James Horner

[LAcomposer]

He's one of the biggest composers in Hollywood with many films under his belt. Braveheart, Titanic, A Perfect Storm... the list goes on and on. He's taken some flack for "borrowing" from other works but I still think that he's great at what he does. What do you guys think about him?

[Beach]

Actually I think that James Horner is really one of the big!!
And maybe many people forget to mention two other great score that I really like:

Bicentennil Man
and
Meet Joe Black

I think he is able to re-utilize himself because sometime you can clearly identify some chords progression he used almost everywhere but always changing something, thus making new thing from old ones!!;)

I really like his music!


Roberto

[Sherief83]

Meet joe black was done by thomas newman myfriend. James horner has good soundtracks and really not so great soundtracks. but his "Beautiful mind" soundtrack....I've been listening to it almost every day for the last three month and i NEVER get tired of it. it's full of very beautiful ideas! I like his brave heart track too but it's not as ful as the "beautiful mind" score is.

[Beach]

Sherief,
yes the score has been done by Thomas Newman!
But I am not sure that "A beautiful Mind" is a very good score,
I keep on my desk the bicentennial man Soundtrack CD!! :p:)

Best to you,
Roberto

[Dogforester]

I like alot of his stuff, and yes he does borrow from time to time (or all the time depending on your view of him) especially from himself !

And Beach I love the Land Before Time soundtrack so...:p :)

[dcoscina]

Bicentennial Man is basically a re-working of the Sneakers opening theme. Horner also recycled this for A Beautiful Mind.

His older material was less self referential and more plagiaristic of lesser known classical pieces like Prokofiev's 40th Anniversary Cantata (for Red Heat), Bartok's Wooden Prince (for The Land BEfore Time), Charles Ives' Unanswered Question (wolfen), Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet (Star Trek 3), Prokofiev's Alexander Nevsky (Enemies at the Gate), John Adams' Grand Pianola Music (Sneakers, Beautiful Mind, Bicentennial Man), Prokofiev's Ivan the Terrible (Glory), Schumann's 3rd Symphony (Willow), and sadly I could keep going on.....

It's sad because I think Horner is a skilled musician who just happens to be bereft of any original music ideas. He's a great dramatist though and scores like Braveheart, Rocketeer, Spitfire Grill, Field of Dreams, and such all reflect this. I just wish he wouldn't goshdarn rip so many other composers off.....

[Daryl]

Bicentennial Man is basically a re-working of the Sneakers opening theme.

Doesn't it also "borrow" from Braveheart?

D

[TheVamp]

When it was announced that Star Trek II was going to scored by someone named James Horner and not Jerry Goldsmith, I went "Huh, who the crap is that?"
Needless to say, Trek II blew me away. So did Trek III, and he kept blowing me away... right up until Aliens.
Then I heard Khachaturian for the first time and I said to myself, "Oh, James... no you didn't." The same thing happened when I first heard Prokofiev, and Shostakovitch, and Schumman and... well, I won't bore you with the details.
I never minded when Horner borrowed from himself... for a while. What I could never stomach was when he "borrowed" from others. Don't get me wrong, I still listen to Trek II, and Aliens, even Willow and occasionally he does write something that catches my attention, but for the most part I'm not interested in his new music.
But that's just my taste these days. There's no denying that he's an excellent film composer. He's just not for me anymore.

[Beach]

oh Guys you make me feel so bad.... :(
Anyway I think the music written for Bicentennial man Score is really good and give me the feeling the movie wants to trasmit!:)

Best,
Roberto

[Dogforester]

Cheer up Roberto I like it too, It's one of my other favs, it works really well.:)

I agree with you dcoscina, thank you for the references, I'll have to check some of those originals out since I enjoy alot of horners stuff

P.S Anyone know if he uses computers, or does he use pen,paper and piano combination ?

[Sherief83]

Well I guess I need to check his bicentennial man sound track. I also think his beautiful mind score is his best so far.

so what's up with this stealing business I keep hearing about James Horner? why do every one think that?

[chocothrax]

so what's up with this stealing business I keep hearing about James Horner? why do every one think that?

You keep hearing about because it's true. I think Horner is great wether he's stealing from himself or some other composer or from himself again. My favourites from him are Legends of the fall, Braveheart and The missing.

