From the article:

"I think that those who prefer orchestral film music to classical music very often reduce music (or, to put it more accurately: all that music can be) to a comfortable, easily accessible and predictable trigger of emotions. In other words, they confuse musical appreciation with emotional response. It’s not necessarily a fully conscious decision and there’s more to it than just that of course, but this confusion does play a large part nonetheless: people are absolutely convinced that they are enjoying the music, when in fact they’re overwhelmed by something entirely different: some memory, association, emotion, fantasy or other. Nothing wrong with that, certainly not, but it is not an experience driven by music alone, despite what many may believe."

Perhaps, but I think the reason Classical music is so unapproachable by most is because academia has made it unapproachable.  I had a college professor who once said this about modern Classical music: "If the general public likes the music, then it must be garbage."  This kind of arrogance is so prevalent in modern Classical music, no wonder "the general public" stays away from it.  I've expended all of my ammunition on this battlefront in the forum and I don't wish to dig up hatchets I've buried with other forumites.

"If you’re listening to the ‘Raiders March’ for example, and you feel that familiar and pleasant rush of excitement going through your body, you’re not really listening to the music itself (and I mean: the naked musical content, the dots on the paper), but you are carried away into the realm of imagination, memories, feelings, projection and/or fantasy."

I'm not so sure.  If Lucas and Spielberg decided to replace Williams' music with Prokofiev's Third would the effect have been the same?  I think Williams best march is the '1941 March.'  I heard the music before I saw the movie but I knew it was a Williams theme but whenever I hear it I'm not "carried away into the realm of imagination, memories, feelings, projection and/or fantasy."  Or maybe I am but it's not because of a mediocre movie like 1941.

" It is quite easy for most people to distinguish between powerful, inspired work and bland mediocrity in film music." 

Apparently Mr. Ridder hasn't heard any recent film music as this statement doesn't explain the current state of affairs.

"And while we’re here, let’s maybe also have a quick look at ‘modern’ classical music: a vast majority of the audience (and their number must be much larger than just those who are prepared to admit it) simply doesn’t have a clue if they are listening to a complete hack or a genuinely talented composer."

LOL amen to that!!!

"Many listeners find this music very hard to enjoy, not only for aesthetic reasons, but also because it makes them feel limited, small, unsophisticated or culturally under-prepared."

The writer forgot to include insulted, degraded, and apathetic. 

I may sound like I'm mocking Mr. Ridder but I do agree with his overall premis that there is "More to Music Than Music" but I think how much more depends on the listener.  I know friends who are hard core Heavy Metal listeners who rattle off the names of obscure artists most have never heard of and intensely listen to swaths of loud distorted power chords, and high pitched overdriven arpeggio patterns bobbing their heads up and down (called 'head banging').  I just don't hear what it is my friends are hearing.  Is there art or aesthetic nourishment in what they are listening to?  They can't hear what I'm hearing in Prokofiev's Third.  Why is Classical and/or Film music considered high brow while everything else is not? 

comparing John Williams to eg., Trent Reznor is a clear case of apples v. oranges. Williams won't be used to score a David Lynch film because it isn't appropriate aesthetically. Reznor won't be picked to emulate Bruckner or somebody in a film where that's thought to work the best, same problem. It's a truly stupid argument.

Classical composers are arrogant and delusional to continue to foster this belief that they are by definition superior musicians just owing to that lifestyle choice. Classical musicians are too often seriously deficient as per any participation in any music outside a really narrow box, too many cannot improvise, couldn't swing if their life depended on it, have rhythmic deficiencies... paltry understanding of vocabulary owing to, their lifestyle choice, which is to remain in some gloried past. For a composer that likes some contribution in a work, and a synergy, a strictly-from-classical player isn't bringing so much to the table to be able to wear that chip on her shoulder and not look like a martinet.

The whole idea of western european concert music being so reified as it is, is deficient in understanding and self-deluding, & the arguments disrespecting electronic orchestrations as per se inferior to the grand symphonic approach belong in a past age anyway. Wake up and smell the coffee, people are exposed to a wide world of music now, and the vehement proponents of this extremely narrow aesthetic point of view are hanging onto these precious ideas desperately, and so often it's nothing more than reactionary behavior. These ideas have had their day in the annals of hegemony.

John Williams is an arranger, and not a lot more than IMO. You might as well use the composers he's aping and hire a music editor in many cases, in my estimation. Furthermore, can he do any sound design at all? I've heard some H Zimmer I found didn't work for me at all, in terms of my own musical values in an orchestration, but I also noticed his work in that Batman picture, and he did some things that Williams will have been HOPELESSLY insufficient for. Horses for courses. You can't diss some chops you lack an understanding of just owing to your own personal tastes, it isn't really better than a culinary preference owing to your particular cultural upbringing.

hahahaha indeed.

