Since the response is based on a false assumption in the course of his zealous desire to show me up, I will not dignify the rest of his preposterous meanderings with a response that can only serve as more fodder for his insincere ramblings. And before you hit the keyboard, please, DANIEL2, let someone else for once leave the room while having the last word.

And I haven't said anything like that about a CD in a VERY long time.

So I'm gonna say it again. I LOVE IT

I would like to say how much I appreciate your input into this discussion, it is always interesting and stimulating to hear a different perspective on history.

And, excuse me if I’m wrong, but was that a tinge of good-natured humour that I detected in your closing statement?…..No, surely not!

Seriously though, based on your comments above your knowledge of British and American history seems more than just a tad selective, and somewhat inaccurate.

And yet you seem to be saying that my postings above are inaccurate, perhaps you could point to just one thing that I have said at this thread that is not historically accurate.

The truth sometimes hurts Howard L…….and I’m sorry if I have shattered your childhood illusions by casting an apparently blinding floodlight of realism on the historical fiction that you appear to have gone through life believing in.

What amuses me most, is your apparent misunderstanding of who the British American colonists were at the time of the revolution. You seem to think of them as some kind of new race…..as if the Mayflower was actually a spaceship, and the first colonists were Martians.

At the time of the American War of Independence, the vast majority of the colonists were British……and, until the French joined the Americans, the conflict was a civil war within the British Empire…..it was British versus British. Virtually all of the major colonial players at the time, Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Wilson, Franklin and so on, were ‘British’, either their parents or their grandparents came from Great Britain.

At the time of the War of Independence, there were 13 original British colonies (each is represented by a stripe on the American flag). Each of those 13 colonies, that then formed the fledgling United States of America, was founded by the British people, and in time, by receiving royal charter, joined the British Empire. Apart from Sir Walter Raleigh’s abortive attempts to colonize the Carolinas in the late 1500’s and Sir Francis Drake claiming Oregon around about the same time, the first permanent English settlement in North America was Captain John Smith’s Virginian settlement in 1607 (Gibson of course voiced this English hero in the historically inaccurate and politically-correct POCAHONTAS)…..Smith also named New England. The Mayflower settled Plymouth in 1620, and then the floodgates opened. In fact, most of the early English settlers of North America came from the English West Country….which is where I live.

Here are concise details relating to the founding of each of the 13 British American colonies.

1) Virginia (1607) – named in honour of Queen Elizabeth I of England.

The whole world is familiar with Jamestown (named in honour of King James I of England), the Englishman Captain John Smith, Pocahontas and all the rest. But fewer people are aware of Roanoke. In 1585, Sir Walter Raleigh tried to establish a colony called Roanoke. The site was actually the outer banks of what is now North Carolina. Sir Francis Drake rescued this group but another colony was left at Roanoke in 1587 and disappeared without a trace by 1590. This was the so-called "Lost Colony". A baby was born in the lost colony. Little Virginia Dare was probably the first English baby born in the New World.

Based on the accounts of the Englishman George Weymouth's voyages to the New England area in 1606, two companies were formed to seek a patent for colonization on the Atlantic Coast. One of these companies was the London Company and it was given the southern Virginia territory. The other company was called the Plymouth Company and its patent was for northern Virginia. Both companies quickly sought to exercise their patents but the London Company was the first to actually place colonists on the shore. In 1607, 105 London Company sponsored settlers arrived in Jamestown from England.

2) Massachusetts (1620).

The original Indian inhabitants of Massachusetts coexisted with the first permanent English settlement from 1620, when the Mayflower left its intrepid band of English Pilgrims at Plymouth. Ten years later, the first wave of English Puritans arrived at the newly founded town of Boston. Their establishment of a Puritan community had far-reaching effects on the development of American religious, political, and social institutions.

3) New York (1626) – named in honour of the Duke of York (later James II of England).

Two major groupings of Indians originally inhabited New York….the Algonquian-speaking Mohegon and Munsee, and the Iroquois confederacy of the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca. These Iroquois tribes sided with the British during the fourth French and Indian War (1756-63). New York was first settled as a colony by the Dutch, though the Englishman Henry Hudson discovered the site of New York City on the river that bears his name. The British took control of New Amsterdam in 1664 and renamed it New York. The defeat of the French by the British Empire in 1763 encouraged New Englanders to settle in New York.

4) Maryland (1633) – named in honour of the wife of King Charles I of England.

In 1632 Charles I of England granted a Maryland Charter to the Britisher Lord Baltimore (George Calvert, Baron of Baltimore). Lord Baltimore wanted very much to see the Colony become a reality and his son Cecil saw to it that the new Colony was settled. In 1633 the first group of settlers set sail for Maryland from England to establish a colony of English freemen led by Leonard Calvert, Cecil Calvert's younger brother.

5) Rhode Island (1636).

The Englishman Roger Williams departed Boston and after spending the winter with the local Indians he finally bought land from them in Providence. His new colony became a haven for those seeking religious freedom. However, a Royal charter granted by the English monarchy was not forthcoming until 1663.

6) Connecticut (1636).

At the time of the first US census in 1790, 96 percent of the population of Connecticut was of English ancestry. The Englishman Thomas Hooker founded Hartford, and became a prominent British American colonial clergyman and is now known as "the father of American democracy”. Connecticut was finally granted a British Royal charter in 1662.

7) Delaware (1638) – named in honour of the great Englishman Sir Thomas West, the 12th Baron De La Warr.