[Sherief83]

Stealing from him self? ok maybe stealing other composer's ideas is wrong but what's wrong with perhapse reusing something you composed or came up with? I don't think it should be called stealing. maybe repeating but stealing is a hard word to describe it.

Also you guys say stealing from other composers? may I ask if "A beautiful mind" or "bicentennial man" scores are included in those stealed list? and from who?

[chocothrax]

What's wrong is if I want to listen to Willow and hear the danger motif I don't want to start thinking the general from enemy at the gates is around because he uses the same damn motif for the general. That degrades my listening experience.

[drew]

Well I guess I need to check his bicentennial man sound track. I also think his beautiful mind score is his best so far.

so what's up with this stealing business I keep hearing about James Horner? why do every one think that?

Heck, we can trace this practice back to the baroque period. Bach stole from Handel, or was it the other way around, and Bach stole from himself many, many times. What we think of as plagarism today was fair game back then.

I wouldn't dwell on this issue too much. We all formulate our musical ideas on what we have heard before.

I find it quite humorous when folks attempt to discuss film music and it's composers in the context of higher arts. These poor people are tyring to pump out an incredible amount of music in a short time and, yes, they are going to fall back on things that worked for them in the past to get the job done. It's a business, just like writing romance novels - give the client something familiar, what they want and get it done on time. Once in a while, they come up with a gem, but most times it's just wallpaper.

[Sherief83]

What's wrong is if I want to listen to Willow and hear the danger motif I don't want to start thinking the general from enemy at the gates is around because he uses the same damn motif for the general. That degrades my listening experience.

Have you ever done music score where you made a certine music for a scene but then a year later there is this complete diffrient scene in a diffrient movie but you find the same music actually work best for that diffrient scene? I truly face that sometimes(In music generally or how I put music together, I wish I can do film music or get a chance!). call it running out of ideas but Sometimes just Sometimes, the music that we made for something might fit something else that it was never intended for much better. that is my opinion ofcourse and I hope that's what james Horner was thinking. I can understand his position in that. However if he was just lazy and sticked it in, then that's a diffrient story myfriend.

My point is, I trust in horns to know what's best for the scene, have you ever looked at it this way? why he sticked something familer? why he thought this repeated music works best with the scene?

*Providing your using your own made music and not someone elses*

[Sherief83]

Heck, we can trace this practice back to the baroque period. Bach stole from Handel, or was it the other way around, and Bach stole from himself many, many times. What we think of as plagarism today was fair game back then.

I wouldn't dwell on this issue too much. We all formulate our musical ideas on what we have heard before.

I find it quite humorous when folks attempt to discuss film music and it's composers in the context of higher arts. These poor people are tyring to pump out an incredible amount of music in a short time and, yes, they are going to fall back on things that worked for them in the past to get the job done. It's a business, just like writing romance novels - give the client something familiar, what they want and get it done on time. Once in a while, they come up with a gem, but most times it's just wallpaper.

You know I somehow always thought that music through history never faced an original ideas but instead was started and through history people found inspiration from each other and improved or contined each other's work. There is only 88 keys in the piano and there is a limit to the amount of music we can create with it(that amount however is still unknown). I believe same goes with every acoustic instrument.

[shnurgle]

What a great thread. A couple years ago I played the "link Horner to everyone else" game and it's all true, the guy definitely lifts. Also, he flat-out denies doing it. I don't know what to think of JH because that stuff does bothers me, but on an empirical level, his scores serve their films perhaps better than anyone else's. He has tremendous technical craft, the ability to conceive lovely and palatable melodies, and that exclusive "wild card" that separates the men from the boys--the ability to nail emotional content without a hint of ambiguity. Nevertheless, he does seem to have fallen into a series of familiar motifs and chord progressions (the dude loves that four chord).
I tend to not buy his soundtrack albums anymore (although I did have a long and torrid love affair with the Legends of the Fall score a while back). I find that I appreciate his music most in it's natural habitat--married to picture. And I do appreciate it then.

[dcoscina]

Guys can I please ask everyone to refer to Horner's danger motif as to what it really is;

RACHMANINOV'S 1ST SYMPHONY OPENING MOTIVE. For anyone who doubts this, please go to your local library, listen to this piece and you'll hear it in the same key, same brass orchestration.

On a technical level, I admire Horner.

