An Earnest Inquiry (of John Williams fans)

[eyeresist]

I can't speak for Holst, but Stravinsky was definitely not pleased how his music was used in an even more iconic movie like Fantasia.   And he even gave permission!

I wonder how Pergolesi felt about Pulcinella?


I'd like to point out that the charge of plagiarism, at least as framed by Karl, doesn't get off the ground. It's an endless game in classical circles to point out the chain of influences. I hope I don't need to cite examples of this. If Williams wasn't known for working in the dirty, disgusting, worthless, offensive area of music that is film soundtracks, would he be attacked with such self-righteous enthusiasm? I doubt it.

[Mirror Image]

I think John Williams and pretty much every film composer are thieves in some way or another. They're not being paid to express their deepest, darkest feelings, they're being paid to express what is on the film screen. That's it and for this I could never take anything Williams or any film composer wrote seriously. He's not writing out of necessity, he's writing to make big money, which he's made a lot of with films like Jaws, Jurassic Park, and Star Wars. I've never been into film scores that much anyway. I do like a few by Goldsmith and Morricone.

[eyeresist]

I think John Williams and pretty much every film composer are thieves in some way or another. They're not being paid to express their deepest, darkest feelings, they're being paid to express what is on the film screen. That's it and for this I could never take anything Williams or any film composer wrote seriously. He's not writing out of necessity, he's writing to make big money, which he's made a lot of with films like Jaws, Jurassic Park, and Star Wars. I've never been into film scores that much anyway. I do like a few by Goldsmith and Morricone.

And you like at least one by Shostakovich, as I recall   No love for Herrmann? If anyone has shown that a piece of music written as a dramatic accompaniment can nonetheless (!) be an art work of substantial merit, it's him.

Plenty of good art is made for money. Look at Rossini - he got rich and practically gave up composing. No-one cares - if the music is good enough then it doesn't matter.

[Mirror Image]

And you like at least one by Shostakovich, as I recall   No love for Herrmann? If anyone has shown that a piece of music written as a dramatic accompaniment can nonetheless (!) be an art work of substantial merit, it's him.

Plenty of good art is made for money. Look at Rossini - he got rich and practically gave up composing. No-one cares - if the music is good enough then it doesn't matter.

I view all film music as music not to be taken seriously even Shostakovich's. That's my opinion of it. I take it with a grain of salt. Shostakovich wrote film music because he had NO choice!!! Look what the Soviet government reduced him to. I could careless what Herrmann did or didn't do. Film music was a way for a serious classical composer back in the mid 20th Century to make some money. I mean even one of my heroes RVW composed film music. But anyone with ears for classical music will tell you his greatest music was never intended for film and was, in fact, an outpouring of his soul and was created for the concert hall. I don't view film music as an art form.

I'm going to end this conversation here, because we'll probably be arguing about it all night. You can have the last word, but I'm bowing out.

[eyeresist]

Sorry if I stirred up some bad feelings.

[Mirror Image]

Sorry if I stirred up some bad feelings.

No worries, mate. I just didn't want this to turn into four page argument.

[mc ukrneal]

We've had this discussion before. Either he did or did not plagiarize. It should be fairly easy to document if it is the case. Of course, plagiarism is note for note theft of a theme/melody/etc, not something that just sounds similar. Borrowing is something else, but you seem to really mean plagiarism based on your comments (I think, but please correct me if not).

[Karl Henning]

I'd like to point out that the charge of plagiarism, at least as framed by Karl, doesn't get off the ground. It's an endless game in classical circles to point out the chain of influences.

It does get off the ground for anyone who makes any degree of distinction in the process.

Your post, mate, is the equivalent of "the idea that there are different styles of music doesn't get off the ground, it's all notes."

If, as you are fond to imagine, the argument gets no purchase, explain the results of the poll. TIA

Fair disclosure: I abstained from voting.

[Karl Henning]

Of course, plagiarism is note for note theft of a theme/melody/etc

Thank you for the etc there, truly.  For now I think I have a better idea of the (minority) resistance to the thesis.  Would you expand upon your &c., please?

For all I know, eyeresist claims that Williams is clean, because there is no melodic theft (unlike obvious instances of melodic similarity, like "He's So Fine" and "My Sweet Lord," e.g.)  Which no one is claiming.

As to your point, A) this poll was to gauge general sentiment, B) I love it when your objection is framed on the lines of "It ought to be easy"!  How easy was the process with the two pop songs I mention above?  About as easy as pie?, C) I can demo the plagiarism, but again [1] we must agree upon terms, so what do you encompass within your "&c." please? [2] and — do you read music notation?

[eyeresist]

It does get off the ground for anyone who makes any degree of distinction in the process.

Your post, mate, is the equivalent of "the idea that there are different styles of music doesn't get off the ground, it's all notes."

If, as you are fond to imagine, the argument gets no purchase, explain the results of the poll. TIA

Fair disclosure: I abstained from voting.

What does a poll have to do with it? The "John Williams plagiarised Holst's Mars" consensus in classical circles is the highbrow equivalent of the "Sparkley vampires SUCK!" consensus amongst sci-fi fanboys. It has nothing to do reason or evidence, and everything to do with the urge to be a bien pensant.

Mc ukrneal has posited a definition of musical plagiarism with which most reasonable people would agree (obviously excluding the matter of overt extratextual reference, and things like rhythms and cadences that are understood to fall into the common parlance). Unless substantial note-for-note theft can be verified, this issue is so much hot air.

...

