(originally posted here∞)

He will be our generation's Rossini. Nothing more, nothing less.

Rossini was the most popular composer of the most culturally dominant country's (Italy's) most popular public artform (opera). Forget what you think about the stuffy opera scene: in the early 19th century, Italian opera was hip. Fanboys sang along with their favorite songs; groupies followed the stars of the stage around on their tours; elitist "claques" decided which divas would be applauded; political wannabes listened for hints of revolutionary themes. Opera houses were kept lit so music geeks could follow in their scores and theater geeks could laugh together at the timely storytelling in-jokes. Like movies before the VCR, going to the opera was a required cultural occasion. Many of the day's most famous Italian authors were patriots, for whom getting a racy political script past the censors and onto Italian-speaking stages across the continent was the highest possible achievement, especially in the 50 years between before Italy actually became a nation.

At the top of this scene was Rossini. His music was in the highest demand throughout Italy, and he shared enough patriotism to lend his backing to nationalistic librettos in particular. He composed almost 40 successful operas in ~15 years, making him quite wealthy for the times, then retired from music for the rest of his life -- probably the first composer to ever have the means to do so.

Musically, it's easy to label him a hack if you desire. He liberally copy/pasted material across his operas without any of the bohemian angst you'd expect from a purist. (Schumann, embroiled in his own ideological shitfest∞, once remarked that Rossini's repertoire had fewer unique overtures than Beethoven's, who of course only composed 1 opera but revised it constantly for artistic reasons.) His success at the theater made him the unquestioned king of drama, but he never became a drama queen personally, as was practically expected of a Romantic prima donna. Nevertheless, the guy could unquestionably write "hooks" on demand, and however repetitive his orchestration was, it stayed at least competent. Thus, as the Italian state's identity emerged, everyone could still whistle violin licks from William Tell even if they didn't flock to see the majority of his works performed anymore.

So anyway. Hopefully I made the parallels to John Williams and film obvious enough (even if I had to mangle some history) that I don't have to spell out each of them. Suffice to say he helped tell some of the biggest stories in present-day American mythology, an accomplishment that wouldn't disappear overnight even if the music was utter crap, which it's not. Repetitive, littered with several genres' cliches, unabashedly flashy, and generally well short of genius? Certainly, but that's how you become successful in popular culture (and probably always has been).

All it takes is for the worldwide musical consciousness to retain a few catchy themes, and before long they'll be retold in future cultures' myths; I submit William's "hooks" have more than enough substance to meet this challenge. 100 years after Rossini, Bugs Bunny became the Barber of Seville, and we laughed in acknowledgement. 100 years after John Williams, you won't play Harry Potter in youth orchestras anymore, but plenty of young beret-wearing artistes will think they're really clever for making oblique references to the Imperial March or Jaws' theme. duuuuuuuuhhhh-na duuuuuhhhhhh-na duh-na duh-na duh-na duh-na...

---

Back to CollectedWritings