On an ethical level, I despise him. No other composer in film scoring history has taken the liberties he has when it comes to referencing classical pieces or himself. Yes, film scoring is a demanding art and most composers reference themselves a little. But the difference is most composers will lift something small and re-use it in an action cue or something inconsequential. Horner lifts main melodic material from one score and uses it as the main theme in another. That's a problem. I'm surprised a studio hasn't sued him as the production company retains the rights to the score in most cases, NOT the composer.

For original composers, I turn to Elliot Goldenthal, Jerry Goldsmith, John Williams, Lalo Schifrin, Howard Shore, Alex North (massively awesome composer), etc.

[Sherief83]

So I Take a listen to Bicentanial Man sound track and low and behold the first track or the intro track of the cd is the same freaking music/melody/style(Absolutly no change in chords) as the one he did in A beautiful mind. what a disappointment. Althought the main theme is great. That intro or first track kind of got me. I guess I know now what every one is talking about. what a disappointment.

[chocothrax]

LOL....

[Daryl]

For original composers, I turn to Elliot Goldenthal, Jerry Goldsmith, John Williams, Lalo Schifrin, Howard Shore, Alex North (massively awesome composer), etc.
However, listen to the music from Superman, listen to Also spracht Zarathustra, listen to Death and Transfiguration and then listen to Superman again......

D

[vibrolux]

Maybe one day I'll grow up and realize his music is just repetative plagiaristic crap, but for now I'm going to pop Apollo 13 in my CD player and rejoice in my ignorance.

JH is getting pretty trashed here and I wonder if all the facts are in regarding his "lifting". For example I thought I read somewhere that James Cameron's frantic productions never gave JH the opportunity to fix his "M1 choirs" in Titanic or the chance to replace certain "temporary" music in Aliens.

[PaulR]

The Name of the Rose is effective. All done mostly on synthesizers by the sound of it. Works well in what is a pretty good film.

I have trouble talking about film music if the film's no good. Like Bicentennial Man - what a God awful film to have to sit through. And Titanic - what a dreadful load of crap. And Braveheart should be banned from the screens as a film. Total tripe. And how did Oscars get won for A Beautiful Mind. Average film. (As with most Oscars that are won)

Sneakers is good and a very effective score.

[TheVamp]

I find it quite humorous when folks attempt to discuss film music and it's composers in the context of higher arts. These poor people are tyring to pump out an incredible amount of music in a short time and, yes, they are going to fall back on things that worked for them in the past to get the job done. It's a business, just like writing romance novels - give the client something familiar, what they want and get it done on time. Once in a while, they come up with a gem, but most times it's just wallpaper.

It didn't used to be. Williams, Goldsmith, Barry, Morricone could do no wrong in the Silver Age of film music. IMHO.
Also, these composers may work in the same idioms as the classical repertoire but at least they don't lift things note for note. That's why I prefer them over Horner these days.
One of the reasons I prefer film music over classical music in general is that it isn't beholden to the rules. A lot of times film music is treated like classical's red-headed stepchild. I prefer to think of film music as classical's hipper, younger cousin!
Another reason I prefer film music is that modern film music is still mostly harmonic. Modern classical music is fine, but there's only so much atonal, non-melodic sound I can take.
It all comes down to what you like. No one can tell you to like something you don't, but then, you all already know that! ;) Damn it, I'm rambling. Need coffee... no longer... making sense...

[tango9jeff]

Whats with all the JH bashing? All I have to say is what he did on "Braveheart" was the most amazing touching music I think I've ever heard. The bag pipes motif still brings tears to my eyes. If you don't know this soundtrack well your missing out. I'm not a huge fan of all his music nor do I know it all but Braveheart will go down in history as my fav. soundtrack ever!
:)

[shnurgle]