Delaware was administered as part of New York until 1682, when the Duke of York ceded it to the Englishman William Penn, who wanted it so that his colony of Pennsylvania could have access to the ocean. Though Penn tried to unite the Delaware counties with Pennsylvania, both sides resented union. Pennsylvania and Delaware shared an appointed governor until the Revolution. The name Delaware is derived from the Sir Thomas West.

8) New Hampshire (1638) – named or the English county of Hampshire.

The New Hampshire region was included in a series of grants made by the English crown to the Englishman John Mason and others during the 1620s. A fishing and trading settlement was established in 1623, and in 1629 the name New Hampshire, after the English county of Hampshire, was applied to a grant for a region between the Merrimack and Piscataqua rivers. New Hampshire soldiers played a very active part fighting for Great Britain in the French and Indian Wars from 1689 to 1763.

9) North Carolina (1653).

Following the attempts by Raleigh and others to colonize the coastal regions in the 1580s under patents from Queen Elizabeth I, the region remained Indian territory for decades. A grant by King Charles I in 1629 for the lands south of Virginia brought the term Carolina into being, but no permanent settlement was made until farmers and traders from Virginia moved into the Albemarle Sound area in the 1650s. This resulted in a grant from Charles II in 1663 that created Carolina.

10) South Carolina (1663).

11) New Jersey (1664) – named for the English island of Jersey.

The English under the command of the Duke of York took control of the region from the Dutch in 1664. In 1676 the province was divided into East Jersey and West Jersey, the former going to the Englishman Sir George Carteret and the latter to a group of Quakers.

12) Pennsylvania (1682) – named for the great British Admiral Sir William Penn, father of the founder of Pennsylvania, William Penn.

In 1681 King Charles II of England signed a charter giving the region to William Penn. Under Penn's guidance a Quaker colony was established in 1682, based on government by popular will and religious tolerance. In the century that followed, the Indians increasingly resisted the expansion of British settlements. Much of the fighting during the fourth French and Indian War (1754-63) took place in Pennsylvania.

In 1682 Penn sent his cousin William Markham to take charge of affairs of government and also to lay out the city Penn named Philadelphia, city of "brotherly love," the name symbolizing his idealistic concepts. From England, Penn wrote in 1681 asking that "the Rivers and Creeks be sounded on my side of the Delaware River . . . in order to settle a great Towne, and be sure to make your choice where it is most navigable, high, dry, and healthy." He wanted every house to be placed in the middle of its own plot to provide ground about it "that it may be a greene Country Towne, which will never be burnt, and always be wholesome." Penn arrived in 1682 but had little chance to enjoy his city. He was forced to travel to England in 1684 and was unable to return until 1699. By then, Philadelphia was a flourishing town with many shops and trading houses, as well as several hundred dwellings and about 10,000 people clustered close to the riverfront. Penn's governor declared the city already was the equal of New York "in trade and riches." Penn's policies throughout the colony of religious toleration and the right of the people to take part in the government, in addition to growing prosperity, soon began to attract thousands of English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish settlers, and most came by way of Philadelphia. Philadelphia by the 1770s had grown to at least 30,000 people in the central city, and it was the third most important city in the British Empire, overshadowed only by Liverpool and London.

13) Georgia (1732) – named in honour of King George II of England.

Originally a part of the Carolina grant, Georgia was granted to James Edward Oglethorpe, the great English general and philanthropist, by King George II in 1732. Oglethorpe settled the area in 1733.

Your apparent understanding of the history of guerrilla tactics is the most glaringly inaccurate aspect of your knowledge of history…….in fact, from what you have said above, your knowledge of British and American history equates to Munchkin-land wish-fulfilment.

At the end of the day, it was the discipline and regimentation of the British army that gave the European imperial powers the overall advantage, however hostile the environment. That said, the British army and the British American Colonial Militia were involved in four French and Indian Wars prior to the revolution……the first French and Indian war took place nearly one hundred years prior to the revolution….the British colonists and the British army gained valuable wilderness and guerrilla skills over a century before the revolution took place. The rebellious British American colonists would not have triumphed in the War of Independence without the aid of France and its other European allies…..the Dutch input alone was instrumental in the rebellious British American Colonists’ success.

Your apparent belief that somehow North America was the toughest test of pioneering resolve and ingenuity is frankly rather naïve, and anyway, the British remained in Canada, and the King or Queen of England remains its constitutional head to this day. And, Canada was just like the USA….wilderness, severe climatic extremes, Indians and all the rest…..post-revolution North America remained primarily British…..British pioneers continued to flood into British Canada and the fledgling United States. The 19th century ‘wild west’ was full of British pioneers (quite apart from the fact that most of the American pioneers were of British descent anyway), but you don’t get to hear many Cornish, Scouse, Cockney, Geordie or Brummie accents in movie westerns.

The British people were colonizing often far harsher and more hostile environments than North America. Africa, with its contrasts of scorching deserts, often fearsome indigenous peoples, and endless danger-filled jungles was no walk in the park. The same was true of the Indian sub-continent and the wilderness of the Pacific islands. New Zealand was full of dangers, not least the aborigines who were at least the equal of the North American Indian when it came to those good old ‘wilderness skills’. The people of the Indian sub-continent were not only superb wilderness fighters, but also well-drilled armies of infantry, cavalry and battle-elephants…..and yet the British still managed to rule India, the jewel in the imperial crown, for nearly 200 years.

Before the French allied themselves with the rebellious British American colonists, the British crown was winning the War of Independence…..though the rebellious colonial militia did enjoy enough success to convince the French that theirs’ was not a completely lost cause.

I concede that the terrorist activities of the ‘Swamp Fox’ did contribute in a small way to the eventual surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown, but of far more importance was the presence of French ground forces during the Siege of Yorktown, and of even more importance was the French fleet’s blockade of Cornwallis that prevented reinforcements and supplies from reaching the surrounded British army. The French fleet’s ability to maintain the blockade was as a direct result of Spain’s assault on the British Mediterranean stronghold of Gibraltar that diverted an important part of the British fleet.

Interestingly, Spain did not formally ally itself with the rebellious British American colonists, but merely declared war on Great Britain, as did the Dutch…..many other European nations, including Russia, Sweden, Denmark, and Prussia also engaged in hostilities against the British Empire at the time…..so, what was initially a civil war within the British Empire quickly mushroomed into a world war with virtually every European imperial power pitted against Great Britain. Indeed, at one point Spain and France were on the verge of invading England itself! The American War of Independence even triggered off global conflict between the British and French in India.

The French, Spanish, Dutch and the rest did not ally themselves with the rebellious British colonists because they were pro-American, but because they were anti-British[/b]. After Britain defeated France, Spain and Holland in the Great war for the Empire in 1763, in which Britain gained control of North America, the Indian sub-Continent, the Caribbean, and parts of Africa and South America, the decaying imperial forces of France, Spain and the Dutch couldn’t resist the opportunity to strike back at England.

Nevertheless, losing the American colonies turned out to be a rather minor setback in Britain’s imperial ambitions. Just one year after Yorktown, the Royal Navy defeated the French and Spanish fleets in the Caribbean, thus regaining much of the West Indies from the Dutch, and the formal recognition of the independence of the United States in 1783, saw Britain strengthen its hold on Canada and the Indian sub-continent (what is now India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh), and it wouldn’t be long before Britain founded such great nations as Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and would dominate the world’s oceans (by 1900, over one half of the ships afloat on the world’s oceans were flying the Union Jack or the flag of a member nation of the British Empire), and would dominate China by winning the Opium Wars, would defeat the Japanese and then build them their navy, and would gain great influence over Argentina.

And, whether the USA had remained within the British Empire or had gone its own way, by 1776 the dream of King Charles II of England to colonize the Atlantic coast of North America with Englishmen had already been realized.

I strongly suggest you pay a visit to your local library….but, rather than looking for historical knowledge in fictional penny-dreadfuls and politiclally-correct movies, make a bee-line for the history section….but remember, don’t just rely on one source; go for three or four books on the same subject….even the most objective of historians has a unique perspective.

Anyhow, I am thoroughly looking forward to watching THE PATRIOT, and hearing Williams' well received score.

Thank you again Howard L for giving me the opportunity to discuss this most fascinating of subjects.

and your point was?

My latest post here really follows on from Howard L’s comments about the British American colonists’ use of ‘innovate’ guerrilla tactics (sic). On top of that, there is the general discussion about how THE PATRIOT makes an absolute nonsense of history, and the effect this has on the public’s perception of the past. With movies like this, it is very easy for people to forget that it was the British people who started America…..by the 1680’s almost all of the British American colonies had been granted a royal charter from the English crown, thus becoming part of the British Empire. Not only was it British colonists who founded the New England and Atlantic coast colonies, but it was the might of the British army that protected the colonists from hostile Indians and the French in the 150 years prior to the revolution. By the time of the revolution the British American colonies could stand on their own two feet, they didn't need the protection of the British army any longer. Yes, America started in New England and the Eastern British colonies…..even after the War of Independence the east was the engine room of America’s ascendancy….civilization spread from the east, and not from the Spanish or French south.

Here are some excerpts from a very interesting recent report by Andrew O’Hagan in the British newspaper The Times.

The article is titled ‘ THE PATRIOT’S crude disinformation, cliché and sentimentality make a mockery of a complex war’.

I was once trying to buy a newspaper in New York when I was accosted by an old lady wearing binoculars. “Are you Scottish?” she asked. “I am,” I said “but I can’t help it”. “Oh my,” she went on, “did you see BRAVEHEART? You must be so proud.” Of course, I smiled politely, and cursed Mel Gibson under my breath. This is what happens now: people get their version of history from politically-correct cranks in Hollywood, and all you can do is count your small change and wish you hadn’t been born.

Many are still angry at the submarine drama U-571, a gripping drama based on the bogus idea that Americans found the Enigma Machine.

THE PATRIOT is the kind of film that could only make sense to a confederacy of dunces, and has taken great pains to be stupid. As with BRAVEHEART, Gibson gets the girl, he only did it (rebelled) to protect his family, the English are bastards anyway, and here’s another speech about the Rights of Man or whatever they’re called.

And, hey PRESTO! Here’s to another few generations of children made thick by the pugnacious simplicity of a Gibson movie. Director Roland Emmerich couldn’t have made himself plainer when he said, “It’s a good thing to do because otherwise these movies become history lessons and nobody will watch them at all. Especially in America.”

The American revolutionaries may have been justified in their rebellion, but they were often vile in their methods and myopic in their vision. The one black guy in THE PATRIOT is a cliché beyond endurance. He decides to fights on the Americans side to be free, and, at the end of the film, we see him and his brothers working bucolically (for free, and for freedom) on Gibson’s new house, as if the revolution had made a paradise, as if the eloquence of the Constitution had been brought instantly to life. For children who know nothing of history this makes an absolute mockery of the struggles that were to follow for the fledgling United States. American independence did not condemn or abolish the slave trade – it would take a Civil War to do that, and a Civil Rights movement to make that plausible, and all this long after the British themselves had outlawed slavery. Don’t even get me started on the native American Indians – they don’t even get a look-in.

