Jeron and I were listening to some Goldsmith the other day and I made a comment that Goldsmith was ripping off himself. (QB VII and The Mummy) Jeron promptly told me that that was called “style.” This kind of angered me because why is it that people like James Horner get bashed up the wall and others like Jerry Goldsmith and John Williams don’t get hounded. So, I guess that’s what this topic is all about, the composers who rip/copy/steal from themselves and are not called on it by us, the fans.

The floor is yours.

--Kyppy
Writer/Editor

NP: Final Fantasy IX Suite (Hey, I have to get ready )

I'll just say that Horner's stuck in a rut.

about style:

Jerry Goldsmith's big, expansive themes from the 90s from Powder to First Contact to The Edge. I mean, they all sound the same in style, but they're all different melodies.

it's also not uncommon for composers to re-use little motifs in their scores. Hell, Mahler did it. The opening trumpet fanfare that opens the 5th appears in the 4th symphony.

John Williams doses this too. You can hear the first bits of DoTF in his Fury score; a little ditty in the strings in track 9, I think -- to use this as an example.

With Horner, it's not a simple cases of motivic lifts. He uses the same stinkin' melody over and over again. What you hear in Bobby Fischer you hear in Titanic, Apollo 13, Braveheart, etc.

well, it's late and I'm having trouble thinking coherently right now, so, off to bed in a bit.

As for Horner, I really don't know what to say. He's a brilliant modern composer, but I just don't understand why he'd use an entire theme over and over.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quill:
As for Goldsmith...I think he is fantastic. But the themes for Air Force One and ST: First Contact sound just a little too similar.

---

I think Quill just resumed this entire thread: composers like Williams, Goldsmith and others indeed compose some SIMILAR themes or cues. It is like Mozart. You can recognize his compostions almost all the time, but you cannot say they are equals.

As for Horner, Zimmer and others. Well, they simple put the same notes in other scores. Like in BICENTENIAL MEN when Robin Williams is traveling around and the BRAVEHEART music starts to play. The same melody, the same arrangement, the same pace...

In my opinion (I could be technically incorrect) there is a brief moment in that track which sounds only "similar." I think if your were to compare the primary of themes of Braveheart and Bicentennial Man, relative to Air Force One vs. First Contact, Goldsmith's work sounds more "similar," if you will.

Kyp, this is fun! I'm glad you started this thread.

Jeron

Kyp: I think "copying" is used for Horner while "style" is used for Goldsmith simply because with Goldsmith, you can always hear STYLE, but even though he sometimes writes things overly similar to his previous works, it's not like you can expect it in EVERY Goldsmith score. He writes in a certain style, and sometimes copies himself.
Horner, on the other hand, copies himself constantly. This is sometimes a good thing, sometimes not. It depends on who is hearing the score, and what their tatses are; Perfect Storm, for instance, copies from previous Horners, but I like it. Bicentennial Man, on the other hand, I dislike. With Horner, his copying is a constant; we expect it to some degree in every score he writes, and thus we take note of it when it is there. With Goldsmith, we expect style, and, because of that, we are less likely to notice an occasional copy.

NP: Medal Of Honor Underground MP3 Clip

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quill:
Andre,
Still seems oftly convenient...one composer is only similar, the other directly copies. It think that a score should be judged as a complete entity not a small portion such as your example Bicentennial Man.

---

No Quill. There's a big difference. Goldsmith wrote a SIMILAR theme to those you mentioned. Similar. One can say: "Hei... this was composed by the same guy who did THAT score, wasn't it??"

But Horner (and others) simply put THE SAME track to play, without any difference. And he does it all the time, like in TITANIC colision cue, where he just reused a cue from COURAGE UNDER FIRE. Again, the same music, just played by a differente orchestra...

Please, don't take me wrong. I like Horner. Some of his scores are close to my heart. But nowadays it seems he lost all the interest for composing anythig at least a little original. And I perfectly understand him, since he got very rich by doing this.

However....

John--I certainly intend no offense here, but while your "clarification" to Kyp may seem sound, there doesn't seem to be any logic to it--In fact, I think it echoes the basis of this post. It's always the argument of "style" over "copying".

It is almost as if one might as well switch the names "Goldsmith" and "Horner"-- Goldsmith is just as given to "copying" (which I think is too blatant a term, here) his own motifs and imitating/echoing his own themes, and I don't think that's a bad thing. But I think Horner suffers more for it (unfairly?) at the hands of fans and critics.

Odd that we get pissy when our composers adopt a style of composition that
portrays their vision of visuals and concepts like love, fear, action, etc. However,
we don’t rank on van Gogh for his repeated use of certain colors and strokes
for his notion of light. I can usually tell a Goldsmith from a Bernstein from a
Rozsa from a Horner by their orchestrations and rhythms. But bless our
great film composers because just when I think I can pigeonhole their styles,
I listen to a Powder then Planet of Apes then ST: TMP then Stagecoach...whoa
look at how the subject of the films changed the music.