I am addressing the topic in general. It appears my views are upsetting enough to you anyway that you took it personally. If it's my take on Williams that upset you this badly, you and he should just get a room. These arguments that take John Williams as some grand exemplar of anything are just tiresome. He's a pro, a musician and orchestrator/arranger par excellence, and if one enjoys his cornball themes they're valid for that person, for whomever finds satisfaction on whatever level, no biggie to me. I mean if it's true that the theme to Star Wars makes Star Wars what it is, it is what it is. I don't find his work underscoring a picture anything to particularly salute, that's my opinion and if it upsets you so, I might suggest the heat's too hot in the kitchen for you right now, if you have to become so animated as to be this condescending to me on a personal level.

My personal estimation of a composer in this century has him/her as a sound designer and someone versed in production, a part of the toolkit just as orchestration is. It's an extension of orchestration chops, really. If Williams gets an automatic out here, that's suspicious.

I don't get how you figure I'm addressing *you* and not the whole thread: eg., 'let alone the incalculable void between that and the Reznors and Zimmers of this world.' is the Apples v. Oranges I addressed at the top of my particular rant. You would hire horses for courses. :shrug: I find that kind of comparison laughable on its own merits...
(You guys posit your own opinions like it's pronouncement of religious doctrine in these threads. It's effing dramatic!) 'For the record', the issue of 'Reznor/Zimmer' is posed v. 'WIlliams!' all over the place in these threads, it isn't mine (that's some hilarious hyperbole though, 'incalculable void' and I am grateful for that bit of amusement).

The problem of classical attitudes I mention is endemic to both composers and instrumentalists. I'm so sorry I wasn't as anal retentive in my presentation as you will have preferred, but for me it is two manifestations of the same problem. Your zeal in reacting sure tends to make my point on 'reactionary', though, innit.

Do I think a Bruckner could handle the complexities of African rhythm, such as my African friend busking downtown Berkeley with his donated kit, handling four independent parts of the drum choir in different times with each limb, all with absolute independence? I most assuredly do not (your rather pathetic and anachronistic straw men notwithstanding). i find western european concert music in so many cases anemic, deficient in rhythm compared to cultures that are actively interested in it. I think nothing much happened in western music until Stravinsky in this regard. I find the equal tempered intonation system *seriously* compromised as per melodic expression, and I know the piano to be extremely problematic in terms of resonance. Too many harmonies are ruined on the instrument (If this all weren't true btw, would VI Pro include just intonation and
tutorials on how to use it in an orchestration, to get a better harmony?).

I don't buy the hegemony.  I find the tunes in classical music kind of paltry too much of the time. I did not receive the same wisdom about musical value you did. That's the world changing around you - it's upsetting, isn't it. I'm opposed to the hegemony that's been imposed on me throughout my life as a musician, how did you arrive at me being pro-'teenage hegemony' out of that position? Would you like to make a syllogism out of that? It's ridiculous, and you appear unhinged to come up with it. Try decaf.

All you've managed is to try and fit me into a straw man you devised long before I entered the picture. Weak. And predictable. Your need to diss my writing style in lieu of addressing any points is weak also. (I am not having a good time in this frames-based forum structure, it's a real problem to even navigate on a MacBook. OTOH, you may be such a serious critic you're using a serious word processor! )

Since you're acting as literary critic here as well, I would venture to say that your taking 'wake up/smell the coffee' literally as if that's the sting at the end of your rant kind of shows your "I'm a serious critic!" stylee in a somewhat less than impressive light. As does the hilarious 'for the record', ie., 'my opinion is the fact of the matter' bit. Do you take yourself as an expert in sound design? I'm skeptical, having seen you opine in these threads; what you have is 'the academy rules ok!' there and not more (Which IRCAM work vs which of Zimmer's work? The IRCAM work was done towards what end? Is 'IRCAM' ever involved in scoring pictures? Which composer/designer there? This is serious discourse?); Received Authority, from On High (which isn't real consistent with your other opinion calling out academia as problematic, which is interesting as well). You and I likely agree on more than we disagree on, but you seem to need to take my variance with you, per certain precious views you hold, and fit me into your straw men. All you know of my views is exactly what I put before you, and you don't appear particularly able to address them directly, so you have to dismiss me. This is a rank tactic and a known issue in argumentation, it would ruin your score in a moderated debate, as often as it occurred here.

Good luck.

Sorry I didn't make my link into a hyper-link; I suppose it was too much asking everybody to copy-paste it on their browser's address bar...

Don't confuse style and passion with crude emotion. I'm not angry; why on earth would I be angry just because you don't share my views on anything? I don't even know you. Conversely, you didn't even get the coffee related jocular attitude, I don't expect you to get classical music either. I addressed most of your points directly and counter-argued disarmingly, if aphoristically. You're the one offering generalities and dismissals (like you said, 'Rank' tactics). Just because you have no idea what I'm talking about doesn't mean you are being attacked personally or that I am unaware of other kinds of music around me. You are right in that we share different aesthetics. Mine involve what is generally (i.e. globally) regarded as high and timeless art, yours remain to take their proper place in history in time, and you are quick (and tired really) to dismiss mine, without offering any names of people you admire more than the classical musicians so that I'm actually afforded a direct comparison with Bach, Beethoven and the like. Your pathetic example of your street-musician friend "handling four independent [mostly periodic I would assume] parts with his limbs" should not be compared to Bruckner my ignorant debater, but to Geoffrey Douglas Madge playing Xenakis' piano concerto 'Synaphai', which presents the pianist with TEN independent staves - one for each of his fingers, don't forget the two feet for pedalling, don't forget the large-scale structuring/interpreting in the performance while listening to the orchestra at the same time, and have a look at the score if you ever wish to see something that is really complex. Your notion about African rhythms (or Indian) being more complex than Western ones is 100 years-old. And could your friend handle Bruckner's 10-voice counterpoint or huge developmental structures - as opposed to just banging away incessantly, creating a momentary mood instead of a monu-mental timeless work? You seem to think that because I revere this kind of masterpiece I am unable to enjoy a street improvised, skilful performance. I just don't confuse or mis-weigh the artistic merits of one and the other. Hypothetically, The king of Botswana and the king of France are both kings; however...

I agree about the compromises of the equal-tempered system and the even more problematic tuning and resonance of the piano. Isn't it ironic how the compromised well-tempered system and badly tuned and resounding piano have been the platforms for so much incredibly beautiful music? You have to take the good with the bad. As far as the classical melodies being paltry most of the time for you, please link me to some melodies you admire so that I can scratch the Mozartian, Chopinian, Wagnerian, Tchaikovskyan, Puccinian, Scriabinian, Prokofievian, etc. glue off my ears. Please enlighten me!

Did I deify Williams here? I believe I actually said that he can't even begin to compare with Prokofiev and that group. Unless you were bothered by my placing him about a zillion places above Zimmer and the beat-mongers. However, you are wrong about him as well. He is not just an arranger. Just an arranger could not have composed The Raiders, Star Wars, or Superman. He is very inventive in his mannerism and he has made the 'Fanfare' genre his own, even when compared with the classics!

But you're right; the article isn't for you. Perhaps one day.... I.R.C.A.M. scoring pictures? I don't know for sure but I doubt it. If you're interested in electronic music and sound design and never heard of I.R.C.A.M., I regret to inform you that you know 'effing'-all about that genre as well... Also, I am not inconsistent in my view that modern-day academia is problematic; its main problem is that it has eschewed proper elitism for a mutant substitute, which tries to accommodate pop-cultural aesthetics (really!...) by dressing them and infusing them with pseudo-academic methodologies and jargon (effectively stripping away their vitality and spontaneity), while trying in vein to hold on to the view that the Modernist and Post-Modernist aesthetics have any relevance whatsoever in the serious world anymore, both being very dated products of 'reactionary' mentalities and ill-interpreted Marxist tenets. Academia has forgotten that they should be the fosters, scrutinizers and cataloguers of creative work; not the instigators and regulators of it.

As far as what in your estimation constitutes a 'Composer' this century... Perhaps you need to inform all current publishers of dictionaries as well as university faculties. They seem to be unaware of your definition.

P.S.: As far as I know Civilization is currently in its 5th incarnation. You seem to be a little behind the times there old boy - compared to your views on music I mean... I also hate decaf! Would there be cognac in the house by any chance?

I reiterate, I think Williams is an excellent musician. He's a consummate professional and a great mimic of the styles he understands. I will also reiterate, if it's valid for you, that's that. His talent for mimicry has also made him especially derivative and for me truly boring. Chances are a picture scored by Williams is a picture I will not attend, his music is distracting to me and it's music i don't particularly want to hear.

Is it shocking really that someone grew tired of the same old Zimmer vs Williams stuff? One of my main points is that one does one kind of gig, the other does his kind of gig and it's horses for courses. What's so challenging about this idea?

It's de riguer to bash someone you don't like, but oh so upsetting to have a go at Williams? Is this a religious issue or something?

It's 2011. Don't be too shocked that someone finds your insular 19th century western european 'art music' aesthetics wanting. You may imagine Mr Errikos that every person that isn't as enthralled as you by these objects is adhering to some vague notion you have about music outside your sphere, 'must be a hip hop loops monger' etc, but that shows your ignorance, not mine. You're welcome to believe that your insular, narrow, smug POV is obtained from the loftiest peak, but I find it's laughable. There is music happening all over the globe that people operating out of western europe's paradigms can't touch (and it's been demonstrated by cases that when it does it's oftimes laughable); and you shouldn't be too shocked that the exponents of these musics find your music paltry and lacking as per the things they are interested in.

