Stephen King is prolific and successful, practically a best-selling book industry. He puts out one or two books a year. He once said that anyone who takes seven years to put out a book is being lazy.

When David O. Selznick told Rozsa he wanted the Spellbound score in a matter of weeks, Rozsa said it couldn't be done. Selznick said it only took a few weeks to shoot the film, but Rozsa replied with a question: "How long did it take to write the film?"

Products have a shelf life and out of print brands are quickly forgotten.

What am I getting at?

If Horner were to quit for a while to recharge his batteries, it's very possible that he might simply be forgotten by the public and attentions turned elsewhere. Horner? Who's he? TITANIC, that was 15 years ago, I haven't even seen it, what's he done lately? It can happen, so if Horner is successful doing what he's doing, why should he quit?

Also it's the professional's pride (if any of these guys still have it). You can't admit you've dried up or need to take a break, you've got to brag that you can come in at the last minute to do a replacement score that not only tops the previous guy's work but can be finished in 2 weeks. It's also ego, is Horner going to admit that he sucks? No.

But scores do need time to be composed as the Rozsa story suggests. And to be composed without people breathing over the composer's shoulder. Herrmann turned down DAY OF THE DOLPHIN because he said he couldn't do it in the time required. Could you imagine a collusion of composers making that demand. We won't score any films unless we're given so much time, etc. There would be scabs out there grabbing that work in a second. And Delerue did indeed come in to score DOLPHIN and got an Oscar nom for it that he should have won because his score is that great. Did he really put it together in 3 weeks?!!
So all that means is that Herrmann isn't going to be given any extra work by people who're just looking around for anyone to score their film. And indeed, the only jobs Herrmann got at the end were by nostalgic directors who specifically wanted his sound.

The demands of this industry for music are profound: films, TV, ads. Having something is better than nothing and the streamlining of media style means it's preferred to have things sound alike.

quote:

---

Originally posted by arthur grant:
In light of this, why single out James Horner (or any other film composer for that matter)?

---

Even with this statement, the issue remains. Why compose a score like Enemy of the Gates which just reminds the viewer of an earlier score or film? Unless it is something that's supposed to be a sequel or spoof, there is no reason why this should be done. I know most people don't listen to the music as much as we do during a film, but to the .00005% of the population that does it's a big problem. I think most film makers would agree it is bad when the music of a film becomes the main focus of the viewer. It's not just us, either, because I've read stories where non-score fans also notice these annoying copies from James Horner.

But give it up people! This thing wont end so just ignore the music you don't like.