Someone said that 100 Million Frenchmen can't be wrong. Horner may have popular appeal and producers may hire him. Big deal. If people are happy, good for them. I'm not. As for the producers, they were the same guys who took the real drama of the Stalingrad duel with its strategy, its marksmen trying to figure out, psyche out, and lure out their opponents, etc. from the real story and the books based on it and reduced it to the pablum this film is. Of course those producers thought Horner was their man and a Schindler rip off was the way to go. The people who hire Horner are generally as deluded and on the same level of scum as he is.

I just don't feel the phrases like talentless whore have a place in them...nothing more, nothing less. Thanks for qualifying your remarks though, and while I do not entirely agree with them, they are not without merit.

It is strictly personal taste that allows me to tolerate Horner in his current state, but to call the man a talentless hack/whore/whatever...takes away from the truly wonderful work he did earlier in his career and rarely surfaces these days.

Me gonna be sick! That wurse than Hammy Zinza synth!!

Speaking for myself, the answer is no. Never really "left" this 'board so much as "returned" to the point of origin. Suffice it to say that the "twin cities" seem to be co-existing well.

While I'm here, let me buttress (sounds like the guy who played Haney) Mr. Goldberg's diatribe with a few choice comments of my own already posted in dat udder place--

The reason why it's possible to enjoy some of the man's music & not be a Horner hater & still want to strangle him--all at the same time--is that you have to hear his apologists try to make him out to be something that he isn't. And until they can stop mentioning him and Herrmann and Goldsmith, et al. all in the same breath, the desire to strangle him will not cease.

It's just that they make getting on his case so IRRESISTIBLE when they (1) try to elevate him by knocking down others and then (2) undercut their own arguments by muddying and lumping together deliberate homages, interpolations and "passages inspired by" with stealing, borrowing, ripping off, self-ripping off, etc. Oh, and the best is when they finally (3) abandon all pretense and say "everybody does it", like they can't distinguish any difference between petty larceny and grand theft.

It's possible to state mixed feelings about his work without being hypocritical or contradictory. I have pointed out--at times even included track numbers--instances of similar or same sounding music in other composers. The difference between a Herrmann, a Goldsmith AND a Horner is that their "quotes" come across as incidental to the rest of the score and their careers as a whole whereas what Mr. H does comes across as laziness/lack of ability/talent dried up early and worst of all, a staple of his alleged "style" for too much of his career. And it is a staple. This is why listening to a movie scored by him is so frustrating for folks like us who are peculiarly sensitive to the music factor: you end up listening for all the wrong reasons and it's a distraction.

PS
Shaun, perhaps you may recall a thread entitled the SNEAKERS challenge over in that other section of Scoreville. You responded with words that pretty much sum up this last point

***************************************************************************

WHATEVER GAVE YOU THE IDEA THAT I LEFT HERE?

Stay here! Get away from that crazy religious flame-war!

I do not seek them out.
They come to me.

I appreciate your concern, dear Shaun.

Don't worry...I will not be burned.

NP: Under Fire Goldsmith

SEE, Shaun...I'm OK!!!

Although some like to kid themselves that Horner's work meets with universal condemnation from within the FSE (film-score enthusiast) community, there are many FSEs, such as myself, who admire Horner as a master of his craft. I guess it's a matter of perspective. If you are the kind of FSE who looks for thematically rich and original compositions that work as successfully on the album as they may within the movie, then I can well understand a dislike of Horner's derivative methods and output. On the other hand, if, like me, one tends to see film-scores as merely a part of the 'larger picture', ie the movie itself, then Horner's modus operandi is perhaps more likely to meet with one's approval. At this point, I should make it clear that I do not regard composing for film as an inferior art form, but as a very important element in a rich soup of creativity that comprises the movie.

Putting Howard L's misguided irrelevancies to one side, many of the attitudes and opinions expressed at this thread have been refreshingly honest and forthright. Lou states his opinion about Horner's output with customary clarity, and also makes the very important point that what he says is not necessarily intended to be taken literally, and that such talk as 'If I could kill him and get away with it, I would' serves merely to emphasize the level of Lou's disappointment at Horner's work.

I've nothing but respect for Lou's opinions of Horner and modern cinema as a whole, much as they may differ from my own.