THE PATRIOT is an example of the historical movie as whitewash. It is fuelled by endless cliched platitudes about liberty, by crass sentimentality, and by crude disinformation about the superior nature of white America. It’s sickly ‘Stars and Stripes’ propaganda, for people who like their appalling lies sown up with shiny politically-correct sequins.

In all of this, we might forget that the American War of Independence was an honest war and a complex one, one that unleashed devils just as it vanquished them, one that inscribed intolerance just as it inscribed brotherhood.

The redcoats in THE PATRIOT are worse than the Nazis in any recent war picture: they hang old people from trees and burn children in churches; they contravene every rule of war in their effort to hold the colonies for the British monarchy. Benjamin Martin is the kind of hero Mel Gibson loves to play: whiter then white, rising above history with his love of liberty and his fellow man.

But there’s a good English word for all this: BULLS.H.I.T.

Must we allow the self-cleansing political psycho-babble of the present day to snuff out the ambiguities of history?

That concludes Andrew O’Hagan’s report.…..yes, BRAVEHEART made many Scotsmen feel ashamed to be Scottish, and the Scottish part of me squirmed a little at BRAVEHEART’s crass and childish bastardization of history.

Let me make one thing clear. I believe, on the whole, that the British American colonists were justified in their rebellion…..all I am attempting to do is describe who the rebellious colonists actually were…….that they were British, and that the War of Independence was an extremely complex affair, with good and bad on both sides. Let me put it this way, the British authorities and the rebellious British American colonists were both right and they were both wrong. Both sides of the conflict did bad things, and both sides were to differing degrees justified in their aims.

However, at the end of the day, I do believe that the rebellious British American colonists were more right than the British authorities. And, as MWRuger even-handedly pointed out here a couple of weeks ago, had the British authorities triumphed, there would possibly have been decades of discontent, bloodshed, and conflict in what did become the United States of America. One only has to look at the lengths the British Empire had to go to in South Africa to maintain control to realize that once the American Revolution had begun, independence was the best possible outcome for both sides.

The British actions in 1870’s South Africa are a chilling reminder of what happens when an imperial power asserts its authority when a sizeable proportion of the population revolts. In South Africa, the British had spent many years defeating the indigenous Zulu warriors. These Zulu warriors were just as resourceful, fearsome and driven as any North American Indian, and the terrain was just as hostile as North America’s, and the British found these warriors stern opponents. And yet, through a mixture of disciplined infantry and cavalry engagements, shrewd diplomacy, and a good deal of guerrilla tactics, the British Empire overwhelmed the warring tribesmen, just as they had done in North America and India one hundred years before. The conquering of South Africa opened the wilderness up for British and Dutch pioneers, just as the British, French and US armies had done in North America.

However, the Dutch tended to keep to themselves, and their colonies tended toward self-determination. They weren’t anti-British, but they did resent living within the British Empire. At first the British authorities accepted this, just as they had done with the French in Quebec, but, then suddenly huge deposits of precious metals were found in the Dutch (or Boer) districts. This immediately led to a change of heart on the side of the British authorities, who demanded the bulk of the benefit from the Dutch colonists’ mines. Shades of 1776, but this time with a difference. 1890’s South Africa had a far larger proportion of non-Britishers than 1770’s North America. The Dutch rebelled, and through the skilled employment of guerrilla tactics, the term ‘commando’ was first used to describe the Dutch wilderness fighters, inflicted several stinging defeats on the British Imperial army. Nevertheless, the British had their own wilderness fighters and returned fire, but skirmishes between opposing colonial militia would not lead to resolution……the British wanted complete control of the diamond mines, and would stop at nothing to get it. 500,000 imperial troops were brought to South Africa from all corners of the British Empire, especially Australia, Ireland and Canada. As in America, it was a lot easier for a guerrilla group to strike on an army than the reverse.

There then followed one of the darkest periods in British history….the Boer War of 1899….these were tough, harsh times. Yes, the British won…..but what a price to pay. The resolute Dutch would not give in easily, and the British employed brutal scorched-earth tactics…..they burnt and destroyed every vestige of Dutch settlement, but rather than murdering the Dutch, they impounded them, by the thousand, in concentration camps…..yes, the British invented those…..not by design, but the creation of these camps was devastating. Disease accounted for thousands of impounded Dutch deaths, there was public outcry back home in England. However, by this time, Dutch surrender was inevitable, and the British established control over South Africa. Ironically, with fifteen years, South Africa would gain home-rule within the British Empire, and by the 1920’s it had gained complete independence from the British Empire. It would not be until the 1990s that South Africa would rejoin the British Commonwealth.

So, with the Boer War in mind, perhaps the American War of Independence was resolved satisfactorily…..especially when you consider that as an independent country, the USA would one day become the greatest nation in the history of the world. All I am saying is, please don’t forget that it was the British who started America, and despite 1776 and 1812, the bond between the United States and Great Britain is growing ever stronger…..after all, our two nations share so much common ground and similarities. Great Britain has a lot more in common with the USA than it does with its European neighbours. Indeed, it is American culture that is now influencing Great Britain….Great Britain is continuing to be Americanized, and that is something that I wholeheartedly welcome.

Are we slowly discovering the temp track, something even JOHN WILLIAMS can't get away from??

PeterK

So, I ask myself, are movie composers in it for the money, or are they in it for creativity? Shamefully, I would have to suggest the former. Why would anyone else take a project that must be completed within weeks and service it with music they've written many time before? In this case, the composer isn't creatively challenged - he doesn't even have time to CHOOSE to be creative. But then again, someone's got to do it, and the studios aren't moving the release date because some composer "needs more time to write the score."

It makes me wonder, why don't more composers make their names in film, build a following, and then write a composition on their own, without the limits of time, without being subject to a picture or story? If they want to really show us what they're made of, this is it, as the composition is ALL them... perhaps it's too much of a challenge? Of course, folks like Williams, Goldenthal and others who've composed their own pieces excluded here (although I'd like to hear more).

PeterK

You’ve raised an issue that has puzzled me for many years.

It seems to be the exception rather than the rule that the film composer applies his skills to writing stand-alone music. One would think that the reverse would be commonplace.

I find it extraordinary that so few film composers, as far as we know, create music away from the restricting influence of cinema. Virtually all of today’s leading film composers are extraordinarily skilled in the art of writing music, and yet they seem content to have the full realization of their potential stifled by the confines of the movie. It’s rather like a painter with the skills of Michelangelo going through life restricting his output to the painting of railings.

Perhaps that is an unfair comparison, because I do regard film music as an important artform…..it is just that film music is part of a bigger artform….the movie itself.

Film music and music written for stand-alone consumption….are two completely different animals, and as such, the yardstick by which one form is judged should not be applied to the other.

Film music is important…..when married to the images to which it is intended to augment.

Stand-alone music is important….period.

If I were blessed with the ability to compose music, I would have no hesitation in working on film. However, personally speaking, I would feel compelled to attempt to realize the full flowering of my musical creativity by composing stand-alone works.

Some have argued that the film composer doesn’t have the time to composer stand-alone works, even if he wanted to.

In answer to that, Gustav Mahler was one of the few great composers who was not born into great privilege. He strove to conquer the odds against him, and from humble beginnings became one of the greatest conductors and opera-house directors in history. Despite bouts of ill-health, a tempestuous private-life, and a gruelling work-schedule, Mahler still found the time to indulge his one true desire….to compose. Mainly during summer holidays, Mahler created some of the most profound musical works in existence, perhaps this composer’s unprivileged upbringing fuelled his resolve to fulfil his dreams.

Having said all of that, many film composers are possibly best suited to writing film music…..they may require the inspiration of the images to which they are composing and the benefit of being allowed to be unoriginal….in other words, the confines of the movie provides such a composer with the conditions that most suit him. Other film composers are probably equally disposed to film and stand-alone composing. And, some film composers would probably be best suited to writing stand-alone music.

But, at the end of the day, the financial reward for writing for film is massive, and no-one can argue with any artist’s desire to make money…..and yet, wouldn’t you find the time to write stand-alone music.

Not only that, with all of the contacts, the experience, the knowledge, the access to orchestras and recording studios, the film composer is in a great position to produce popular songs as well as symphonic compositions.

The opportunities that the movie provides the film composer are extraordinary. A Captive Audience of millions world-wide is exposed to the film composer’s music by watching the movie, even though many of the audience will not consciously recognize the fact. However, Horner’s TITANIC song ‘My Heart Will Go On’, just shows the potential fame and success the film composer can enjoy through the creation of popular songs. Why not write songs and symphonies away from movies as well? Though some composers have, occasionally with success, it is amazing that they haven’t more often, considering the privileged position that the film composer is in.

As you say Peter, even composers such as Williams, who have written stand-alone works, don’t do it often enough. Williams’ stand-alone works provide much harder evidence of what the composer is potentially capable of than any film score.

It is one thing to create a memorable theme, or to effectively musically reinforce a scene in a movie….it is quite another to create music that is able to stand on its own two feet.

I love film music and I love stand-alone music, but, to me, they are quite different. It doesn’t trouble me how often Horner uses ‘Invention’, or whether or not Goldsmith continually creates original work (which he doesn’t anyway)…..as long as the music works for the movie, whether it is original or not, that is all that is important. Thus, despite Horner’s constant repetition and plagiarism, I believe him to be the best film composer of the past decade. Even though Goldsmith has finally taken to repeating his own work on a regular basis (and even copying others (as in his use of Bernstein in LA CONFIDENTIAL)), I still don’t think he serves his movies with anywhere near the same degree of success as Horner, or maybe fifty other current film composers.

But, that does not mean to say that he wouldn’t make a great composer of stand-alone music. Goldsmith’s experience, knowledge and obvious instinctive ability would point to a great deal of success as a stand-alone composer, possibly more so than say, Zimmer. Unfortunately, there is no great demand (hence, little remuneration) for stand-alone concert-hall works at present….but there is plenty of demand for film work.

The trouble is, I firmly believe that the composer who works on film is only ever scraping the surface of his potential creativity. Film music is necessarily superficial, anything more from music written for film is neither necessary, nor is it always desirable. How can writing music for film come anywhere near to satisfying the composer’s urge to create?

The composer of stand-alone music does not benefit from the crutch that the images of a movie provides the film composer.

Nevertheless, film music, when heard in its proper context (within the movie), can be just as moving, exciting and emotionally satisfying as any music intended for stand-alone consumption.

It is quite easy to see why the makers of THE PATRIOT chose, in the end, to fictionalize the Gibson and Isaacs characters, and the representation of the War of Independence as a whole; for any attempt to base the main characters of THE PATRIOT on real people would have undermined the filmmakers ‘right/good (American) versus wrong/evil (British)’ interpretation of a conflict that was anything but clear-cut.

There is a right old ding-dong battle going on in the British press at the moment. Not only has a member of Tony Blair’s government expressed Marxist opinion, by linking English hooliganism to a ‘misplaced’ notion of nationality – the ‘baggage of Empire’ as he called it, but an editorial by Simon Jeffers in The Daily Mail newspaper, in which THE PATRIOT (what it represents, and the movie itself) was mercilessly ripped apart, received a limp and rather laughable response by Jason Isaacs (the British actor who plays Colonel Tavington/Tarleton in THE PATRIOT), who had the temerity to defend the filmmakers right to represent Tavington/Tarleton in the inaccurate way they did. Firstly, many newspapers rounded on the member of government who referred to English hooliganism as ‘the baggage of Empire’, most notably Paul Johnson, who gave a glowing two page article on why the British Empire should be remembered as (and the Commonwealth continues to be) a positive vehicle by which mankind progressed, as a whole, from fractured clusters of primitive and unsophisticated communities, to the modern and successful ‘global community’ that we all enjoy today. Secondly, Simon Jeffers exploded Isaacs naïve and out of touch letter in another blistering editorial assault on everything THE PATRIOT represents.

In today’s Mail on Sunday newspaper, a descendent of Tarleton himself has joined the escalating wave or criticism of Hollywood’s politically-correct and anti-British output.

The headline reads “HOLLYWOOD LIES ARE TURNING OUR FAMILY’S HERO INTO A MONSTER”.

The article continues - Hollywood has been rewriting history again; this time in THE PATRIOT, which claims to represent the American War of Independence. The film shows the British as sadistic war criminals and the British American colonists as heroic, but kindly freedom fighters. Chief among the villains is Colonel Tavington, based on former Liverpool Member of Parliament General Sir Banastre Tarleton, who behaves like a Nazi until his death at the hands of Benjamin Martin, played by Mel Gibson.

More than 150 years after his death, the descendants of General Sir Banastre Tarleton are on the warpath over their forebear’s tattered reputation.

Standing in the National Gallery beside a portrait of his great uncle, Christopher Tarleton Fagan says through gritted teeth: “If Mel Gibson had strolled in here and hurled mud at this portrait, the family couldn’t be angrier”.

Gibson, a New York-born Australian with an apparently massive chip on his shoulder, has certainly flown the anti-English flag on screen before. But THE PATRIOT stretches the boundaries of historical fact even further than his previous GALLIPOLI and even BRAVEHEART.

“Colonel Tavington/Tarleton is depicted as an appalling butcher, not only of opponents but of women and children too,” argues Mr Tarleton Fagan. “There is not one shred of evidence to support the deeds which the film makes out he committed. American historians have been quick to confirm this.”

The church-burning incident is a well-known anachronism. It actually took place in 1944, when vengeful Germans stormed the village of Oradour-sur-Glane in France. But why let facts spoil a good story?

Besides, as Gibson said: “I thought it was time we gave the Germans a break”. The film’s director, incidentally, is a German.

The historian Dr Alastair Massie, of the National Army Museum, said “The truth is American patriots were more brutal than those loyal to the crown. They revelled in the tactics of terrorism. Typical of these are the rebels who won a battle on the border of the Carolinas – and then slaughtered British soldiers who were wounded or who had surrendered.”

Strangely, Emmerich hasn’t found room for that episode in his 167-minute film.

The movie’s climax is a fight between Gibson and the colonel….naturally Mel kills his opponent. But in real life, after George III’s forces surrendered to Washington, Tarleton returned home to a hero’s welcome.

His portrait was painted by Sir Joshua Reynolds and Thomas Gainsborough, he became a general, an MP, a baronet and Member of the Order of the Bath and he carried over his dashing ways into the boudoir – one of his conquests was the 18-year-old consort of the Prince of Wales.

Tarleton’s entry in the Encyclopaedia Americana calls him ’an outstanding cavalry leader’. The author, an American historian, adds ‘Tarleton had a reputation for barbaric cruelty that may not have been entirely justified. His troops – not well disciplined – were colonial loyalists…..bitter at the rebels’.

But you won’t find a hint of this caveat in THE PATRIOT.

That article was published in today’s Mail on Sunday.

It is true that Tarleton has the reputation of being the most hated British officer to serve during the Revolution. Though he was not as bad as reported, "Bloody Ban" made himself a useful propaganda figure for his enemies.

He was born into a wealthy merchant family in Liverpool in 1754. His father was a sea trader who made most of his money in sugar and slaves; highly respected in his community, the elder Tarleton had served several terms as Lord Mayor of the city.

Early in 1776 Banastre volunteered for service in America, crossing the Atlantic in time to participate in the unsuccessful first siege of Charleston. By the Autumn of 1776 he was in New York, attracting the attention of superiors by his daring and enterprise. After he helped to capture the American general Charles Lee, which was considered a great coup for the British, Tarleton was promoted to Captain of the Liverpool Royal Volunteers. Before the year was out he was promoted again to Lieutenant Colonel and placed in charge of the British Cavalry. His rise was spectacular, his bearing and appearance probably boosted him up the ladder, though short, he was well-proportioned and very muscular, red-headed and dark-eyed, with fine manners and a charm that appealed greatly to women.

His cavalry and infantry command, was composed mainly of American Loyalists from New York and Pennsylvania, who wore Green jackets to distinguish them as a loyalist regiment. Tarleton took his responsibilities seriously, drilling the Legion until it was one of the most effective cavalry units in the British army. After serving with distinction in all the major engagements in New York and Pennsylvania, he was one of the officers selected to sail down the coast with Generals Clinton and Cornwallis for another try at Charleston.