I find myself cast in the weird position of seeming to be a champion of Williams. Certainly I think he's a good writer of soundtracks, and I enjoy his big tunes, but I'm not trying to suggest he's the equal of Holst. As MI has said, the problem is a lack of individual expression. Like many talented people, he (Williams, not MI!) was lured by the temptress Hollywood and her apparently bottomless coffers, and ended up devoting years of his life to work in which he had little personal stake. OTOH, another great reason artists "sell out" to write soundtracks or TV scripts or whatever is in order to get to do what they love for a living. Williams doesn't have to teach classes or push paper all day, and be a "pure" artist on the side. Composing and performing is all he does. To live like that, I guess Williams decided the compromise was worth it.

[Cato]

For the music near the conclusion of Close Encounters of the Third Kind, so I have read, Spielberg wanted to have When You Wish Upon a Star actually quoted in the soundtrack as the main character enters the alien spaceship.

This eventually was not done for assorted reasons, but if you listen to the soundtrack from the final scenes, you can hear a "whiff" of the song.  Is it quoted?  No, but Williams gives you a hint of the song without quoting it.

From Wikipedia:

Close Encounters of the Third Kind – Steven Spielberg's screenplay for the 1977 film was deeply influenced by the song, and composer John Williams's music for the film interpolates the song's melody. The 1980 "Special Edition" features an arrangement of the song over the end credits.

My emphasis.

[Scion7]

 "Sparkley vampires SUCK!" consensus amongst sci-fi fanboys. It has nothing to do reason or evidence" - Sorry, but they DO suck, and it has everything to do with good taste and reason.

Carry on!

[Leon]

I wonder how Pergolesi felt about Pulcinella?


I'd like to point out that the charge of plagiarism, at least as framed by Karl, doesn't get off the ground. It's an endless game in classical circles to point out the chain of influences. I hope I don't need to cite examples of this. If Williams wasn't known for working in the dirty, disgusting, worthless, offensive area of music that is film soundtracks, would he be attacked with such self-righteous enthusiasm? I doubt it.

The legal term "plagarism" I think is a red herring, or red Henning, - the legal requirements of proving copyright violations have to do with a certain number of bars in which a melody is shown to share the same notes and rhythm as a previously protected work.  That is a high bar and almost no one meets it because it is not hard to avoid the obvious but still be guilty of theft.

What John Williams has done is assume the style, and sometimes more, of Holst and others, Copland is widely stolen from as well by many film composers.  Did Copland care?  Probably not, and he may have felt some pride that his music was linked to wholesome American values.  Don't know.  These thefts by film composers are common - which is why their "art" is a cheaper one as compared to true classical composition.

Williams is not unique.

[Karl Henning]

"Sparkley vampires SUCK!" consensus amongst sci-fi fanboys. It has nothing to do reason or evidence" - Sorry, but they DO suck, and it has everything to do with good taste and reason.

This touches on a couple of points I want to enlarge on later . . . but in short, no, nobody is taking Williams to court to demonstrate plagiarism in any prosecuble sense; and in line with your observation, it is a matter of artistic integrity and respect.

I love the range of the Williams-fandom resistance!  You have both Poju, who readily owns that Williams pilfered, but who asserts that this infringement is "irrelevant"; and others who are in bland denial that there can be anything to object to.

[Karl Henning]

Williams is not unique.

Indeed, not unique at all, in kind.

In degree (and in a couple of glaringly egregious instances), he stands apart from the pack ; )

[Karl Henning]

Two questions meanwhile, for The Deniers:

1. Per Cato's story, if seventh-graders twig that Williams got away with something, how do we reconcile that with your assurances that "there's nothing to see here"?

2. Your point is that this is only what all composers do, all the time.  Are there any composers who endorse this view?  If there are, what are their names, please; if not — why do you suppose that is?

[mc ukrneal]

Thank you for the etc there, truly.  For now I think I have a better idea of the (minority) resistance to the thesis.  Would you expand upon your &c., please?

For all I know, eyeresist claims that Williams is clean, because there is no melodic theft (unlike obvious instances of melodic similarity, like “He's So Fine” and “My Sweet Lord,” e.g.)  Which no one is claiming.

As to your point, A) this poll was to gauge general sentiment, B) I love it when your objection is framed on the lines of "It ought to be easy"!  How easy was the process with the two pop songs I mention above?  About as easy as pie?, C) I can demo the plagiarism, but again [1] we must agree upon terms, so what do you encompass within your "&c." please? [2] and — do you read music notation?

Let me be blunt - if you think Williams plagiarized, can you provide an example? Be as technical as you like.

The problem with your question, in my opinion, is that it is asking for an opinion, when none is needed. It is either true or not.

[Leon]

Let me be blunt - if you think Williams plagiarized, can you provide an example? Be as technical as you like.

The problem with your question, in my opinion, is that it is asking for an opinion, when none is needed. It is either true or not.

I think you are missing the point.  The question is not if Williams meets the legal definition of plagarism, the question is what are we to make of a composer who writes music of a nature which is almost a wholesale appropriation of another composer's orchestral style by imitating the melodic and harmonic content and dynamic effects. 

[Karl Henning]

And, we go back to the videotape:

This touches on a couple of points I want to enlarge on later . . . but in short, no, nobody is taking Williams to court to demonstrate plagiarism in any prosecuble sense; and in line with your observation, it is a matter of artistic integrity and respect.

[Karl Henning]

Neal, if your only interest is whether a legal action of plagiarism obtains, that were good to know; it is now clear that what concerns most of the rest of us here, just don't matter to you.

Nor need everything in the wide world matter to any one soul, to be sure.