Re: Re: Re: Re: Pops...


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Eve on July 02, 2001 at 22:57:19:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Pops... posted by Tim Murphy on July 02, 2001 at 13:54:56:

"The point I was trying to make was, it is still great music
, despite being considered "pops" music, and sometimes even
looked down on. my point was that if Williams had written these,
or similar pieces without the intent of scoring a film, would
they still be considered pops music??? I tend to not think so."


My post was a collection of musings adding to this thread's general pot-pourri, yeah, I haven't really answered your original query...

I think (and I'm not certain at all, and my ideas may be in a state of fluctuation) that had John Williams written these works purely as 'art' music (rather than for film commissions... which may have meant that they would be different works to what they actually are)... I think that they would probably be held in certain favour here and there, for performance, but would not necessarily be regarded as having the highest artistic "integrity" (for lack of a better work) because they are not exacly "furthering art history" in that they are very well crafted, but derive much from previous eras - nothing "new" is really said.

So I don't know if one can define the highest artistic accomplishments (in music, or elsewhere in the arts) as being ones which have somehow pushed boundaries and actually forged some sort of new artistic course... but it may be a start. There are plenty of artistic "trees" that get "barked up" and come to not much, are the talentless barking up those trees? I don't know.

But the greatest icons in all art history seem to be able to be at least partially defined by being somehow more than just visionary, but by forging new paths that do end up being followed by others [ + influence them greatly] (the others in turn forge the paths further) - paths that become part of art history/evolution, rather than dead-ends.

Whew, I dunno how my haphazard analogies are working here, let's just say that this is a stimulating thread.

I suppose I'm saying I don't think J. Williams would be given the gravity in music evolution of, I dunno, Mozart or even Charlie Parker! But I don't think he (J.W.) would have sunk without a trace, either. We have an example of John Williams' 'art' music, for the "concert hall" in the Tuba Concerto. I've heard it only once, and had no burning desire to hear it again, nor to buy a recording, or to play it. Of course, I could hum many more of J.W's movie themes (that J.W. concerto themes), but that is mostly due to sheer repetition of hearing them... repetition which the Concerto has not had, in terms of my exposure to it. I'm not saying that the Concerto is not a worthy piece... my added "disclaimer" is that I am not a "tuba groupie".

As for playing "pops" generally, I (almost) never mind what I play (nor how many or few notes I have in it) I just rejoice in the fact that I toot my horn(s) for a "crust", diversity in my artistic palate abounds, and I can't really imagine doing anything else!

Life is sweeet :-)

Eve "longest post ever from me, I think" Flatt




Follow Ups: