Cameron, Horner and Monet.
Alexandre
In Cameron's Titanic, one can see a painting by the French painter Claude
Monet. Isn't Cameron great for having thought of such a reference? Cameron
and Monet have obvious common points, here are some:
Monet was in love with the sea, he liked to paint rough oceans for
instance. Monet considered that one does not see an object as it is, but it
is really the way this object is lit that matters (he painted a French
Cathedral several times, at the same angle, but at different moments of the
day so as to show how important light is). Monet also liked to represent
what exists between the object and the artist: the beauty of the
atmosphere. That's what one calls: Impressionism.
Well, it seems to me that Horner did not really create an impressive score
for Titanic, but rather "an *impressionist* score". For some people in
this newsgroup, it seems that James Horner repeats himself. Well, perhaps
he's just like Monet: he deals with the same place, let's call that place:
a melodic idea, but this same melodic idea will have a different
atmosphere, impact and meaning vis à vis the images it is supposed to
underline. The same piece of music composed by Horner can have a very
different significance in two scenes from two films because in those two
movies, characters are different, the way their faces are lit is different,
the emotions and story are different as well, so the Horner's cue has
finally a different emotional impact and depth.
But of course, Horner remains a modern composer even if he seems to be
influenced by past theories, such as those of Impressionism, to create his
own world and to tackle his own themes.
Alexandre.
Jeffrey Wheeler
"Alexandre", do you know where your towel is? I don't see it here...
>Well, it seems to me that Horner did not really create an impressive score
>for Titanic, but rather "an *impressionist* score". For some people in
>this newsgroup, it seems that James Horner repeats himself. Well, perhaps
>he's just like Monet: he deals with the same place, let's call that place:
>a melodic idea, but this same melodic idea will have a different
>atmosphere, impact and meaning vis à vis the images it is supposed to
>underline. The same piece of music composed by Horner can have a very
>different significance in two scenes from two films because in those two
>movies, characters are different, the way their faces are lit is different,
>the emotions and story are different as well, so the Horner's cue has
>finally a different emotional impact and depth.
Monet used the same setting and the same brush strokes, but completely
changed approach and feel. Horner simply paints the same picture under
the guise of different movie titles. Likewise, it is impossible for
Horner to have a different emotional impact on a scene when people are
busy wondering why an action cue from "Aliens" appears so prominently
in "Titanic." If it is an impressionist score, then this
ineffectiveness defeats the purpose for Horner's approach. Horner
should never impose his impressionism at the expense of the film.
Monet's formed his own art, but Horner must mold histo that of his
employers'. I liked Horner better when he was just a happily
self-deluded hack - at least then he had enough sense to make some
effort to serve the film instead of chasing after dreams of
impressionism... what a fancy word that is, too!
Jeffrey Wheeler
sha...@bellsouth.net
Visit Scott Hanson's Unofficial John Williams Home Page at
http://www2.shore.net/~srh/jwhome.htm for reviews, news, and
the first webpage devoted entirely to production logo music.
Alexandre
Jeffrey Wheeler wrote:
> Likewise, it is impossible for
> Horner to have a different emotional impact on a scene when people are
> busy wondering why an action cue from "Aliens" appears so prominently
> in "Titanic."
---------------------------
You sound too bright to me. 99% of the audience didn't notice that. But
even if some did, I would say that I find that very interesting because
once again, the music is there to make the audience at ease: the music can
sound familiar and it thus links 1912 and today, once more, very well.
Cameron's main goal with Titanic was really this idea of "making a film
that is a familiar experience" so as to make the whole more effective. The
dialogues sound familiar or modern, the themes developed by the story are
very modern as well (intolerance, hypocrisy, materialism...) and Horner's
score is also used as a way to bring this "modern touch" to the film.
---------------------------
> If it is an impressionist score, then this
> ineffectiveness defeats the purpose for Horner's approach. Horner
> should never impose his impressionism at the expense of the film.
---------------------------
Cameron's approach of light in Titanic is clearly influenced by
Impressionism, Jeff. So, Horner's approach of music had to be this way too.
But obviously, Impressionism is just "used" in this movie as a reference.
As I said, Titanic score and film are very modern. They sum-up history to a
certain extent. The film makes several references to film history, such as
the beginning when we can see an old camera filming the ship in a
documentary-like style - that is also another reference to the beginning of
Federico Fellini's And The Ship Sails On which started this way also.
Cameron also makes reference to David Lean with this "double" approach of
filming: very close-ups (of hands or looks) and very spectacular shots of
the ship. There are references to Fritz Lang's Metropolis...etc. And
Horner's score does the same thing with music history: Prokofiev,
Shostakovitch and of course: ...Enya! So you see, the film and the music do
the same thing. They both create a "timeless" experience because they both
use past and modern techniques, and they eventually link past and present
with great effectiveness.
Alexandre.
Robert Chapman
In article <$kPA.406$fe.17...@news2.mco.bellsouth.net>,
no-spam!sha...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Monet used the same setting and the same brush strokes, but completely
> changed approach and feel. Horner simply paints the same picture under
> the guise of different movie titles. Likewise, it is impossible for
> Horner to have a different emotional impact on a scene when people are
> busy wondering why an action cue from "Aliens" appears so prominently
> in "Titanic."
By all means tell us where.
> If it is an impressionist score, then this
> ineffectiveness defeats the purpose for Horner's approach. Horner
> should never impose his impressionism at the expense of the film.
Charlie C.
>
>>Well, it seems to me that Horner did not really create an impressive score
>>for Titanic, but rather "an *impressionist* score". For some people in
>>this newsgroup, it seems that James Horner repeats himself. Well, perhaps
>>he's just like Monet: he deals with the same place, let's call that place:
>>a melodic idea, but this same melodic idea will have a different
>>atmosphere, impact and meaning vis à vis the images it is supposed to
>>underline. The same piece of music composed by Horner can have a very
>>different significance in two scenes from two films because in those two
>>movies, characters are different, the way their faces are lit is different,
>>the emotions and story are different as well, so the Horner's cue has
>>finally a different emotional impact and depth.
>
>changed approach and feel. Horner simply paints the same picture under
>the guise of different movie titles. Likewise, it is impossible for
>Horner to have a different emotional impact on a scene when people are
>busy wondering why an action cue from "Aliens" appears so prominently
>ineffectiveness defeats the purpose for Horner's approach. Horner
>should never impose his impressionism at the expense of the film.
>Monet's formed his own art, but Horner must mold histo that of his
>employers'. I liked Horner better when he was just a happily
>self-deluded hack - at least then he had enough sense to make some
>effort to serve the film instead of chasing after dreams of
>impressionism... what a fancy word that is, too!
>
Many composers re-use their own themes to suite a new job. Bach was more or
less a commercial composer also (working for various nobility) and he re-used
themes like crazy! From the liner notes on Bach's The Four Lute Suites, John
Williams, Guitar (CBS Records): "Bach was above all a practical musician;
that he was also one of the supreme geniuses of music does not alter the fact
one way or the other...Bach worked in official appointments where he was
expected to turn out music as required, often for weekly if not daily
usage...For Bach, this meant not only that he was expected to produce music
much as a journalist produces copy, but no less that it seemed perfectly
natural for him to do so....It mean, for one thing that he would think nothing
of adapting music originally composed for one occasion or purpose for a
totally different one if it happened to suit his convenience at the moment:
He would certainly have seen nothing sacrilegious in such behavior...Bach
thought nothing of raiding works as inviolate (in our eyes) as the Christmas
Oratorio of the Mass in B Minor to provide music for the visit of a public
notability or the wedding of a local couple from the town bourgeoisie."
<Burnett James>
Now, Bach was certainly better at doing this than Horner is, but you never
know? Maybe Bach was criticized for it in his time? Regardless he still
found work and I'm sure Horner will too!
Jeffrey Wheeler
Robert Chapman, do you know where your towel is? I don't see it
here...
>In article <$kPA.406$fe.17...@news2.mco.bellsouth.net>,
>no-spam!sha...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> Monet used the same setting and the same brush strokes, but completely
>> changed approach and feel. Horner simply paints the same picture under
>> the guise of different movie titles. Likewise, it is impossible for
>> Horner to have a different emotional impact on a scene when people are
>> busy wondering why an action cue from "Aliens" appears so prominently
>> in "Titanic."
>By all means tell us where.
'Futile Escape' pops up wholesale in the Titanic elevator sequence.
The kicker is that the music originally came from Jerry Goldsmith's
"Capricorn One," so the music Horner repeats is not even his own. Cues
from "Aliens," "Clear and Present Danger," "Titanic" and many others
also share a flagrant lift from Aram Khachaturian's Gayane Suite.
Mahler's 8th Symphony (also heard in "Apollo 13") drops by as they
push up Titanic's speed. Likewise, notice that the chord progression
as the ship goes under came from Andrew Lloyd Webber's "Phantom of the
Opera" finale. "Titanic's" meretricious love theme is a pathetic
cut-and-paste of Enya's 'Hope Has a Place' and 'China Roses.' The
'Southampton' theme is from Enya's 'Book of Days.' The music for the
introduction of Rose uses the main motif from "The Rocketeer," for
Pete's sake! There is *always* the opportunity to add something fresh
and interesting to one's film music; it just so happens Horner ignored
that opportunity.
For the ultimate test of Horner's talent, I suggest you play 'Klingon
Battle' from "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" and then play "The Battle
Begins" from "Battle Beyond the Stars." Next, try Schuman's 3rd
Symphony and then the "Willow" main theme. Finish it up with Ives'
Unanswered Question and a sampling of "Wolfen." Also recall Raymond
Scott successfully sued Horner for plagiarism in "Honey, I Shrunk the
Kids."
Everyone wants at least a little financial prosperity, so Horner's
indirectly honest pursuit of tons of cash does not alter the ethic a
'creator' needs. The question is whether Horner repeats himself, and
one way to help find an answer to that is to discover whether Horner
is good at his job or not. I postulate that his technique contaminates
all that is fundamental and pure about music. Not insofar as he is
some musical anti-Christ, but rather each note is like a viral assault
to the senses. As such, Horner's music does not do its job.
Horner does tend to pilfer without any artistic validity. That alone
is enough to land most composers with such traits in exile. Add the
audacity and sheer mass of the steals and you have
1% Pure Horner left over. The man is making a killing off re-titling
the same music under the mask of different movie titles.
There are many musical people out there, myself mildly included, and I
would wager any one of them could randomly pluck out more fresh and
interesting melodies on a piano than Horner has in the past fifteen
years. When no fewer than fifty knowledgeable friends of mine agree on
the same thing, and that thing solely regards James Horner's dubious
career, there is a clue that something is wrong with this composer.
Some teach composition, others play & compose, others critique, others
simply perform, and a few are lower life forms such as myself - all
qualified enough to share that opinion.
That said, no composer is immune to plagiarism. Indeed, I feel the
first to show no inspiration is the first to show out the door. There
are only so many notes and variations, thus 'un-originality' is
something impossible to avoid. However, exact copying with the
intention to deceive is simply wrong, just as pointlessly recycling
material (particularly hacked material) is a very questionable
practice. Horner's interests appear to rarely, if ever, aim honestly
toward the audio-visual medium.
Some say the emotional and technical comparisons are like comparing
apples and oranges. Contrary to popular belief, you *can* compare
apples and oranges. When one is rotten and the other is fresh, you
have little question of which tastes better. James Horner has bad
perceptions, and it makes no difference whether they are apple or
orange in variety. It is in this way that his supposed impressionism
is irrelevant.
Good music (not necessarily likable music) is a strong balance between
familiarity, dramaticism (sp?), and originality. Originality doesn't
even have to be something people have not heard before; a fresh,
well-handled combination of past ideas can cumulate much deserved
appreciation as a distinguished work - this is what the vast majority
of good music consists of. Horner achieves the goal of familiarity
quite regularly, but he more often than not plays for too much
familiarity. Probably because he has his own distinct gimmicks, but
they never enter into the musical subject. The fact is, Horner has no
thematic texture of his own - aural texture, yes, but no thematic
texture. The range of his music is limited by his style resting
entirely on borrowed ideas and un-evolved soundings. There are no new
risks, for good or bad. With Horner under-compensated for
over-familiarity and without the benefit of a wide variety of
resources solely indicative of his style he fails because the audience
is not to wonder why so little effort went into making the film music
as good as possible. That is an option the audience should never have.
Goldsmith, despite his current retread phase, still has a fair sized
list of innovative work. "Planet of the Apes," for one, exhibits more
originality than Horner has in his entire recording career. Williams
also has an abundant list, although more restrained than Goldsmith in
this. One respectable trait that Williams and Goldsmith have is
admission of inspiration, temp-tracking, etc., but they still develop
their own ideas appropriately and effectively in such a way that
similarities are purely stylistic and direct quotations are either
accidental or somehow accredited. James Horner is not so selective or
honest.
Horner repeatedly steals the same thing, he flat-out rips stuff off,
and when something good of his own appears he milks the heck out of
it. Not only are their stylistic similarities, which I would find
perfectly okay under different circumstances, but there are literally
note-for-note variations. Horner is the only major film composer too
lazy to make his hackings at least practical. He might as well take
someone's music, place it on a copying machine, and sign his name as
the composer on the copy. Most have the decency to alter it enough to
be distinctly theirs -- to make it unique to the situation -- but
Horner does not. I have said this before, but Horner neither offers a
comparable amount of his own style to counterbalance the lifts, nor
does he show any reservations about note-for-note plagiarism. Both
ways Horner demonstrates a lack of musical honesty, be it with himself
or with his listeners. That betrayal alone sets him far below the
likes of many.
"Titanic" is functional in the film (though I can name at least twenty
better film scores of '97), but it does not have an original moment in
the whole of its pretty dressing. It is nothing short of a hack job,
albeit a good one by James Horner standards (instead of changing one
note to keep himself from being sued, he changes two).
As for time having any effect of Horner's output: Goldsmith scored
"Chinatown" in 10 days and it is one of the best film scores around.
Shirley Walker scored the TV movie "Asteroid" two days before the
premiere, and despite the pathetic performance (and, worse yet, the
movie) the score was quite passable. Bruce Broughton wrote the "Tiny
Toon Adventures" theme in 12 minutes. One of John Williams' famous
fanfares took form on a plane trip the night before it was to
premiere. Horner had over five months to score "Titanic," but the
soundtrack is on par with what the average film composer does in five
weeks.
There is simply no excuse. Horner's music is an example of an old
cliché at work: It is sound and fury signifying nothing. I used to
think people like Horner were talented in what they did, but
continually forgot to be themselves. That, perhaps, one sunny day I
will hear a new Horner soundtrack, one that is enthralling and fresh,
then I would consider him not just a film composer, but a talent
beyond constriction. I held out on Horner, believing that when the day
came I would be all the more proud of his achievement. Years later
that day has yet to appear. Horner is not worth the consideration
anymore, and most likely will never be again.
Aidan Milner
Jeffrey Wheeler wrote...a whole lot...:
Geez Jeffrey, preaching about how incompetent you think Horner is in
*this* newsgroup too! :)
This time I think you're stretching things a little - Capricorn One in
Titanic - I don't know!?
Still can't find it (and C1 is a favourite score of mine).
> For the ultimate test of Horner's talent, I suggest you play 'Klingon
> Battle' from "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" and then play "The Battle
> Begins" from "Battle Beyond the Stars."
I'll give you that one, no doubt about it! Doesn't mean I can't enjoy
listening to or being enthralled by both cues.
But so long as it is Mr Horner himself who writes down all these notes
that turn into scores like Titanic and Braveheart, I'm happy to
acknowledge him as having *some* artistic talent.
> When no fewer than fifty knowledgeable friends of mine agree on
> the same thing, and that thing solely regards James Horner's dubious
> career, there is a clue that something is wrong with this composer.
Come now Jeffrey - birds of a feather and all that - I'm beginning to
get the impression, that in regards to your 50 friends, you are
preaching to the converted and so further compounding your dislike for
Horner's music and everything associated with him.
> .....Both
> ways Horner demonstrates a lack of musical honesty, be it with himself
> or with his listeners. That betrayal alone sets him far below the
> likes of many.
I think even *you*, Jeffrey, would have to acknowledge that Horner is
one of the most popular film composers currently working! And I'm not
restricting this like for Horner's work to any stratum of society
(except maybe you and your fifty friends). :)
> There is simply no excuse. Horner's music is an example of an old
> cliché at work: It is sound and fury signifying nothing.
A saying I often feel is quite relevant to such situations:
"The pleasure of criticizing takes away from us the pleasure of being
moved by some very fine things."
I just *know* you love criticizing James Horner, LOLOL!
Talk later Jeff,
cheers!
-Aidan
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ,-./\ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
= Aidan R. Milner / \ mil...@dynamite.com.au =
= Canberra, Australia \_,-*_/ http://www2.dynamite.com.au/milner =
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- . -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
Jeffrey Wheeler
"Oh let me grow one leaf of grass,
One breath of truth, one cry of man's
Travail and quest, one peal of brass
To drive Art from its crapping cans --
One tale that doesn't kiss the ass
Of ninety million movie fans."
- Ben Hecht (from "Prayer to His Bosses")
Aidan Milner wrote:
>Geez Jeffrey, preaching about how incompetent you think Horner is in
>*this* newsgroup too! :)
Misery loves company!
>This time I think you're stretching things a little - Capricorn One in
>Titanic - I don't know!?
Listen to the string ostinato in Goldsmith's score. It is in there, I
tell you! Why would I lie?! I am a trouble-maker, I will concede that,
but I you cannot call me an unfair one.
>> For the ultimate test of Horner's talent, I suggest you play 'Klingon
>> Battle' from "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" and then play "The Battle
>> Begins" from "Battle Beyond the Stars."
>I'll give you that one, no doubt about it! Doesn't mean I can't enjoy
>listening to or being enthralled by both cues.
I recall playing my "BBtS" cassette for the first time, hearing the
mock blaster-beam, then catching everything else. My jaw dropped, I
racked my brain as to where I had heard it before, and then I popped
"Star Trek" in my CD player and I went into hysterics. Absolutely
amazing that anyone would lift so audaciously. Horner should have been
ostracized from Hollywood immediately. Totally remarkable.
Anyway, Horner's cue is a 'guilty pleasure.' It is purely a novelty
rather than an appropriate use of film scoring. Every time I think I
may be liking Horner again I come across this in my collection and
feel the urge to vomit. What fun. Nothing beats getting a few
musicologists together for a game of 'Spot the Steal!'
My point is not to say people who like "Titanic" are idiots or
anything of the sort. I simply want to point out that many are
dowering the score with qualities it does not have. The score is on
par with, say, Alan Silvestri's regular output. Alan is fine composer
(and a very congenial chap to meet, I might add), but his scoring
choices tend to be conventional. "Titanic" is his equal in scope. I
have rambled on quite often before about the distinction between
calling something 'the favorite' and 'the best.' "Titanic" is
undeniably the favorite. To call it the best, however, is to be the
child that considers "The Neverending Story" the greatest story ever
told.
>But so long as it is Mr Horner himself who writes down all these notes
>that turn into scores like Titanic and Braveheart, I'm happy to
>acknowledge him as having *some* artistic talent.
"Casper" had a better score than "Titanic" and "Braveheart," I
believe. The superficiality of his orchestrations is extremely
annoying, but his pacing in more interesting and the intent of the
music is direct without being condescending. Furthermore, his
'borrowed' music as utilized in the score has an 'in-joke' feel that
works marvelously. "Casper" is average as a whole, yet "Titanic" and
"Braveheart" are perhaps more questionable since they lack any
detailed benefits.
>Come now Jeffrey - birds of a feather and all that - I'm beginning to
>get the impression, that in regards to your 50 friends, you are
>preaching to the converted and so further compounding your dislike for
>Horner's music and everything associated with him.
There are two Horner soundtracks I wish to remember him for. There are
many questionable moments in Horner's score to "Brainstorm," but they
do not stop me from noticing all the brilliant touches that make it,
IMO, his best score. It is a fantastic shocker that I heartily
recommend to everyone. The same goes, to a somewhat lesser degree, for
his extremely effective "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn" score. If I
had my way, I would time travels and ensure these were the only two
scores of his I heard. It is better to leave wanting more than to stay
wanting less. Do I dislike Horner? Very much so, but not with a
passion that extends to everything associated with him. I could think
less of him, like how Frederich Nietzsche felt about Richard Wagner:
"Is Wagner a human being at all? Is he not a rather a disease? He
contaminates everything he touches - he has made music sick. I
postulate this viewpoint: Wagner's art is diseased."
I would write:
"Is Horner a human being at all? Is he not a rather a disease? He
contaminates almost everything he touches - he has made music sick. I
postulate this viewpoint: Horner's art is diseased."
See how much kinder I am? #;-)
>I think even *you*, Jeffrey, would have to acknowledge that Horner is
>one of the most popular film composers currently working!
Yes, but remember that we are talking about a man who makes a living
by lying to people. He weasels his way to the top. He lies about not
purloining from other composers, he lies about not purloining from
himself, he lied about not knowing whom Jerry Goldsmith was (after
dating Jerry's daughter, no less!), and attempts to gloss over his
clearly American accent with a pretentious English one so people will
find him more 'fancy.' Concerning the Ben Hecht poem at the top of my
post, I can only say how Horner used "Titanic" to kiss several
posteriors...
I can see no explanation other than he is in it for the money. He
earns over $750,000 per score, he scores an average of five films a
year, and everyone knows that such a rapid-fire pace work wreaks havoc
on one's output. If he *is* talented and wants to do great import with
films, I still have to wonder at his stupidity for not using that
talent more positively. It smacks of laziness and greed.
>A saying I often feel is quite relevant to such situations:
>"The pleasure of criticizing takes away from us the pleasure of being
>moved by some very fine things."
Not true, for if we do not criticize than those very fine things are
of no consequence. When it comes to The Arts, ignorance is not bliss.
The only trick is to be open-minded in your criticism - if you are,
then there is no way to miss those very fine things. In fact, without
criticism there are many subtleties which one would miss pleasure in.
Take, for example, the echoing trumpets in "Patton" (which Horner also
ripped-off for "Battle Beyond the Stars"). Most people would simply
enjoy them, but if you analyze the music more closely you receive a
more substantiated appreciation - one that covers both the emotional
*and* technical aspects of music. It happens as good craftsmanship
should. Goldsmith used the echoing trumpets to accent Patton's belief
in reincarnation. It is musical symbolism one would overlook without
the foundation of review and high standards. What about the use of
church organ? That is easy, considering Patton was a die-hard
Christian, yet it is also worth noting that Goldsmith uses it in
combination with the military music as to not imply that the ideas
they represent are uneven in their effect on the character. Horner
ignores such opportunities. With "Titanic," Horner divided the score
into three separate identities (synth, vocal, orchestral) and mixes
them in an insignificant manner that does not represent any musical or
dramatic continuity. It is all shallow and heartless manipulation,
which is one thing Horner does very well.
>I just *know* you love criticizing James Horner, LOLOL!
Actually, I do not. Finding myself designated in some delirious
unofficial capacity as spokesman of the Victims of Horner support
group tires me. I would rather debate the joys of John Williams, wax
lyrical about Erich Wolfgang Korngold, point out the greatness of Nino
Rota, chatter about Miklos Rosza, or read what informed r.a.m.c-f
subscribers think of the newest film score. That people need to hear
these things is the only reason I am still on this topic.
I am hoping the score will merely wean people toward better film
music. Sadly, I do not see it happening. How many people will buy
"Titanic" and then purchase the new re-recording of Steiner's "King
Kong" soundtrack, for instance? "Titanic" contains watered-down
(pardon the pun) Goldsmith and Williams, so are people going to rush
out and buy the real thing anytime soon? How many are adventurous
enough to bridge the gap between James Horner's trite melodic
plagiarism and Alex North's exquisite dissonant originality? Will they
appreciate the art beyond 'this is pretty,' or will they remain
happily disinterested in exploring the twofold nature of film
composition? Not everyone will fall in love with film music, true, but
do these people care to try?
That said, I heard a steady couple broke up because the girl's
boyfriend dared to dislike the soundtrack. I suppose it is always nice
to see a score album have social impact! #:-)
Jeffrey Wheeler
Robert, your analysis was engaging and insightful. Perhaps my friend
was confusing Enya tracks or comparing the wrong bits. However, he
seems quite certain that the introduction to 'My Heart Will Go On'
came from 'China Roses.' And what about the B theme under "Look to
love, you may dream, and if it should leave then give it wings. But if
such a love is meant to be; Hope is home, and the heart is free?"
Either way, at least we know which has better lyrics.
I refuse to support that sociopathic grubber of a film composer by
purchasing his soundtrack, so I am getting much of this second-hand
with only my memory from seeing the film to act as a guide.
Nevertheless, as a second-rate composer, reputable music critic, and
an award-winning lyricist I know what a hack job sounds like. I
ripped-off Elmer Bernstein once, so I even have part of Horner's
experience.
>Hope Has A Place is a terrible piece of music that any second rate
>musician could come up with.
So *that* is the similarity with Horner's love theme. #:-)
>If you have a sequencer can you
>cut and paste them yourself to become the love theme?
Since when has a music critic been able to afford a sequencer?! I'm
just a poor boy, nobody loves me...
>My feeling is the same for most of your other examples. They're just not
>that similar. BTW what do you think is the chord progression that Phantom
>of the Opera and Titanic share? Can you write it down in short form?