And I fully agree with PeterK, the only way to effectively counter opinions expressed that differ from one's own is to provide effective counter-arguments, if one feels the need. Much as I may concur with Andy Lindahl's appreciation of Horner, his response to Lou's Horner criticisms is as ineffectual, innocuous, redundant and obsolete as an average Howard L posting. As PeterK so eloquently put it, "It's up to people who are interested in defending Horner to actually defend Horner, and not resort to telling the offenders to "get a life," "stop posting crap like this," etc."

Personally speaking, the effectiveness of the film-score on the album means very little to me, although it is always a pleasant surprise when a soundtrack album does make for a satisfactory stand-alone listen, such as Goldsmith's light and airy FIERCE CREATURES, a good example of a film-score being necessarily adapted for album consumption. Goldsmith's UNDER FIRE, THE SECRET OF NIMH and THE RUSSIA HOUSE are other examples of top-class film-scores that also make great stand-alone listening, and interestingly, in these cases, little or no concession or compromise was made for the album.

But, that's not why I really like film music. To me, it is the value of the music as it is heard within the context of the movie that is important. And, as an exponent of the art of applying the most appropriate music to his movies (most of the time), I see Horner as being at the top of his profession, with Zimmer and his school, Elfman, and Williams not too far behind. I am the first to admit that Horner re-uses existing musical phrases, ideas, themes, or entire passages of classical music on a regular basis, and fully understand that to some this is abhorrent, but to me, originality comes second to appropriateness when attempting to appreciate the skills of the film composer. May I refer you to Bulldog's excellent contribution of March 22nd at the 'The Goldsmith Factor' thread, in which he perfectly captures the essence of my own attitudes toward film music's primary purpose.

Case in point: his infamous four-note "villainy" motif. My friends, who know little to nothing about the craft, have come to recognize this as a lowest-common-denominator Hornerism. They hear it in "The Perfect Storm," they hear it in "Enemy at the Gates," they hear it enough, they start to recognize it and it takes them out of the film.

Furthermore, both of the aforementioned films SUFFERED at times from the presence of Horner's music. Most of "The Perfect Storm" was grossly mis-scored, and much of the dramatic potential in "Enemy" was undermined when Horner simply "missed the point." The New York Times went out of their way to describe Horner's music as "characteristically abusive." Having heard his work over the past few years, I have to agree.

I think many of love this stuff so much we lose perspective of the larger picture. Scores are first and foremost designed to intergrate, complement, accentuate, however you feel like saying it, the film that they are part of. End of story.

Think of a film as a sandwich. You can use generic white bread or you can use hand-mixed and fresh-baked. Both serve the same primary function. They both, in fact, contain similar ingredients. They might both satisfy your hunger. This is fine for grilled cheese. Truth be told, what bread you use is rarely the main focus of the meal. And yet, while generic, lowest-common-denominator bread will always hold the filling together, it will never meet the full potential of the sandwich.

Horner's music is the compositional equivalent of EZ-bake bread. It may have all the right ingredients, but it loses something in the baking.

And I further agree with Wedge. I don't think Horner's current wall-to-wall approach is helping the movies he does at all. I've mentioned before seeing DEEP IMPACT with a date who recoiled from the music: "Who WROTE this crap?" she hissed, not being interested in film music but knowing that I was. And I still maintain that THE PERFECT STORM was a disaster of a score -- although the movie didn't really work either.

Herein lies the condundrum (my favorite word of late). For better or worse, Horner IS giving his producers and directors EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT. Is there anything wrong with that? As film score enthusiasts, we have to admit we're a bit walleyed on this subject.

Wedge is entirely correct that Horner's present musical vocabulary is extremely limited. I would venture further to suggest that he's characteristically sought out projects that WELCOME that vocabulary: SEARCHING FOR BOBBY FISCHER, MAN WITHOUT A FACE, HOUSE OF CARDS, THE STONE BOY, TESTAMENT, pretty much anything he did in the 1990s, and so on.

COULD he write differently if he chose to? Sure, based on such various early-eighties scores as WOLFEN, KRULL and 48 HRS. Those had a lot of crossover too, but as early as STAR TREK III (a score I do rather like), we were beginning to hear the kind of noodling he came to embrace completely.

