the recognition of human faces by honeybees being published, I believe you’ll find a scientist for everything…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By: Thor (Member)
***All I meant is that, under a slightly different experimental paradigm, you could still do a comparison of the effects that Goldsmith’s and Williams’ scoring approaches have on the audience.***
Yes. But in that sentence you're retracting something from what you wrote earlier, namely the "understanding" and "better" bit, which is what I reacted to. I'm all for looking at what effect a Goldsmith score has and what effect a Williams score has on the audience. And I would even stretch myself to a possible comparison between the two scores in question (even though they were from different films with different agendas). A purely objective and aesthetic comparison (still with some problems). But to hand out any 'better' or 'worse' tags to the comparison, or to generalize that 'this way of scoring is the best way to make people understand what's going on' is NOT something I believe can be done, even taking all complex psychological processes into consideration. There's not enough common ground, and you would get a lot of flack for it in any Ph.D. 'disputas'.
Incidentally, semiologists have tried to do some of the same with the film medium since the 60's, i.e. trying to break it down into the smallest possible semantic unit (linking it to language, among other things). Despite heroic efforts by the likes of Christian Metz, they have still to succeed. Film is simply so many things simultaneously. To use Peirce's terms, it's SYMBOL, ICON and INDEX at once!
NP: SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (Williams)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By: Gunnar (Member)
Sorry, Thor, that wasn’t meant to be some kind of evasion tactic. Please keep in mind that I am not advocating such kind of experiment. Firstly, because I think it would be an attempt to try and “measure” something “objectively” where this kind of approach provides little real insight. Secondly, because I think you wouldn’t find a difference anyway.
As for the use of the term “better understanding”: I think that especially “understanding” is a rather open term. Usually, I (and I assume you as well) would use this word in a rather broad sense, which would make it hard to distil some kind of “point score” from it. But in the narrower sense of the word, I think it actually works. I am thinking here of multiple choice tests that are handed out to students after reading a novel. Obviously, you can sum up the correct answers, and I assume you could do so likewise with a film, once with a score attributed to it, once without.
Again, all I am saying is that it can be done in terms of methodology. That’s all I wanted to add. I am not in favour of such an approach. As for the question whether you would get a lot of flak for that kind of “science” – I think it really depends on the people who are supposed to judge it. If they a far removed from the social sciences and close to the natural sciences, I believe you could get away with it. But again: I don’t think that you should get away with it. An important lesson to learn about science is to know where it is helpful and where it isn’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By: Thor (Member)
I am thinking here of multiple choice tests that are handed out to students after reading a novel. Obviously, you can sum up the correct answers, and I assume you could do so likewise with a film, once with a score attributed to it, once without.
Yes, but the problem arises when you pull in a SECOND film to compare it with and you also have to apply 'better' or 'worse' as terms in the comparison. Such an experiment would have to be PURELY qualitative in order to work, and even then you would have to have so many parameters put in place that it would lose some of the "qualitative" potential.
I certainly would like to see someone try such an experiment. But I would bet money that they would fail miserably if judged by an academic committee. For many different methodological reasons (many of which we have already mentioned).
NP: SABRINA (Williams)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By: Gunnar (Member)
***Yes, but the problem arises when you pull in a SECOND film to compare it with and you also have to apply 'better' or 'worse' as terms in the comparison. Such an experiment would have to be PURELY qualitative in order to work, and even then you would have to have so many parameters put in place that it would lose some of the "qualitative" potential.***
I believe you could calculate the relative increase of the test persons' results of each film after adding the music and then compare this relative increase between both scoring approaches. From the view point of data handling, it would be allowed, I guess.
But I'm sorry, you lost me with your statement that this should be possible only qualitatively. But I guess, we ultimately agree about the sense (or rather, lack of) this kind of comparison would make.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By: Thor (Member)
***But I'm sorry, you lost me with your statement that this should be possible only qualitatively. But I guess, we ultimately agree about the sense (or rather, lack of) this kind of comparison would make.***
You know, qualitative as opposed to quantitative analysis (allowing the test audience to elaborate on their views rather than plotting in replies from a set of alternatives).
But yes, we pretty much agree. You just have a higher belief in the feasability of such an experiment than I do.