In February of 1780 the troops and cavalry landed at Edisto Bay, about 30 miles south of the city, and Tarleton showed his resourcefulness, and ruthlessness, in seizing horses wherever he could find them. His job was to seal off supply routes to the city once the siege was underway, a task he performed brilliantly. His style, which the American defenders soon learned to recognize, was quick movement, relentless pacing, and head-on, slashing attacks.

At Monck's Corner in April Tarleton broke the last cavalry resistance and Charleston was won for the British. When the city capitulated on May 12, Tarleton's Legion was sent up the coast to secure Georgetown as a British outpost. Then his commander, Lord Cornwallis, received word of a regiment of Virginia Continentals still at large, and sent Tarleton to catch it if he could. The Virginians, numbering about 350, were commanded by Colonel Abraham Buford. They had been marching to the defence of Charleston, but when word reached them of the city's fall, they sensibly turned around and headed north. They had a ten-day lead on the British Legion but Tarleton was a relentless driver when on the chase, and quickly closed the gap between them. On the last stretch of the pursuit, he and his vanguard covered 105 miles in 54 hours at a pace that killed horses and exhausted men. Late in the afternoon on May 29 they caught up with the Virginians near a settlement called the Waxhaws, on the border between North and South Carolina. Buford had already refused a demand for surrender, so Tarleton attacked without ceremony, or even without waiting for his stragglers to catch up. Though outnumbered more than two to one, the Legion hit Buford's regiment so hard that a flag of surrender soon went up from the Americans.

As an onlooker explained, Tarleton’s horse was shot and pinned him underneath when it fell. The Legion, thinking their commander wounded under a flag of truce, were so enraged that they attacked Buford's men again, cutting and hacking every live body they could reach, even those bodies who were kneeling on the ground with their hands up. Patriots claimed that their enemies attacked under orders from Tarleton himself, who didn't want to bother with taking prisoners. This obviously was not the case, but the slaughter went on for at least fifteen minutes, during which Tarleton gained the reputation he would never lose: from then on, he would be known as "Bloody Ban" or "The Butcher." "Tarleton's Quarter" became a rallying cry for patriots throughout the south, who would use it more than once to justify some of their own butchery.

Cornwallis used the British Cavalry as shock troops to harry and demoralize patriot resistance; Tarleton engaged in some of the most successful guerrilla tactics of the American Revolution.

On August 19, Tarleton scored a brilliant victory at Fishing Creek against General Thomas Sumter. Following another breakneck chase through simmering heat, he caught up with Sumter after the general had set up camp and was taking it easy. Outnumbered again, this time four to one, Tarleton charged into the encampment and broke up the army so effectively it was thought they would never assemble again.

Cornwallis undoubtedly intended to make good use of Tarleton’s cavalry when he began his invasion of North Carolina in late September, but Tarleton was suddenly struck down with malaria, or possibly yellow fever, and confined to bed for at least three weeks. The British army lingered in Charlotte until mid-October, when news of Major Patrick Ferguson's disastrous defeat at King's Mountain forced Cornwallis to reconsider his plans. He retreated back to South Carolina and put the British Legion to work keeping supply lines open. It was at this time that Tarleton encountered Francis Marion, the ‘Swamp Fox’.

When recovered, Tarleton continued his raids with a reorganized British Cavalry, and chased detachments of Greene's army all the way to the Virginia border, and took part in the ferociously-fought Guilford Courthouse battle on March 15, during which he took a bullet in his right hand and subsequently lost two fingers. In May the British army sailed from Wilmington to Virginia, where Cornwallis again used the Tarleton’s cavalry as a strike force. On one of his raids, Tarleton captured several members of the Virginia government, a bag which almost included Thomas Jefferson, but Jefferson was warned of the raiders' approach and made his escape with scarcely ten minutes to spare. It would have been an interesting confrontation.

However, when Cornwallis withdrew to the coast to fortify Yorktown, Tarleton was put in charge of Gloucester Point, an outpost just across the river. He was on his way back from a foraging expedition when his detachment was set upon by a band of French cavalry led by the Duc de Lauzun. In the scrap, Tarleton was pinned under a falling horse and rescued by members of his cavalry who surrounded him and fought off the French until he could work himself free. Though no one knew it yet, that was the end of Tarleton's fighting days.

On October 15 Cornwallis surrendered the entire British army to Washington and the French and the war was essentially over. Though Tarleton found himself shut out of the round of dinner parties between British, American and French officers afterward, on his return to London in January of 1782, he was the toast of the city and soon counted the young Prince of Wales among his friends.

Tarleton's home town of Liverpool elected him to seven terms of Parliament, and he retained his officer's commission, and he became a baronet. At the age of 45 he settled down, with a good marriage and a series of appointments to army posts. He died a major general and Knight of the Bath in 1833, having outlived most of his contemporaries.

This great British hero even had a poem inscribed to him - "Ode to Valour” by Mary Robinson.

TRANSCENDENT VALOUR !­godlike Pow'r!
Lord of the dauntless breast, and stedfast mien !
Who, rob'd in majesty sublime,
Sat in thy eagle-wafted car,
And led the hardy sons of war,
With head erect, and eye serene,
Amidst the arrowy show'r;
When unsubdued, from clime to clime,
YOUNG AMMON taught exulting Fame
O'er earth's vast space to sound the glories of thy name.