Horner has perhaps displayed less growth as a composer than anyone else in his age group, or certainly his price range. But we must also consider that he is SOUGHT OUGHT specifically for the "Horner sound." As Williams is, for that matter -- do you think the producers of THE PATRIOT had no idea what they were going to get? Same with John Barry -- for years I've thought that Horner is basically the American Barry, except that he's much more of a klepto than Barry.

By 1989, I had somewhat soured on Horner, already finding his gross repetitions tiresome, and having no idea that things were going to get even worse. I even published an essay suggesting that Horner should stop scoring so MANY pictures, which I thought was helping contribute to his repetition. But that's a film music fan's perspective. (Although Horner has been amply roasted by film critics as well, though most of them haven't much of interest to say about anything.)

But then I thought, well, my favorite composer besides Goldsmith is Akira Ifukube, and if you listen to enough of HIS stuff, the repetition is endless (although his rearrangements are far more inventive -- this is a man who can turn an old march into a new dirge). Why should I blame Horner for doing the same thing? Mr. Ifukube actually put me on the spot once -- he asked me what I thought his greatest weakness as a film composer was. This was not a happy position to be put into, but I stammered out the answer anyway: his stuff was frequently very repetitive. Fortunately, that was precisely the answer he wanted: he replied he'd only gotten certain kinds of film offers throughout his career, and had long since been typecast. He COULD have done other kinds of movies -- nobody ever asked him.

I kept that in mind as I followed Horner through the nineties, but the simile failed to hold after a certain point, if ever it really had. (I was twenty-one at the time of that conversation.) But then I realized that comparing Horner to Ifukube is fruitless: Ifukube has always had a vibrant concert career, for one thing, and for another, conditions in the Japanese film scoring industry are infinitely different. Ifukube virtually never had more than two weeks to write anything, usually less. He also pointed out his own repetition had to do with these punishing schedules.

But it's also clear that Ifukube was hired for his very SOUND, and I think that's happening with Horner too. GODZILLA director Ishiro Honda told me that he'd never considered anyone other than Ifukube for that score -- even though they'd never worked together before. He just knew the sound Ifukube provided, and that was what he wanted. (The happiest possible accident, as it turned out.)

James Horner was hired to replace Howard Shore's music for Ron Howard's RANSOM. I've never heard the Shore version, but have little doubt it's far edgier and darker than what Horner provided. Does this make Ron Howard wrong? It only points up the sound he wanted. Horner gave it to him. Does it also further illustrate that Howard is as limited a director as Horner is a composer? I kind of think it does. But how can we bitch about this? Movies are going to be made, good bad and indifferent. Do I regret that Horner is taking away jobs that might be better suited to better composers? Sure. Why does Horner get these jobs? Becaue he gives the people what they want. And that in itself is as rank an indictment of the Hollywood system as any other. Horner is the safest possible choice. You won't hear a FARGO or THE CELL from him. The people who made those movies wouldn't even consider him anymore.

I fear I'm losing the thread of whatever argument I have, so will simply close with something I've said before: Horner has found his niche, and he's nice and comfy in there. Furthermore, there's absolutely no reason, professional or otherwise, for him to budge from it. Which is a shame. He did seem at one time to have enormous potential, but if he's happier hacking out interchangeable muck, then there's nothing we can do about it. It speaks as much about the people who hire him and encourage him to do this as it does about him.

Although an equally reviled composer, Hans Zimmer, has actually tried to branch out and do different things -- not always successfully, but scores as various as THE POWER OF ONE, RADIO FLYER, THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD, BROKEN ARROW and THE THIN RED LINE prove that he at least wants to TRY to do other things.

The only answer I ever get to the question, "Why do filmmakers continue to work with Horner?" is that they know what they'll get. But the caveat is always, "But the filmmakers that hire him have diminished capacity also."

I find it humorous how people always think that they know more, or can do a better job, or can be more creative than the folks that actually live their lives doing it. I simply can't partake of the assumption that Ron Howard hired Horner because he lacks the ear for musical dramatization. Who are we to make such assumptions about a respected, and excellent director.

Agreed.

"The identity of a score takes independent of the film is only a secondary consideration."

Agreed.

"I find it humorous how people always think that they know more, or can do a better job, or can be more creative than the folks that actually live their lives doing it."

