5-note action motif
Star Trek: Insurrection
1) 3.52 - 4.00

U.S. Marshalls
1).18-.22, repeat with emphasis 1.04-1.09
Also (2) .00-.08

4-note action motif
Chain Reaction
7) 1.22-1.32
Air Force One
1) 3.53-4.06

Convince me "Amy's Theme" from "Congo" and Track 6 ("Good Morning") from "King Solomon's Mines",AND the "Ba'hu Village Theme" from "Insurrection" weren't cut from the same cloth?

Is it here that I should suggest that directors might be better served by someone OTHER than Goldsmith? Maybe that Goldsmith is uninspired, and derivative? Or maybe that he's "self-plagurizing" (always a favorite non-word amongst some.)

I'm NOT doing that--I enjoy Goldsmith's scores--but he does what it seem all of the good composers do. He knows how to punch those moments in the score, and that's what he does, in the style that he knows how to.

I would also point out that "action motifs" are second in form to function. I ask the primary question: does the motif function within the scene? Goldsmith gets an unqualified YES. Witness "Camelot Lives" from First Knight Every rythym and every note is tied in with the twists and turns of the onscreen action. And yet the music functions as music. It's a remarkable achievement. Which brings me to the second thing I look for: how does the action motif work within the context of the score? For the purposes of the film, it only needs to push certain buttons. But Goldsmith makes his action music relevant in the score's musical context. Witness Total Recall for a perfect example of this. If you tried mixing and matching action music with any of his other scores, the scene might still work, but you would lose something. Something subtle, true, but Goldsmith cares that it's there where other composers, like Hans Zimmer, do not. We call that "musical integrity."

Granted, not all of Goldsmith's scores are equally complex, and he, like any other composer, has his bag full of tricks. But when it comes to the genre, I think his track record is unbeatable. This is what you hear from his colleagues! If I ever made an action film, I'd go for Goldsmith over Arnold or Zimmer any day. Goldsmith has an uncanny knack for finding the pulse of a scene and describing it musically.

In short, while your attempt to debate the interchangeability of music is a worthy one, you've picked absolutely the wrong target for criticism. Pick someone like James Horner, who has used the EXACT SAME four-note trumpet motif to represent cookie-cutter villainy in at least a dozen seperate scores. Gack!

Since this is implicitly going to be a Goldsmith-versus-Horner thread, I'll just cut to the chase: there is far more variety, "subtlety and nuance," in FIFTY years worth of Goldsmith's work than there has been in TWENTY extant years of Horner's. Is Goldsmith repeating himself? Sure, sometimes -- even often, of late. Is Horner repeating himself? Well, when did he ever stop? He's not a poor dramatist (until recently, with DEEP IMPACT and PERFECT STORM), but he seems, especially in the past eight or ten years, to be a damn lazy one.

Jeron

Still it is a good example of Goldsmith apparently not trying hard enough. But, as Rocco says, it's crystal clear where this thread is headed so we may as well steer it in that direction.It seemed so uncharacteristic of Goldsmith doing this that it was completely odd wheras with the notorious James Horner it seems completely IN character.

Horner has continuously been accused of stealing from him.

Goldsmith's most commonly used action style is directly taken from Prokofiev.

A lot had been made about Horner's use of Prokofiev and his influence in Star Trek and ever since.

I don't hear anyone accusing Goldsmith of being inspired by Prokofiev or lifting from him. Even though Prokofiev has been with him, (be it directly lifted, or simply inspired) for the past 50 years.

Is it really that you dislike the music, or rather that you are perturbed that Horner can still be so popular with his "cookie-cutter scores." I sense resentment....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lancelot:
5-note action motif
Star Trek: Insurrection
U.S. Marshalls

---

What really bothers me is that most of the better - and different - music from ST: Insurrection is not on the album. The album is nice, but gets boring soon. The score as heard in the film is wonderful.

"The Goldsmith Factor" ...

I never implied in my original topic that this was to be a Composer vs. Composer arguement--I am attempting (failing? succeeding?) to point out, however, that score fans that you will find here are quick to leap on a relatively younger composer for repeating himself, whereas with Goldsmith has been around for 50+ years. In those 50+ years, Goldsmith may have varied his unifying themes enough, and perhaps Horner has not. But Goldsmith's general method (style?) to extend those themes through the action are relatively similar throughout his repetoire.

Yet Goldsmith fans are more forgiving...? Goldsmith may have said some rotten things about Horner, once upon a time. I think the old guard is generally harsh with the newer blood, in any given situation. But the continually expressed opinion that based on his own method, Horner is not capable of providing a capable, servicing, as well as emotionally stirring and musically appealing score is merely inflammatory.

Horner and Goldsmith are both in the business of scoring films, and there is a method and a discipline for doing so. Goldsmith has said that anyone can write a film score as long as they have the discipline to sit down and do it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lancelot:
Horner and Goldsmith are both in the business of scoring films,

---

Uau!!! How does he manage to know so many incredible things??