Then Superman and Indy..close... then Jane Eyre...hmmm

Then Magnificent Seven and Sons of Katie Elder..close...then To Kill A Mockingbird...
so different.

For all the repeated similarities (not rip offs) Goldsmith and others may employ in their
scores, I’m always also amazed and grateful for their versatility.

NP Cherry 2000...sure doesn’t sound like Kimberly but a little like Robocop.

quote:

---

John--I certainly intend no offense here, but while your "clarification" to Kyp may seem sound, there doesn't seem to be any logic to it--In fact, I think it echoes the basis of this post. It's always the argument of "style" over "copying".
It is almost as if one might as well switch the names "Goldsmith" and "Horner"-- Goldsmith is just as given to "copying" (which I think is too blatant a term, here) his own motifs and imitating/echoing his own themes, and I don't think that's a bad thing. But I think Horner suffers more for it (unfairly?) at the hands of fans and critics.[/B]

---

And that was, in fact the point I was attempting to make. As I said, we notice Horner's copying more because we expect it, and therefor we complain about it more (well... not me, but Horner bashers do) whereas with Goldsmith, we do not expect copying, we expect style; even when there is copying, we are less likely to notice it BECAUSE we are already expecting the style, so we aren't looking for exact lifts from other scores.

I wasn't arguing for or against anything, merely trying to explain it.

There is a great difference between a similar tune and a equal one.

I will try to explain what I think (much for the horror of Lancelot, the flat):
I design newspapers for automotive companies. All my papers look similar. Someone who see them at the same time will easily say they were all done by the same person. It is my STYLE of doing it. And that's what my clients want.
They hired me BECAUSE they liked my previous works.

Nevertheless, I take my job very seriously. So I never just "cooy and paste" one paper to the other. I always try to make them the more different from each other. I change the collors, the font types, the design, etc...
I admit that sometimes when I need to use a small strong phrase and don't have the time to think on it I just steal one from a previous work.

But Horner... Well, that's a different story. He is producing the same music all the time. Ok, he is still able to create a few original notes and melodies, but the rest of his scores are just "copy and paste" jobs.

Like I said, I still can love some of his scores, but my RESPECT for him decreases more every time I listen to him using the same music again and again and again, with little or no changes.
You know why? Because it is so damm easy to do so... And I don't know why most Horner fans get so angry with this obvious fact. There's nothing wrong with people loving his equal scores. But they are equal. There's no doubt about it...

Wow! I wrote a lot... You can almost call me LUX2 now!

However...lets take a look at Horner's last few scores:

The Grinch: I haven't given it a complete listen, but for the most part I must say that while the "style" is reminiscent, I can't find any direct lifts from previous scores...or anything more than a few notes here and there that all composers succumb too...including (GASP!)Goldsmith, Williams...others.

Bicenntenial Man: While this one is more reminiscent of many other Horner scores, to say that any part of it (other than the brief pc you mentioned before) is a "copy/paste" is unfair and unjustified.

Deep Impact: I will admit I'm not overly fond of this score, but again direct copying...not so sure.

Zorro: Slight liftings here and there, but otherwise fresh and as original as any Goldsmith pc in some time.

We could go back forever and debate this...but I'm sure it would never end. But to say the Horner copies and pastes the majority of his work is not reasonable.

I wonder why none of the naysayers hear are willing to comment on the issue of directors wanting something incredibly close to a previous work that is nearly impossible to avoid...there are only so many notes after all. I would bet that Camercan temped the scenes in Titanic with the ques from Courage Under Fire...oh well.

Like I said, I can appreciate a good score from Horner - something he just wasn't able to do in the last decade.

I agree upon some of your points, like BICENTENIAL MAN and DEEP IMPACT or even MASK OF ZORRO featuring some "original" cues. I love the last track of DEEP IMPACT, by the way.

But that is not the point. What I was trying to say is that Horner's constant "copy and paste" jobs on his scores detracts the movie, at least for those with a sharp ear for film music. Whenever he re-uses one of his previous tunes note-by-note it takes the attention away from the movie. That happened to me at least 5 times I can remember very well. This practice is cheesy and irritating.
How can I respect a movie if everytime the villain appears on screen I can hear that 4 note motif associated with General Kael (WILLOW)? Just can't, sorry.

I am aware that some directors/producers want to use the exact same music they used before on his previous efforts - that's why Zimmer and his pets still get jobs from Bruckenheimer and imitators.

But this is just a lousy excuse for lousy composers. That's why I respect composers like Goldsmith, Morricone or even Williams, who still tries very hard to bring something new and original to the movies they score.

Ridley Scott temp tracked ALIEN with some cues from Goldsmith's FREUD and probably tried to make Jerry compose the same kind of music to those scenes. He refused and came up with some original material. The director didn't like it. "Well, just go there and buy the rights to use FREUD then!", Goldsmith probably told him.