ILLUSTRIOUS VALOUR ! from whose glance,
Each recreant passion shrinks dismay'd;
To whom benignant Heaven consign'd,
All that can elevate the mind;
'Tis THINE, in radiant worth array'd,
To rear thy glitt'ring helmet high,
And with intrepid front, defy
Stern FATE's uplifted arm, and desolating lance,
When, from the CHAOS of primeval Night,
This wond'rous ORB first sprung to light;
And pois'd amid the sphery clime
By strong Attraction's pow'r sublime,
Its whirling course began;
With sacred spells encompass'd round,
Each element observ'd its bound,
Earth's solid base, huge promontories bore;
Curb'd OCEAN roar'd, clasp'd by the rocky shore;
And midst metallic fires, translucent rivers ran.

All nature own'd th'OMNIPOTENT's command !
Luxuriant blessings deck'd the vast domain;
HE bade the budding branch expand;
And from the teeming ground call'd forth the cherish'd grain;
Salubrious springs from flinty caverns drew;
Enamell'd verdure o'er the landscape threw;
HE taught the scaly host to glide
Sportive, amidst the limpid tide;
HIS breath sustain'd the EAGLE's wing;
With vocal sounds bade hills and valleys ring;
Then, with his Word supreme, awoke to birth
THE HUMAN FORM SUBLIME ! THE SOV'REIGN LORD OF EARTH !

VALOUR ! thy pure and sacred flame
Diffus'd its radiance o'er his mind;
From THEE he learnt the fiery STEED to tame;
And with a flow'ry band, the speckled PARD to bind;
Guarded by Heaven's eternal shield,
He taught each living thing to yield;
Wond'ring, yet undismay'd he stood,
To mark the SUN's fierce fires decay;
Fearless, he saw the TYGER play;
While at his stedfast gaze, the LION crouch'd subdued !

From age to age on FAME's bright roll,
Thy glorious attributes have shone !
Thy influence soothes the soldier's pain,
Whether beneath the freezing pole,
Or basking in the torrid zone,
Upon the barren thirsty plain.
Led by thy firm and daring hand,
O'er wastes of snow, o'er burning sand,
INTREPID TARLETON chas'd the foe,
And smil'd in DEATH's grim face, and brav'd his with'ring blow !

When late on CALPE's rock, stern VICT'RY stood,
Hurling swift vengeance o'er the bounding flood;
Each winged bolt illum'd a flame,
IBERIA's vaunting sons to tame;
While o'er the dark unfathom'd deep,
The blasts of desolation blew,
Fierce lightnings hov'ring round the frowning steep,
'Midst the wild waves their fatal arrows threw;
Loud roar'd the cannon's voice with ceaseless ire,
While the vast BULWARK glow'd,­a PYRAMID OF FIRE !

Then in each BRITON's gallant breast,
Benignant VIRTUE shone confest !
When Death spread wide his direful reign,
And shrieks of horror echoed o'er the main;
Eager they flew, their wretched foes to save
From the dread precincts of a whelming grave;
THEN, VALOUR was thy proudest hour !
THEN, didst thou, like a radiant GOD,
Check the keen rigours of th' avenging rod,
And with soft MERCY's hand subdue the scourge of POW'R ! !

When fading, in the grasp of Death,
ILLUSTRIOUS WOLFE on earth's cold bosom lay;
His anxious soldiers thronging round,
Bath'd with their tears each gushing wound;
As on his pallid lip the fleeting breath,
In faint, and broken accents, stole away,
Loud shouts of TRIUMPH fill'd the skies !
To Heaven he rais'd his gratelul eyes;
"'TIS VIC'TRY'S VOICE," the Hero cried !

"I THANK THEE, BOUNTEOUS HEAVEN,"­then smiling, DIED !
TARLETON, thy mind, above the POET's praise
Asks not the labour'd task of flatt'ring lays !
As the rare GEM with innate lustre glows,
As round the OAK the gadding Ivy grows,
So shall THY WORTH, in native radiance live !
So shall the MUSE spontaneous incense give !
Th' HISTORIC page shall prove a lasting shrine,
Where Truth and Valour shall THY laurels twine;
Where,with thy name, recording FAME shall blend
The ZEALOUS PATRIOT, and the FAITHFUL FRIEND !

it's a good thing you don't know how to compose; I don't think there enough hours in the day or cds available to record the amount of music you would be writing (judging from your posts).

Just kidding.

In fact, I find the majority of your posts quite informative and thanks for sharing. Although I do not agree with your opinion about Goldsmith, but you knew that already.

Cheers,

I think there are perhaps two major reasons that today's film composers rarely if ever compose stand-alone works.

Reason #1: Most music written today for the concert halls tend to me modernistic in nature. The skill or tendencies to write romantic styled melodies has been abolished in favor of the atonal, experimentally and complex sounds. If you, as a composer, wish to dwell in the romantic era, film music is pretty much the only choice you have.

Many, if not all, of the stand-alone works of Williams and Goldsmith are pointing towards the modernistic ara. Which there isn't a great audience for these days. If you choose to write actually melodies these days in a concert hall setting, you are viewed as inferior in the classical composing arena.

Reason #2: According to John Williams, it is much more difficult and a greater challenge to write for film than to create stand-alone works. To combine the imagination and interpretation of the composer with the vision of the director is extremely challenging and in the end very rewarding (Williams, not me). To compose classical work stictly from the composers mind is rather easy compared to film composing.

Now, again, this is what John Williams said, paraphrased of course. Whether this holds true, only the many talented composers on this board may be able to answer.