C# | B# | F | G | G#, as I recall.
>Your flawed examples only show how wrong
>the strength of your opinion against Horner has to be and similarly the
>way in which pockets of anti-Horner sentiment continue to exist, feeding
>on one misleading and doubtful example after another.
One of the first examples I mentioned was the Adagio from Aram
Khachaturian's Ballet Suite "Gayane." Listen to that track (about
3:25-3:40 in) and then listen to Track 1 of "Aliens" (1:26-1:38).
Bernard Herrmann did not escape notice either, for his "The Day the
Earth Stood Still" (CD 2; Track 1; 0:01-0:10) appears in "An American
Tail" (Track 4; 1:23-1:28). Still, Horner mainly rips off himself...
"Brainstorm" (Track 6; 0:03-0:06)
"The Rocketeer" (Track 5; 5:00-5:03)
------------------------------------------------------
"Cocoon" (Track 9; 0:18...)
"An American Tail" (Track 8; 2:27-2:40)
------------------------------------------------------
"The Name of the Rose" (Track 6; 2:02-2:04)
"Thunderheart" (Track 3; 2:43-2:46)
------------------------------------------------------
"Aliens" (Track 1; 1:00-1:04)
"Patriot Games" (Track 5; 8:37-8:42)
------------------------------------------------------
"Sneakers" (Track 7; 6:06-6-32)
"The Pelican Brief" (Track 12; 0:23-041)
------------------------------------------------------
"Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn" (Track 8; 2:19-2:51)
"Cocoon: The Return" (Track 9; 2:21-2:39
Just to name a few. For many, many, many more you can always go to
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Lot/9045/horner.html for a visit to
The Horner Self Rip-Off Page.
>Did you read what you wrote? Titanic isn't the no 1 soundtrack album of
>all time in sales for no reason. Your statement is nonsense. Don't
>forget many musicians and what you call 'qualified people' have purchased
>the album (I know at least a dozen musicians who have bought it, including
>myself). How can you reconcile this with your statement?
People like the film, and listening to the music helps them re-live
the cinema intimacy (subconsciously, sometimes consciously). You may
recall that reviews of the score before the film came out were far
from favorable. That is indication that because of the high emotional
response of the film the public is, as Sir Arthur Bliss once said,
granting qualities to the film music that the music itself does not
have. Original film music has the same tech merits in your CD player
as in the movie, so if you like the score better than you did before
seeing the film then you are most likely projecting. This why it is
honestly impossible to judge film music in the context of a film
unless you are educated, as I am, in the art of film scoring. Do you
have an education in film scoring?
>And another thought - how long does a cue have to be before using it is
>copying? Could it be a 3 note cue or how long?
It depends on presentation. The less similar the presentation the
lower the expectancy becomes (up to a point - for me, that point is
the natural choice of no more than seven notes). Since so much of the
score seeps Enya through concept (at JC's request, so I cannot blame
[nor can anyone else credit] JH for that), a five note similarity is
all it takes for me to raise an eyebrow. A bad stylistic rip-off, such
as 'Southampton,' only takes four. Also remember that presentation is
the key, and a flagrant show from Horner generally over-rides the lack
of a melodic similarity anyway. See Bill Conti's rip-off of Holst's
'Jupiter' in "The Right Stuff." It has no real melodic similarity to
speak of, but the presentation is unmistakable and offers no hint of
artistic effort whatsoever. It goes beyond merely copying the style to
*being* the style, which is flat-out larceny.
Robert Chapman
Jeffrey
You've listed a lot of examples so I'll have to tackle just one in depth.
Your example -
> "Titanic's" meretricious love theme is a pathetic
> cut-and-paste of Enya's 'Hope Has a Place' and 'China Roses.'
As the central theme of a movie on everyone's minds this is a good example
to look at.
I downloaded a copy of HHAP and China Roses since I didn't know them before....
Hope Has A Place is a terrible piece of music that any second rate
musician could come up with. The song is virtually all a repeating 4 bars
-
| B | F# B | C# E | F# |
the (exact!) chord notes being played are
| F#BD# | F#A#C# F#BD# | C#FG# EG#B | F#A#C# |
B F# B C# E F#
so you can see it's a completely drab effort, no nuances in the chords at
all, and there's none in the chord timing either. The melody is pathetic,
just basically arpeggios of the chords, the sort of thing you could play
without thinking.