Now, I understand that you found this particular forum insular enough so far and feathers were ruffled, and since it's no skin off my nose, I'll leave you gentlemen to enjoy the fact that you all think just alike. Cheers.

Civilization 3 is getting into the same old trap that so many make over the years when discussing art on a lowest common denominator basis. I can understand though - but the intellectual basis has no grounding in that type of appraisal because it's reduced to what someone "likes" versus what they "dislike".

That's subjective and understandable because one could argue that's what really counts on an individual basis in the end and why should anyone care what anyone else likes?  But the danger in that is an idiot argument then ensues that is not using, in this case, musical talent at a certain level and any further attainment, but rather personal preferences.

Why is that?  did you ever hear the Fury?  That score is a masterpiece and totally unlike his more bright-hued works.  Williams is so huge in his range he could probably do the greatest Lynch score of any (though Badalamenti did  fantastic stuff also).  

This general concept put out by civilization3 that Williams is a "mimic" is false.  As I stated his music cannot help going into familiar territory at times, but his own style is unmistakable and original.  Star Wars main theme - what is that mimicking?  The Jaws bass motif - what is that aping?  Etc. Etc.   You can find sections that sometimes sound like this or that, but any composer writing today in a tonal idiom CAN HAVE THE SAME THING DONE TO HIM out of context.  There is no way NOT to sound like someone else at times, but the question is how unique are your main works, your themes and development and counterpoint and harmony?  Those are what distinguish Williams as a master, and his Tchaikovsky-like fertility of melodic invention.  Not to mention the absolute perfection as functional film music.  I have never heard a scene that Williams scored that made me think - that was too much, or not enough.  He is as unerring in what a film needs as Herrmann. 

 It needs to be stated that  civilization3 is doing a "Dead-White-European-Male-Anti-European-Western tradition" bullshit session here.  

This has become fashionable these days.  You can display total bigotry and fathomless stupidity while pretending to be enlarging the pathetically limited vision of Western artists to include ethnic groups previously  ignored and disparaged.  This "enlightened" attiude has also become quite commonplace and instantly recognizable.

It is nice, however, when the composer for film is technically proficient. We may not like what Hans Zimmer and his whole lot of former trainees are doing (putting texture or wallpaper behind a film), but if it can work for the film, that's OK!
Now, when we take that music onto another medium, say CD, and it is presented like music that could or should 'stand on its own' rather than some audible way of reliving the film (many casual listeners of film music do just that), then we can review it on its musical merits.

Then it will be noticable that most Hans Zimmer music isn't all that great from a compositional perspective. A few of the more skilled film composers like Rósza, Goldsmith, Bernstein and Herrmann were mentioned; at least they knew what they were doing and knew how to make interesting music, even when you listened to it on its own. (Did enyone ever listen to Goldsmith's "Planet of The Apes" on CD?)
Modern day film composers need to give the producer or director or whoever's in charge, exactly what they want, or they'll get sidetracked and rejected.

Classical composers and film composers have to be reviewed differently, because of the medium they were writing for. Their music can only be reviewed as equals when we get to compositional skills. 

 Those are very interesting ideas Errikos and weslldeckers -  what I often think about the quality (or lack of it)  of film music is that it seems to be "optional."  In other words, a musician can provide a score that is a great piece of music, or a lousy piece of garbage and - amazingly enough - either one of them may work for the film.  This principle is what the Zimmerites are using to get away with semi-musical sludge as opposed to actual music scores.    But on the other hand, a good composer can write something beautiful  musically that is irritating and distracting from the film.  And all this is why it is remarkable how Herrmann and a few others did both - writing good (sometimes great) music that was also absolutely perfect for what the film needed.   

I must say I somewhat disagree with the principle behind this original article however.  Essentially the author is stating that film music is not as good as Beethoven.  In a way, that is a stupid thing to say.  Because it is mixing up many different contexts into an aesthetic mishmash.  One should ask the question - is ANY film music as good as the concert music written at the same time.  If that question is asked, I would answer - some film music is BETTER than much of the concert music written in the 20th century.   EVerybody compares Joe Blow film composer to Stravinsky.  What about  Bernard Herrmann or Jerry Goldsmith to any of the thousands of music professors imitating Berg, Webern, Ligeti, Schoenberg, etc. ad infinitum to the boredom and ear-splitting nausea of their enslaved audiences who gradually decided - over the course of about 20 years - they HATE concert music.  WHY do they hate it?  Did you ever ask that question?  Is it because it is all peerless masterpieces? Or could it be as mediocre in general as the favorite whipping boy of the musical snobs - film music?