NP: BEN HUR (Rozsa)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By: Gunnar (Member)
***You know, qualitative as opposed to quantitative analysis (allowing the test audience to elaborate on their views rather than plotting in replies from a set of alternatives).
But yes, we pretty much agree. You just have a higher belief in the feasability of such an experiment than I do.***
Oh, but of course you wouldn't want the test audience to actually write down their thoughts instead of checking little boxes on a prepared test sheet. That would mess up all of your analysis...
Just one last note: I only pondered the feasibility in purely methodological terms. I don't think my belief in the value of any conclusions made from such an experiment is much greater than yours...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By: Gunnar (Member)
But I'd say that from our point of view, all has been said, hasn't it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By: Thor (Member)
***But I'd say that from our point of view, all has been said, hasn't it?***
Pretty much, yeah, except that I want to illustrate my point with a common "prejudiced" argument, which goes something like this:
A: Who is better, Williams or Goldsmith?
B: I would say Goldsmith is better.
A: Why?
B: Because Goldsmith is more 'intellectual' while Williams is more 'gut/feeling' in his approach.
This view is flawed on AT LEAST three points:
1. It automatically means 'intellectual' equals 'better', but 'gut/feeling' is just as important an aspect of the film medium.
2. Sure, Goldsmith's PATTON might be more intellectual in style than E.T., but then again E.T. as a film was never meant to be intellectual.
3. Williams has also done his fair share of 'intellectual' scores and Goldsmith has done his fair share of 'gut/feeling'.
You may read this and think: DUH! This is so self-evident!! But you'll be surprised by how many times I've encountered this argument in one form or another (substitute the 'intellectual/gut' dichotomy with something else). It's why I find the Goldsmith/Williams duel such a pointless diatribe, and I won't even participate in Dan's (or any other's) discussions thereof.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By: Gunnar (Member)
***If a comparison must be made between John Williams and Jerry Goldsmith, I think that Goldsmith may have had more of a natural gift for writing music than Williams does, but that Williams relies less on inspiration and more on his musical background and craft. I think of them as the Tortoise and the Hare, with Williams plugging away on one brilliantly crafted score after another, while Goldsmith dazzles with bursts of brilliance.***
As much as I disagree with crazyunclerolo's point of view, at least it added another colourful set of metaphors to the dichotomy...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Feb 9, 2006 - 3:06 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
SheriffJoe
(Member)
|
Another point you MUST consider when discussing film music is something which has not been brought up at all...
...the wishes of the director (and/or producers).
Hollywood works on the premise that to be successful, one must work with all the known quantities and, hopefully, expand upon them. Unknowns in the filmmaking business are anethema, something to be avoided at all costs.
You hire Goldsmith, or Williams, or Horner...you know exactly what you are going to get. More often than not, either the director or one of the producers KNOWS the previous work of the composer, thinks the style fits their film and knowns that said composer has, in the past, been a part of a successful film. My own specific experience was on Young Guns II, where two composers were being considered to score the film and I volunteered to offer examples of both composer's works for the producer. Finally, Alan Silvestri was chosen.
Speilberg and Williams are a successful director/composer formula. Schafner and Goldsmith were both successful filmmakers. More importantly, their styles mesh. Speilberg tends to be a more emotional filmmaker. He goes for the gut, so to speak. Whether it be Jaws or Raiders or Amistad of Munich. Schafner was a more intellectual director. Patton exemplifies his style (and to an extent, so does Boys from Brazil and Planet of the Apes). His films make you think long after watching them. Speilberg's make you feel long after.
Such is the debate over the Goldsmith/Williams styles of composing. Goldsmith the more intellectual composer (who, without a doubt, could bring intense emotion to his music) and Williams the more emotional (although quite well studied, logical and complex).
Hitchcock was the penultamate thinking-man's director. Bernard Herrmmann can be argued as his counterpart in the scoring world. His scores were methodically designed and orchestrated to bring a specific feeling to mind..to add specifically to the power of a scene or sequence in a film. Now, there is rarely a murder shown in film that doesn't have strings squeeling in protest.
These composers, in fact, I daresay MOST composers, are able to adapt and bring different sensibilities to a film. However, it is the director's style of filmmaking that has as much, if not more, to say about a composer's approach than the composer's own specific style.