Until then...let the war rage! If you could grant that Goldsmith and others also fall into the copying trap even a tiny fraction of the time, it would help validate your point. But this utter refusal to admit that and completely condemn Horner is disturbing...boy was that melodramatic or what!

If you did, you'll notice that I agreed that Horner has composed some original material that, although being very derivative, can be called "style".

But what makes him different from the others is the simple fact he "copy and paste" entire passages from his previous works or from other composers works. I could make a huge list of it, but I am sure you know what I am talking about.

Now, unless I'm reading incorrectly you are stating the majority of his works are completely copied, with a few original notes thrown in here and there for good measure. Come on...exaggeration does not lend itself to a reasonable debate.

Now, to my ears, only a few notes separate the main themes from First Contact and Airforce One...but as someone else above stated, that its simply not in peoples' mindset to interpret Goldsmith's work in such diabolical fashion. But its there, whether we want admit it or not.

I think I've about run my course on this arguement...on to greener pastures.

Quill,

Thank you guys for the nice debate.

And that doesn't even include people whose style is so set that one score often sounds like a continuation of the last one (i.e. Tiomkin, Ifukube, M. Arnold, Barry).

I guess this doesn't bother me so much as one composer stealing from another or composing in another composer's style (though even here there are exceptions I don't mind: Elfman in Pee Wee's Big Adventure and Horner in Honey, I Shrunk the Kids both mimic Nino Rota; a number of Italian composers mimic Morricone).

And obviously, this doesn't bother me as much as a general homogenization and streamlining of film music into a styleless form. I mean, it is all together possible for me to make a mix tape of cues by Elfman, Poledouris, Silvestri, Horner, Kamen, D. Arnold, and many others, say it's all by one composer and fool only the most saavy--the average guy wouldn't be able to tell one composer from the next and that's the real low ebb in the decline of film music. Of course producers love this, maybe insist on it, that this element of film production has become so uniform and thereby predictable and thus no longer a wild card in the process (and even so scores still get rejected!).

I would prefer composers who are a bottomless well of invention and style and a film community that is open to this. I would prefer composers not to copy themselves, other film composers, or other classical composers. But I can understand that if it worked once with an audience, there are those who will want to recycle it to work again as well. This was more forgiveable in the past when there were no soundtracks, no VHS, LD, and DVD, and so something composed in 1931 could reappear fresh in 1950. But not today when every crib comes under the scrutiny of those who know better. It's the composer who should know better, but in the case of a guy like Horner, there is no shame but rather QUOTES by the guy saying he loves the music he rips off and wants it to be a part of his scores. For years the film music community had to fight the notion that they were a bunch of copyist hacks (think of how childed Tiomkin was by his peers after his Oscar speech thanking Beethoven) and a guy like Horner comes by and throws all that out the window.

I guess we all have our own ideas of what is kosher or not and draw the lines of what we like or what behavior we will tolerate and respect or not.

NP: Objective Burma (Franz Waxman)

I'll catch Goldsmith cribbing from himself but wonder if the crib still works on the audience. Take that now familiar sliding note on the French Horn---Goldsmith was using that back in The Prize and there it was once again in 13th Warrior and other recent scores. And given that it appears in the Star Trek TV scores of the 60s, it might originally be by Courage or F. Steiner for all I know. I catch it, but it may still be effective on people. So why not? Horner probably feels the same way when he borrows a theme from himself or someone else. Maybe Horner does take more heat for this than Goldsmith does--and this might be unfair and arbitrary--but if this is the case, it represents a love for Goldsmith that he earned somewhere along the way that people don't have as much for Horner.

Jerry Goldsmith (who strangley seems to always emerge as the counter attack point for Horner defenders since so much early James Horner was so obviously inspired of Goldsmith) has been guilty of same note offenses such as the similarity in the french horn note progressions in First Knight, Fanfare for Oscar and his Universal logo theme. This is more an anomaly in the vast career of someone who has written over 4 decades worth of music.

Also curious is that the examples cited most often in this thread are in regard to the themes from Air Force One and First Contact... two scores written in notoriously short time periods. AFO written and recorded in three weeks time and First Contact in about four (Goldsmith was tied up much longer than expected with The Ghost and the Darkness). Crazy scheduling indeed, but even in this case the themes are similar in tone but there is no note-for-note cribbing even in this example. More legitimate examples may be certain motifs used both in Executive Decision and Chain Reaction or US Marshalls and Star Trek 9.

Then someone says: "Well that's true, but it isn't so outrageous compared with someone like, lets see... James Horner who is always reusing his own material on almost all his scores..."

BTW, are these "common" folks you mentioned the same who think "Austin Powers" is a great movie, Jim Carney an outstanding actor and Back Street Boys a marvelous musical group??

BTW...I'm not betraying myself here...I still like Horner...so much that I can listen to his recycled tunes over and over again. Kinda like James Bond...there all the same, but fun every time.