China Roses is a little better -
| F C | Dm A# C | F C | A# C |
2nd time " | F |
The only nuances in the chords from what I've listed are the omission from
the A# chord of A# note itself except in the bass. Otherwise it's
exactly as shown. The melody is better than HHAP but nothing at all
special.
Now what do they have in common with the Titanic love theme? Nothing in
fact, no matter how hard I tried to be open to the view that you could
just 'cut and paste' these two together. Actually these pieces offer so
little that NO-ONE would have a reason to copy from them. I just have to
hear how you could cut and paste these two together to get the Titanic
love theme.
This is a sample of the chords from the love theme opening -
| E | B(no 5)/E Esus4 | E5/A | C#5/G# G#5 | C#m(no 5) F#5/C# | etc
And it doesn't get any simpler. What this has in common with the above
two I have yet to be informed of. And the melodies are as different as
the chords. Also the Titanic melody interects with the chords as any
decent piece of music should while the others offer nothing. Their
melodies don't stick in the mind at all while the Titanic theme is
especially memorable (as albums sales show). It is also emotional which
is something these others have NONE of (I've heard a lot better songs from
Enya than these).
The only thing that bears ANY resemblence is a phrase from China Roses
that goes -
(melody notes) | F F F G E | F C D C |
In Titanic the similarity would be (simplified) | E E E D# E E
| B etc.
This is the single largest similarity and it's a million miles from
plagiarism let alone being anything at all derivative.
So overall I don't see any copying or even any real similarity between
these pieces. Where are the note-for-note variations you speak of?
You've said Titanic's love theme is a pathetic! cut-and-paste of these
other two pieces. I'd like to know how this cut and paste would work
given these pieces aren't at all alike. If you have a sequencer can you
cut and paste them yourself to become the love theme? And how does this
fit what you've said is a case of 'instead of changing one note to keep
himself from being sued, he changes two'?
My feeling is the same for most of your other examples. They're just not
that similar. BTW what do you think is the chord progression that Phantom
of the Opera and Titanic share? Can you write it down in short form?
Overall I simply don't understand how you can base your opinion of Horner
on such non-existent 'evidence' of copying as you've given in this one
example, most of your other examples being similarly completely flawed.
However Horner does copy sometimes as everyone agrees, your example of
'Klingon Battle' for instance is correct. But a few cases of this doesn't
make Horner any less a brilliant composer able to produce the likes of
Titanic, Glory and Braveheart. Your flawed examples only show how wrong
the strength of your opinion against Horner has to be and similarly the
way in which pockets of anti-Horner sentiment continue to exist, feeding
on one misleading and doubtful example after another.
> There are many musical people out there, myself mildly included, and I
would wager
> any one of them could randomly pluck out more fresh and interesting
melodies on a
> piano than Horner has in the past fifteen years.
Please post just *one* midifile of such a piece of comparable film music
that 'any one of them could randomly pluck out'.
> Horner had over five months to score "Titanic," but the soundtrack is on
par with
> what the average film composer does in five weeks.
Did you read what you wrote? Titanic isn't the no 1 soundtrack album of
all time in sales for no reason. Your statement is nonsense. Don't
forget many musicians and what you call 'qualified people' have purchased
the album (I know at least a dozen musicians who have bought it, including
myself). How can you reconcile this with your statement?
And another thought - how long does a cue have to be before using it is
copying? Could it be a 3 note cue or how long?
Rob
Robert Chapman
Jeffrey
You've listed a lot of examples so I'll have to tackle just one in depth.
Your example -
> "Titanic's" meretricious love theme is a pathetic
> cut-and-paste of Enya's 'Hope Has a Place' and 'China Roses.'
As the central theme of a movie on everyone's minds this is a good example
> There are many musical people out there, myself mildly included, and I
would wager
> any one of them could randomly pluck out more fresh and interesting
melodies on a
> piano than Horner has in the past fifteen years.
Please post just *one* midifile of such a piece of comparable film music
that 'any one of them could randomly pluck out'.
> Horner had over five months to score "Titanic," but the soundtrack is on
par with
> what the average film composer does in five weeks.
Did you read what you wrote? Titanic isn't the no 1 soundtrack album of
Gary Pollard
Ben Hecht saw "Titanic"?
Gary
Jeffrey Wheeler wrote in message
<34FB.1396$Xt2.7...@news3.mco.bellsouth.net>...