So, when debating Goldsmith versus Williams, it is ESSENTIAL to debate the director's, and thus, the film's tone before you delve too deeply into the music. Music in film is designed to underscore a scene. Without a scene, there can be no music for a film...and without a director, there can be no scene. And, finally, with every director, there is a tone, a stylistic sensibility, that each and every scene is approached with.
Start there...and I think a better appreciation for what composers bring to a project can be understood.
SheriffJoe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Feb 9, 2006 - 3:10 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
SchiffyM
(Member)
|
Then why does the topic pop up year after year after year? It's almost as reliable as the "Horner is a plagiarist" argument.
Indeed. I think people have an inherent desire to rank things – thus, the Oscars. It's a sport, and in some cases, it's valid (my New York Rangers have more wins than your Philadelphia Flyers; I can run a half-mile faster than you; I make more money than you*). But in this case, it's not even the equivalent of a (ridiculous) Beethoven vs. Mozart Smackdown, where at least you're comparing like to like (i.e. commissioned concert works not married to somebody else's artistic vision).
The problem is, I don't even accept the examples given here, flawed as they are (by everyone's own admission). What makes "Patton" more intellectual than "E.T."? Does that make "Schindler's List" more intellectual than "Supergirl"? I think too often, cold or sparse (which I'm not attributing to any of these scores, by the way) is considered "intellectual," and sweeping melody is considered somehow unworthy of mental consideration. Why? Are we so ashamed of our own ids that superego must take over? For years and years, "Frasier" was considered the most "intellectual" American television comedy largely because it referenced Verdi and Jung while doing very silly plots about people mistaking Frasier to be gay. I always thought that was way too easy, and all wrong. Just as I think that it's too easy to attribute intellectual worth to music for all the wrong reasons.
I remember one earlier incarnation of this sort of thread where a die-hard Goldsmith fanatic (no need for names) insisted that Goldsmith must have been lying when he said publicly that he admired Williams, because "their approaches could not be more different." (This is a paraphrase.) Even if that second point were true (and I don't think it is), it's a nonsensical point. It implies that Stanley Kubrick could not enjoy a Mel Brooks movie, or that Adam Sandler must despise Ian McKellen. It's simply not true. Which is not to say that Kubrick wouldn't idly consider how he'd have shot "Young Frankenstein" differently; only that artists (well, most good ones) don't demand that their peers be their creative twins.
So yes, this "duel" will rear its head again and again. But never will I find it worthy of consideration. (That said, I'll almost certainly join the fray again. Because I have no will power.)
_____________________________
* Except in the case of the Rangers, these statements are not necessarily true. Unless you run a really, really slow half-mile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 9, 2006 - 3:43 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
bdm
(Member)
|
"Who would win in a fight -- Batman or Superman?"
C'mon, it was Batman hands down! Haven't you read Frank Miller's DARK KNIGHT RETURNS?
...Oh, and Thor and the boys are correct. Williams and Goldsmith and "better" only go together in one's own mind. And since each mind is different, the final definition/answer/determination will be too.
There is one interesting aspect that has been mentioned in various other posts (usually by Sheriff, or J.Bond, or L.Kendal), but rarely elaborated upon by others (at least in the posts I've looked through -- Thor may be able to correct me here): that as well as inovating throughout his career, Goldsmith also changed his style with the times. Williams has stayed "true-er" to his style over the years -- especially in the late 80's to 2000 when everyone (including Goldsmith) went "electronic" etc.
Could this play into Williams' long term success and celebration, as opposed to Goldsmith's apparant "decline" in the same period (and I put decline in quotations, to point out the term is an opinion, not a fact -- see paragraph above on "better")?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeez... I saw the first cut-and-paste post and thought Daniel2 had re-emerged!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll attempt to answer the question of why they are compared, or pitted against each other by some of their fans.
The first reason seems to be that not everybody likes them both equally. I remember a long time ago that my own opinion was in highly favor of Williams. This was due in large part to Goldsmith's electronics. Most of them sounded cheap to me, but now I realize that this was an association I made with pop music. Now I relish Goldsmith's synthy moments, because he adds to the orchestra rather than replacing it. Even Williams has used more synth lately. It has become more accepted, largely thanks to Goldsmith. Also, analog synth is less a staple of today's pop music, rendering less of a superficial similarity between it and Jerry's pallette.