No, the issue is one of comparative respect. Right now in these here parts the Publix supermarket chain is running an ad with music that is an obvious ripoff of Elfman's "Ballet de Suburbia" from Edward Scissorhands. You know the act, go with the original but inject just a few enough little variations to avoid a lawsuit. We hear it all the time; in fact, one might call this type of composing "hackery". What the commercial composer does, in this case, is not that difficult to do when you think about it, IMHO.

Much as I'd like to, I cannot respect Mr. Horner as much as I do other film composers. Now I'm not calling him a hack along the order of above. I like too much of his earlier work. Nevertheless, he leaves himself open to servere criticism and rightly so, for, among other things, the reason inferred above.

All your points about him are correct, but he is still popular in the industry, and I simply feel that it is because his music works. People always feel they are the experts in something they have a passion for, and it is very obvious that there are many people posting on this board who are very well trained in the musical arena.

D2 as always is the man, you magnificent Brit. I know how much he loves Horner, but he also understands where I'm coming from. I too used to love JH quite a lot, perhaps that's part of why I'm down on him--I've been betrayed.

Would I kill him if I could. Probably not. But it sure felt good to say it. And it does express how fed up I am with both Horner and his fans. I would torture him though, but since the worst torture I could envision is having to listen to his music, I'm not sure if that would work.

Rocco is right as usual. The producers who hire Horner probably want what he does, sad deluded people that they are. Rocco is right about SOUND. There are a lot of composers whose scores from one film to the next sound like a continuation of what came before. Ifukube is one good example. There are others.

I call it like I see it. No sugar. It may not be the most intelligent way to argue, but it does express how I FEEL about things. So, for the people who want to straight-jacket my prose into something civilized: f-uck off!

Yes Lou, he CAN compose. If you have ever had the chance to listen to someone who can't compose, you'll see how talented Horner is.

1) Horner CAN compose, which makes me wonder why he's holding back.

I think part of Horner's problem is that he was far too successful far too soon. After the unprecedented success of TITANIC, I think we've lost him forever. (And I rather like his work on TITANIC, it sounds like he really CARED about that movie, even though he can't help peppering it with his usual repetitions and kleptomania. Enya, for God's sake. But that's what Cameron WANTED.)

The tenacity of the people on the Horner bandwagon is astounding. In the end, you are all going to need deprogramming. I've called JH every name in the book from Nazi to Anti-Christ, but given how his fans refuse to agree, I see that he's a Jim Jones or David Koresh. People, wake up before Waco. There are others more deserving of your praise, money, and attention.

In response to D2 and others: We might see the cribs and the repeats, but the average moviegoer still sees but a handful of films each year and only a few more on TV or VHS rental. Willow is from the 80s, Schindler's List is 7 years old, Who has ever heard of Alexander Nevsky? What we see as old hat may still work for some despite JH's limited vocabulary. D2 is right that it doesn't matter what the music is or where it comes from if it is appropriate. Griffith hired an original score for Birth of A Nation but insisted on Wagner for the finale. My beef with Horner is that I don't think the music he provides does what it's meant to--even if I'd never caught the cribs and thought the Enemy score was pure original, I still would have called it a too sweet frosting or one with too much parafin in it.

Unfortunately, Horner is suffering from Howard Hawks syndrome. When Hawks found a scene or bit that worked with an audience, it was a sure thing so he reused it. Sometimes he cribbed from himself, other times from other people. But over time 2 things happened. 1) He felt unsure about trying out new material and so didn't discover any but 2) became bored with telling the same stories over and so, like tapes or carbons that break down over generations, the later versions aren't as high quality as the originals.

Hawks kept remaking scenes all his life. Some of the remakes are good, others atrocious. All played it safe. Now Horner is in the same pattern. And I don't like Horner anywhere near as I like Hawks.

You don't like him, got it. Best solution...don't go see the movies he composes for and don't buy the CDs. Problem solved.

The problem, for me, is that he still gets his mits on films I want to see. I wanted to see Enemy at the Gates and I had to suffer his score for it. If he's scoring the next John Woo, that's another film I'll have to carry the cross to calvary on.

If the anti-Horner crowd comes off as a pack of rabid dogs the answer isn't hard to explain. To emotionally connect with the myths and mysteries of being human, a lot of people need drama and specifically film drama.

