(So do you think Herrmann's personality might have driven a few solid paying customers away? Or would he have softened his approach?)

Here is another one for you:

While Goldsmith was working on Lonely Are the Brave in 1962, Herrmann came by the studio there where he was working. He heard some of the score. He reportedly said to him "that score is too damn good for that movie." He liked the score a lot. LOL.

In the 1971 Rose & Zador interview, Herrmann asks them what new scores they like and they both say PATTON which couldn't have infuriated Herrmann more (on the tape he kind of grunts and stays silent and won't get enthusiaistic with them over it).

But the industry's love of Goldsmith over Herrmann cost us big time. That slime Lionel Newman loved Goldsmith and hated Herrmann and gave all the 60s 20th Century-Fox scores to Goldsmith and wouldn't let Herrmann work. Now Herrmann probably wouldn't have been home with IN LIKE FLINT, but projects like THE SAND PEBBLES or THE BLUE MAX would have been fine for Herrmann had he had a shot at them. Instead, Herrmann got nothing from 20th Century and when he lost the steady Hitchcock work as well he had no reason to even stay in Hollywood. Herrmann's temper, fretting, neurosis, and smoking were only compounded by under-appreciation and lack of work when lesser talents were thriving and all of this led to the burnout that took Herrmann at 65 instead of 75 and cost us 10 years of choice Herrmann scores.

Going back to the LONELY ARE THE BRAVE story, to say a score is "too good" for the picture, what does that mean exactly? Is it an insult, saying that the scoring is more musical than the film requires, or that the film sucks and doesn't deserve such a good score? And what does this say about what Herrmann provided, did he compose "down" and not write as good a music as he could have for some films. I wonder how people in the film industry reacted to this incident.