I am a novice when it comes to classical music... I know the most famous works of Beethoven, Bach, Mozart and other older "masters".. I know little about more modern classical composers (unless Gershwin and Aaron Copeland are considered classical artists)... Anywho,, I have to admit I love the film scores by John Williams.. Everything from way back in The Poseidon Adventure to his more modern works... Does he get any respect in the "classical community"???


-

Ask me in 100 years if I'm still around...seriously, most classical buffs would consider Williams to be "classical pop". But some of his "soundtrack suites" are sneaking into the concert repertory anyway. Who knows how history will treat his stuff? The jury will be out for decades on this one...

-

Ahh, come on Reverend, make a stand... Predict the future... Or at least give us your judgement on his work as to how good you think it is... All I know is that his scores often add a lot to films in capturing mood...


-

considering that he makes stuff for those soundtracks for popular movies I can see why some people might look down their nose a little and call him a pop artist. But I think it is still good classical music. its not Motzart, but what is?

So I would say that theres nothing wrong with his stuff, its legit, but its not the most amazing stuff ever.

but I dont think in the future he will be held up as one of the greats. he will probably get some play though.

You wanna hear a prediction, eh? OK, take this...

In the future, classical music will be so re-defined that certain rock and pop albums will be considered "classical" (certainly "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" and "Pet Sounds"...perhaps "Dark Side Of The Moon" or "The Wall"...beyond those I won't speculate).

Jazz pieces such as Coltrane's "A Love Supreme" or Duke Ellington's long-form works such as "Harlem" will also attain "classical" status.

Works from the late 20th century that echoed the classicism of the early 20th century (such as John Williams' soundtracks) might manage to be considered "light classical" music (in much the same way that "Rhapsody In Blue" or "William Tell Overture" are considered "light classics" today).

That's my prediction.

As for how good John Williams' work is...it's good, and very enjoyable. A lot of it is very copious of earlier composers (Mahler, Richard Strauss, early Stravinski, Sibelius), and that may factor into how seriously he's taken by future critics and scholars in the classical music community.

Now that is the type of reply I could sink my teeth into Reverend... Thanks!!! While I am not sure that I agree that some "classic" rock works will be defined as classical in the future,, I do agree that they will be considred "high art" on the same level as the great classical masterpieces,,, as scholars will view them as they should, as complete sound landscapes, not just your basic guitar, drums, vocal and keyboard rock songs... Many of the greatest rock albums go so far beyond the standard rock "lineup" and truly are quite complex (so much so, that trying to duplicate them, as classical works are, or even as bar bands attempt to recreate classic rock) they rarely if ever "capture" the sound of the original work... I am not saying there haven't been great cover songs in rock, there have been thousands,, but often an original epic like "A Day in The Life" or 'Strawberry Fields" are singular events that stand alone and will stand the test of time in my opinion...

As far as John Williams,,, I like the "light classical" term Reverend Rock used... And, if that type of ranking even puts him in the same mention as Gershwin, well that would prove to me Williams quality and worth is quite substanial (on some level) as Gershwin seems to get some very high marks from music historians and critics...


-

I find John Williams all over the place these days as he was featured on a very cool PBS tribute to The Hollywood Bowl on TV tonight...


-

dunno why.........i never liked williams, i tried to like him though
he's so.........predictable, common, i mean there's no punch in his music, it doesn't drive into your emotions. i prefer others like john barry and ennio morricone better than him. these fine composers are able to employ different sounds and instruments to set the appropriate mood for a movie or even for a scene. barry is really flexible having dabbled in "james bonds" to "lion in the winter" and "dances with wolves". ennio was good in italian westerns, action flicks and romance.

I think Rev.Rock's first reply is pretty accurate. I've always considered John Williams to be Orchestral Pop, or Light Classical at best. It's not that I think his work is as banal as typical show tunes, but I think in the community of classical composers it's hard to classify the soundtrack to Indiana Jones or Jaws anywhere near the likes of Tchaikovsky or Bizet, or even Copland or Gershwin for that matter. (Forget about Mozart or Beethoven :tongue: ) Regardless, he's probably one of the few composers to reap the fruits of his achievements during his lifetime, and certainly the most popular of the modern age.

I definitely feel that he has his moments... ST's to Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, Close Encounters, and E.T. in particular. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say that he'll be remembered as an essential composer of the late 20th century, however theatrical and fluffy. If you're asking if I think his music is a joke to classical purists, I'd answer "no" - but at the same time, I don't think it's complex or challenging enough to be seriously compared with most of them.

Excellent comments all,, very enlightening to a novice of classical music like myself...


-