One of the reasons I prefer film music over classical music in general is that it isn't beholden to the rules.
V-Rock, I hope you're using "classical" in reference to the musical era between the 18th and 19th centuries, and not as a blanket term for all instrumental concert music written in the last few hundred years (a regrettable tendency today), because the latter encompasses an evolutionary tradition of music almost exclusively based on breaking the rules. Especially music written in the first half of the past century, where composers like Stravinsky or Chuck Ives gave the stuffy traditionalists a total shock to the system with their reckless abandon of Classical and Romantic conventions. Of course the same could be said about Berlioz, Debussy, and all the greats form the 19th century--especially Beethoven. Actually, this is the first time in about 4 centuries that we are no longer breaking any rules.
Film music is most certainly beholden to the rules. It is necessarily defined by the limits of its space--the picture. In fact, I cannot think of another manifestation of art that is more restricted (or less free) than film music, which is not to say that film music is illegitimate, only that a valid comparison can't be drawn between it and concert music. This is why film composers aren't even recognized among concert composers. The music is so inherently limited and restricted when compared to the concert variety that the "long-hairs" don't even bother with it. They will acknowledge talent in a film composer, but invariably regard the music as trivial and incomplete rehashing of more serious work--and that's only if they're forced to regard it all.
Anyway, a long-winded response, but the point is, if it's fresh n' free music you're seeking my friend, soundtrack albums are probably the last place you should look. Oh, and don't write off 20th century music as wholly atonal. There are myriad examples of gorgeous tonal explorations from this period that have nothing to do with Schoenberg or his disciples. (not that Shoenberg was the sole practitioner of this style)

[White Noise]

Modern classical music is fine, but there's only so much atonal, non-melodic sound I can take.


Check out the work of Thomas Price. I guarantee you'll love it. He's a user of East West Quantum Leap Choirs and sometimes frequents this forum.

[TheVamp]

V-Rock, I hope you're using "classical" in reference to the musical era between the 18th and 19th centuries, and not as a blanket term for all instrumental concert music written in the last few hundred years (a regrettable tendency today), because the latter encompasses an evolutionary tradition of music almost exclusively based on breaking the rules. Especially music written in the first half of the past century, where composers like Stravinsky or Chuck Ives gave the stuffy traditionalists a total shock to the system with their reckless abandon of Classical and Romantic conventions. Of course the same could be said about Berlioz, Debussy, and all the greats form the 19th century--especially Beethoven. Actually, this is the first time in about 4 centuries that we are no longer breaking any rules.
Film music is most certainly beholden to the rules. It is necessarily defined by the limits of its space--the picture. In fact, I cannot think of another manifestation of art that is more restricted (or less free) than film music, which is not to say that film music is illegitimate, only that a valid comparison can't be drawn between it and concert music. This is why film composers aren't even recognized among concert composers. The music is so inherently limited and restricted when compared to the concert variety that the "long-hairs" don't even bother with it. They will acknowledge talent in a film composer, but invariably regard the music as trivial and incomplete rehashing of more serious work--and that's only if they're forced to regard it all.
Anyway, a long-winded response, but the point is, if it's fresh n' free music you're seeking my friend, soundtrack albums are probably the last place you should look. Oh, and don't write off 20th century music as wholly atonal. There are myriad examples of gorgeous tonal explorations from this period that have nothing to do with Schoenberg or his disciples.

I was actually using the term "classical" as a blanket term for all instrumental concert music written in the last few hundred years. This is what happens when I post in this forum without having my coffee. :o You're right, I should have said concert music.
Anyway, now that the caffeine is flowing freely through my veins, let me clarify...
I agree with everything you said, especially, sadly, the "long-hairs" not bothering with film music. It's this point that grieves me the most. An art form I love so much swept to the side as inconsequential. It's just... sad.
I don't dislike all concert music (I actually do love Stravinsky) I was speaking in general. There are examples of 20th Century concert music that I'm very fond of. Also, I didn't mean to imply that I dislike John Adams or his atonal ilk, either. It's just that sometimes after a couple of hours of dissonance, I have to get back to some kind of lyrical, harmonic melodic music and most of the time it's film music.
Yes, it's true that film music is beholden to the picture and the vagaries of timing, but there's not much else it must adhere to. It doesn't have to be any particular form, different styles can mix together, etc. Even "The Imperial March" isn't technically a march.
To sum up, it seems to me that film music is written for regular people (like me) who don't necessarily have any musical knowledge and modern concert music is increasingly written by musicians for musicians. A kind of "look how clever I am" exercise that, to me, doesn't sound very good. Again, I'm speaking in general!
Of course, if anyone has some good recommendations like White Noise and his Thomas Price suggestion... I'm always open to try new things. It's not like I listen to film music 24/7. I've got a couple gigs left on my iPod yet! ;)

[shnurgle]

I'm sure you've checked these guys out but Holst, Bartok, Copland, Ives, early Elliot Carter, James MacMillan (just to name a small few) have all produced gorgeous, melodic, approachable, and tonal music in the last century. Also don't just assume that new composers all write this esoteric stuff that's only appreciable by the music nerds. Contemporary music today, (including concert music) is generally a lot less experimental than it was half a century ago. We've reached a state a musical complacency with regard to breaking rules. You'd be surprised how easy to listen to some new music is compared to some of the 20th century modernists'.