Another big factor is the movies they scored. Call it the underdog factor versus the champion factor. Some people like an underdog and other people like the champion. It's like Red Sox versus Yankees mentality. The fact that Goldsmith composed for less successful films has been attractive to the underdoggers, while the fact that Williams has composed for some of the most successful films ever has attracted the champion-lovers. Personally, I don't care what the movie is. A movie can be crap and have a great score. But I certainly don't resent success either.
Another reason is that because Goldsmith has scored fewer highly successful films, it appears to his fans as though he has earned his popularity through his music, and not his films. Well, this is nonsense, as Williams was already a reknowned film composer before the era of the blockbuster that some attribute his success to.
There is one factor that has nothing to do with film music at all, and is a debate among classical music scholars as well. One school of thought believes that any modern music should avoid romanticism and embrace modernistic writing. Goldsmith has done this a bit more often than Williams, therefore proponents of this idea have been on his side, and against Williams all along. There are others who reject modernism and embrace melody as the truest form of musical expression. Some of these Williams fans reject even certain scores by Williams that are on the more experimental side, like Minority Report and War of the Worlds.
There is another factor looming here involving the belief that leitmotif has no place in the cinema. There is only one person who I know that holds this belief, but they seem to dominate a lot of the discussions about the comparison between Williams and Goldsmith. So I wouldn't say this is really a major factor for film score lovers, but a very high profile one due to the activism in favor of this theory we've seen on this board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In any creative field, there's a spirit of friendly competition that helps fuel creativity. When one person does something brilliant and innovative, it raises the bar for everyone else, who are then inspired to greater heights in their own work. So in this way, I do think that Williams and Goldsmith were in competition with each other. Even more directly, they worked in the same, finite market, so they were competing for the same jobs and the same awards. This is competition in the most healthy and enriching sense, but it is part of the reason that Williams and Goldsmith are the subject for such lively conversation. They also happened to be the preeminent American film composers of their generation. It seems to me that sports metaphors are most apt in this context, but most of us would agree that there was no clear-cut winner of their many "match-ups". Who was the greater golfer, Arnold Palmer or Jack Nicklaus? The greater quarterback, basketball player, boxer? Fans like to spar with their peers over their favorite competitor, comparing styles and techniques, and this is healthy, too. Even Dan Hobgood, with his fanatical devotion to Goldsmith, has some interesting points to make about the nature of film scoring. So this knee-jerk response to the subject, which even requires a topic heading that prejudges the entire discussion as "flawed", strikes me as unhealthy and restrictive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In any creative field, there's a spirit of friendly competition that helps fuel creativity. When one person does something brilliant and innovative, it raises the bar for everyone else, who are then inspired to greater heights in their own work. So in this way, I do think that Williams and Goldsmith were in competition with each other. Even more directly, they worked in the same, finite market, so they were competing for the same jobs and the same awards. This is competition in the most healthy and enriching sense, but it is part of the reason that Williams and Goldsmith are the subject for such lively conversation. They also happened to be the preeminent American film composers of their generation. It seems to me that sports metaphors are most apt in this context, but most of us would agree that there was no clear-cut winner of their many "match-ups". Who was the greater golfer, Arnold Palmer or Jack Nicklaus? The greater quarterback, basketball player, boxer? Fans like to spar with their peers over their favorite competitor, comparing styles and techniques, and this is healthy, too. Even Dan Hobgood, with his fanatical devotion to Goldsmith, has some interesting points to make about the nature of film scoring. So this knee-jerk response to the subject, which even requires a topic heading that prejudges the entire discussion as "flawed", strikes me as unhealthy and restrictive.
Where I think this argument goes astray is that there are no -- never were any -- "match-ups."
I am unaware of either composer having been hired for a job the other had been up for. For many years, Williams was only scoring one or two pictures a year when he was conducting the Boston Pops...clearly NOT in contention for major assignments with Goldsmith.
I'm sure there are probably films Goldsmith would have loved to have scored...and I'm quite surprised he never did more than "Poltergeist" for Spielberg. But that also doesn't mean Williams took anything from Goldsmith or that Goldsmith lost anything to Williams.
It's sheer speculation to think so, IMO.
As for discourses on the nature of film scoring, nothing precludes anyone from starting a thread of same.
And, oh, yes: Not every fan considers film scoring a competitve sport. I suspect its an attempt to add something extra to an artistic endeavor.