I am impressed!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wedge:
Jerry Goldsmith, John Williams, Danny Elfman and James Horner all bear the imprint of Prokofiev's musical legacy. They owe him a lot, and at least three out of the four admit it. Two of them have actually gone out of their way to point out specific instances where a particular cue was inspired by Prokofiev.

---

Just strictly out of curiosity, could you elaborate for me, Wedge? Which two and which instances?

Thanks,
Tim

You know James Horner could be ahead of all of us on this whole thing. Maybe he's advancing a radical new concept in scoring. Kind of like Andy Worhol's use of pop icons as art. Could it be that James Horner is making some biting commmentary on the use of music in film? Or that his music is some sort of metaphor for the mass produced anonymity of popular taste? Could he be the Roy Lichtenstein or Andy Worhol of film music???

John Williams pointed out Prokofiev's influence in "Phantom Menace" (some of the Jar-Jar, tatooine music, mainly) and also his use of a low male chorus in "Return of the Jedi."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lancelot:
Convince me "Amy's Theme" from "Congo" and Track 6 ("Good Morning") from "King Solomon's Mines",AND the "Ba'hu Village Theme" from "Insurrection" weren't cut from the same cloth?

---

I'd have to say that "Amy's Theme" is a copy and paste from that track in King Solomon's Mines. Good listening.

NP: "Good Morning" from King Solomon's Mines

I have noticed that Goldsmith is pretty blatant with his Prokofiev (and Stravinsky) borrowings. You can't find a more clear example than in Dennis the Menace. Of course, if you're going to steal from someone you should steal from the very best- and there's hardly anyone better than Prokofiev! (Ok, maybe that freak Beethoven)

Tim

Goldsmith-- still one of the great composers in the medium, less than Rozsa, Newman, Friedhofer, Korngold, North, slightly less than Ifukube, even with Bernstein, less powerful than Herrmann though a better composer note for note, a little edgier than Williams, even with Scott, Shire, Morricone, and no one else compares.

Horner-- evinced a bit of interest at the beginning, lost everything with his habitual copying; under the wallpaper you find a lot of conventional generalities, redundant cinematics, easy listening schmaltz and finally complete boredom. Soundscaping is a way to avoid having to admit you have nothing to say. Hollywood likes that.

Beautiful, man! Beautiful!

Oh, and regarding the Elfman/Prokofiev thing, don't leave out The Frighteners, as the 5-note theme is directly from Alexander Nevsky.

First, Rocco, Horner IS a bad dramatist, at least these days. IMHO his scores just don't help the films they are a part of.

An old hat idea I know that composers should have personal integrity and be original. When I think that the old guard is cribbing from Prokofiev, Stravinsky, and their own earlier scores and they keep getting jobs, it offends me. Unfortunately, very few younger composers have any quality either. Somewhere there must be a new young turk, full of original ideas with no need to crib who can take us into the next phase. Where is he or she? Is he paying his dues somewhere or just hasn't been born?

It seems everyone is cribbing for better or worse, but I single out Horner for condemnation especially. Why? First, he says in interviews that he thinks there's nothing wrong in quoting classical music in his scores--this is music I like he says. To me, that's pissing on my boots and telling me it's rain. Then, he not only quotes the masters but other film composers like Goldsmith and Williams. He's beating those guys out of work using their own melodies. It's particularly vile.

Of course, I don't think any of these guys are composing like they used to. You don't ever see posts from me talking about how great current Goldsmith or Williams is. Maybe Jaws or Jane Eyre or In Harm's Way or Patch of Blue but not anything new. That's why I'm always telling people here to return to the Golden Age: Rozsa, Herrmann, Moross, Waxman, Korngold, et al. Not that they didn't crib too, but not as much and usually only from themselves instead of others.

Instead I find guys like Steiner working long into the night trying to keep the quality up against deadlines and the demoralizing fact that the music will come and go with the few weeks the picture runs never dreaming that anyone would want to hear it on its own someday.

Now Horner gets 70 minute CDs based on music that isn't even his. The gods are cruel and injust leaving devils and whores to rule the earth.

Some people dismiss the whole thing: music is music, who cares who wrote it as long as it's good to listen to or works in the film. Or say it's hypocritcal and biased to love one cribber but condemn another.

For those naysayers: What do attribute Horner's success to among the general movie going populace?

Is it because he writes poor music? Cribs? Is a poor dramatist? Sounds like a girl? Or because he has bad hair?

Look at this angle: Yes, Goldsmith may "crib" from himself, but he's done it in quite a normal fashion. What I mean by this is Goldsmith's fully entitled to a few cribbings here and there, he's been writing music for more than 50 years now! Has James Horner even lived that long? And he's cribbed far more than Goldsmith? Ahh... the crux of the problem, and the real difference between these two, perhaps? (Sorry to bring Horner back into it so soon, already!).