But a good or great film with a Horner score is like having the water suddenly turn cold in the shower, it ruins the experience, and naturally that pisses people off.

So, to flip your statement, rather than avoid the CDs and films Horner touches, how about if Horner didn't touch films or CDs, that's a proposition that works for me.

I don't uphold or triumph Horner's recent work, I just simply enjoy it. I only get annoyed when people chew up and spit out his carcass as if he had never composed anything of merit and that there is no redeeming value in his recent work.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quill:
I only get annoyed when people chew up and spit out his carcass as if he had never composed anything of merit and that there is no redeeming value in his recent work.

---

I feel sad to be the one who is telling him that, but yes Horner worshipers will continue to get annoyed because althought he did compose some quite decent scores in the past, most of his recent work have almost no redeeming value for most of us, sensitive and witty apreciators of good film music like Morricone's MISSION TO MARS.

Oh, well... sorry again.
I feel really terrible!

Yes, it's a dirty job but someone have to do it...

I am so sorry!

OK, scores have to be written more quickly now than ever and there is the chance that you'll be rejected even under the time constraints. Maybe Horner isn't given the time to compose and so he puts in dramatic music he likes from other sources to give the films what they need, not get too hit by the rejection, and get the scores in under the wire.

But it raises the question of what Horner is after. In the Zador interview with Bernard Herrmann, Herrmann says if the conditions aren't right, "You don't take the job. Some composers say, well I have to eat, but that's no excuse, you don't take the job."

Herrmann borrowed from himself. He was offered The Day of the Dolphin to score but had to do it in like a month's time. He could have said yes and cribbed out a score, but he didn't, he declined. Instead, Delerue scored it and I have no idea how Delerue wrote such a great score in such a brief amount of time, but even so Delerue had to crib Day for Night for one cue.

Since Titanic, Horner has enough money to retire from the game completely. Still, he goes on taking assignments but doesn't write that much original music for them. Why? Does he need more money? Does he need to put his name on as many films as possible to feel like a famous Hollywood star? Maybe he's helping out his friends. I feel like Freud: "What does James Horner want?"

If Horner is a slow bleeder he could probably negotiate more time on projects or only pick those where the time is adequate. Does he need to prove to himself and the Hollywood community that he can do it under pressure? Maybe he looks down on films and film music and simply doesn't care what issues forth, but at the same time he doesn't seem interested in working in the concert world.

The opening battle scene is interesting, but so out of focus at times that you can't connect. Characters? I guess there are some, but nothing to care about at all. Are we supposed to believe that German officers are that stupid not to see through the ploy of a child? Not that anyone could not see that the kid would live to be a teenager anyway, but you have no reason to care because the character is too thinly drawn.

A gratuitous "sex" scene which did nothing to further any plot and should have not even been shot in the first place. And poor Bob Hoskins is given lines that you would expect to here on an elementary school playground. If Kruschev really talked that way, it's a miracle the Soviet Union made it into the 70s!

It took me most of the movie to even try and figure out names of the main players...I had to rely on the actors names.

About the only thing interesting were the end credits design, but what was the point of showing us pictures of the main actors and then an immediate "cast" list? Some screens flashed by so quickly that only Evelyn Wood students could have read them, and then if they were lying on their sides, eyes crossed.

I keep trying to give Horner an even break, but this score is so pathetically like "Schindler's List" that it could be a variation on the theme. The Prokofiev-like quoting of "Alexander Nevsky" is not as bothersome if it could have been scored better. Not to find a defense, but is it at all possible that Horner was requested to write something like "SL" to try and create the hint of emotional attachment that just could not be present in the film?

The opening 15 minutes is fascinating as a glimpse at the Battle of Stalingrad, but some emotional context would have helped. This is a historic moment almost 60 years old now. Even Spielberg realized he needed some kind of character set up in "Saving Private Ryan" in order to help put his big battle scene in perspective.

When Horner hits his sixties, I wonder what a concert of his work, a la the ones Goldsmith and occasionally Williams perform, would conceivably sound like ... (and whatever happened to his plans to tour with a concert version just of TITANIC? Or did that play someplace? Or are he and Cameron possibly preparing a Broadway musical of it, heheehee ... actually that's scary, it seems all too possible.)