I cannot say I've never felt compelled to defend my favorites when they are attacked by morons, but in general, it's both unnecessary and, judging from what we read on these pages, ineffectual at best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where I think this argument goes astray is that there are no -- never were any -- "match-ups."
I am unaware of either composer having been hired for a job the other had been up for. For many years, Williams was only scoring one or two pictures a year when he was conducting the Boston Pops...clearly NOT in contention for major assignments with Goldsmith.
I'm sure there are probably films Goldsmith would have loved to have scored...and I'm quite surprised he never did more than "Poltergeist" for Spielberg. But that also doesn't mean Williams took anything from Goldsmith or that Goldsmith lost anything to Williams.
It's sheer speculation to think so, IMO.
As for discourses on the nature of film scoring, nothing precludes anyone from starting a thread of same.
And, oh, yes: Not every fan considers film scoring a competitve sport. I suspect its an attempt to add something extra to an artistic endeavor.
I cannot say I've never felt compelled to defend my favorites when they are attacked by morons, but in general, it's both unnecessary and, judging from what we read on these pages, ineffectual at best.
Ron--
You're taking the idea of competition too literally. There were only a certain number of good assignments available during the years that both men were working in Hollywood, and they were the two most prominent composers. If one of them got a job to score a certain film, then the other one didn't. Whether Williams was scoring two pictures each year or four, that still was the case. No one ever suggested that they were tearing at each other like Bette Davis and Joan Crawford! In fact, that's exactly the point that I'm trying to make, which is that it was a healthy competition, nonconfrontational, sportsmanlike, "may the best man win". I think that you and others here automatically assume a negative connotation where none exists.
And please, Ron, let's not call anyone "morons" on this board, no matter what they have to say. There's no excuse for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And please, Ron, let's not call anyone "morons" on this board, no matter what they have to say. There's no excuse for it.
I never called anyone HERE anything of the sort.
You are presuming that what I was referring to happened here.
It was many years ago that I allowed myself to be swept up into such silly arguments, in random gatherings of film music fans (very rare, though they were) before this forum ever existed.
But thanks for keeping a good thought about me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even Dan Hobgood, with his fanatical devotion to Goldsmith, has some interesting points to make about the nature of film scoring. So this knee-jerk response to the subject, which even requires a topic heading that prejudges the entire discussion as "flawed", strikes me as unhealthy and restrictive.
I agree that we have a serious problem on our hands.
I'd of course note that I think I have plenty of good arguments about film music, as well as that I don't think it's possible to suggest my interests are irrational--but we're intellectually free to disagree.
DH
P.S: Also, my aim is not, nor has not been, to pit Jerry and John Williams against each other per se, but rather to pit the theme-and-variation and leitmotivic approaches against each other with respect to the typical, dramatic film. 
P.P.S: Reality dictates to me that the theme-and-variation approach is better, which is the reason why I promote said approach with such gusto. "Simple as" explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 9, 2006 - 8:14 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
Hmmmm...I was hoping to discuss the PREMISE more than the actual "duel", but as I feared, the discussion is going towards YET ANOTHER Williams vs. Goldsmith. 
Anyways, let me reply to a few points:
Sheriff Joe, you do of course have a point about THE FILMMAKER. That's what I've been saying all along. If you're going to talk about how a score works in a film and compare it to other film scores, you have to know WHAT AGENDA the filmmaker has; what STYLE he uses etc. Even more specific, you have to look at each INDIVIDUAL FILM. That's the only way to understand that a general comparison like this simply cannot be done.
SchiffyM, if you read what I wrote in my discussion with Gunnar, you would see that the 'intellectual' vs. 'feeling' dichotomy simply doesn't work for many different reasons (I mentioned three). The same goes for any other dichotomy you can think of. It's just an angle that is impossible to use if you're going to talk about 'better' or 'worse'.
Jesse Hopkins, thanks for listing some reasons as to WHY people pit these against each other. I think most of them are well-established. But do you have any thoughts about why you CANNOT apply 'better' or 'worse' tags to the comparison?
crazyunclerolo, I don't see how the topic header is unhealthy or restrictive (it's only restrictive in that I DO NOT wish to talk about Williams vs. Goldsmith). It says nothing about the discussion, only that the concept of "duel" between these two giants is flawed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