[TheVamp]

Thanks, dude. You're da man! :D

[drew]

V-Rock, I hope you're using "classical" in reference to the musical era between the 18th and 19th centuries, and not as a blanket term for all instrumental concert music written in the last few hundred years (a regrettable tendency today), because the latter encompasses an evolutionary tradition of music almost exclusively based on breaking the rules. Especially music written in the first half of the past century, where composers like Stravinsky or Chuck Ives gave the stuffy traditionalists a total shock to the system with their reckless abandon of Classical and Romantic conventions. Of course the same could be said about Berlioz, Debussy, and all the greats form the 19th century--especially Beethoven. Actually, this is the first time in about 4 centuries that we are no longer breaking any rules.
Film music is most certainly beholden to the rules. It is necessarily defined by the limits of its space--the picture. In fact, I cannot think of another manifestation of art that is more restricted (or less free) than film music, which is not to say that film music is illegitimate, only that a valid comparison can't be drawn between it and concert music. This is why film composers aren't even recognized among concert composers. The music is so inherently limited and restricted when compared to the concert variety that the "long-hairs" don't even bother with it. They will acknowledge talent in a film composer, but invariably regard the music as trivial and incomplete rehashing of more serious work--and that's only if they're forced to regard it all.
Anyway, a long-winded response, but the point is, if it's fresh n' free music you're seeking my friend, soundtrack albums are probably the last place you should look. Oh, and don't write off 20th century music as wholly atonal. There are myriad examples of gorgeous tonal explorations from this period that have nothing to do with Schoenberg or his disciples. (not that Shoenberg was the sole practitioner of this style)


Couldn't have said it better.

I'll just add that if one were to listen to the music of all the great concert composers of last 250 years, you will find that nearly all film composers have borrowed heavily from them just as most of us do today. Specifically, nearly all epic orchestral film music is derived from the romantic and post-romantic eras.

Not putting down film music or it'scomposers, but little of the music is original or innovative in the way we would ascribe it to the great masters.

[TheVamp]

This is interesting. So, then, why be a film composer? Aside from that fact that your music will be heard by hundreds of times more people than if you wrote exclusively for the concert hall, why do it?
Most serious music critics will write off your work as derivative, and you're at the whim of various directors or producers who will push you in directions you yourself would never take your work.
Yet, it's a very competitive field. Is it the fame? The money? Anyone?

[shnurgle]

Why do it? Why do anything? If you love and believe in something and know that you must do it, then you must do it. It has nothing to do with how a certain sect of people feel about it.
Legit composers will tell you that composers who write for film do so for two reasons primarily: a) money, and b) because they aren't good enough for the legit world. Even if this is true in some or even many cases, I like to believe that the best practitioners of any art do it for the right reasons: because they love it, believe in it, and feel sincerely that they bring something "good" to the practice.

[dcoscina]

However, listen to the music from Superman, listen to Also spracht Zarathustra, listen to Death and Transfiguration and then listen to Superman again......

D

I'm aware of that quote but it's only 5 notes and Williams resolves it much differently than Strauss. He actually continues on with a very long spun theme. I know those first five notes are identical but a motif is a little more forgivable than Horner's blantant rip off of Prokofiev's Ivan the Terrible for Glory. It's almost the entire thematic body that he pillages.

[chocothrax]

This is interesting. So, then, why be a film composer? Aside from that fact that your music will be heard by hundreds of times more people than if you wrote exclusively for the concert hall, why do it?
Most serious music critics will write off your work as derivative, and you're at the whim of various directors or producers who will push you in directions you yourself would never take your work.
Yet, it's a very competitive field. Is it the fame? The money? Anyone?

If you love film music then uhh why not do it? There's not that much fame or money for the vast majority of film composers. Other than John Williams the average guy on the street might not be able to name any other film composers.

[vibrolux]

Right... back to Horner.

I found this intresting tidbit on wikipedia:

"John Williams's score for Star Wars contains quotes from Erich Wolfgang Korngold, Gustav Holst, Sergei Prokofiev, Dmitri Shostakovich and Antonín Dvořák, but unlike Horner he is rarely criticized by film score fans for his borrowings."

I don't know the validity of this (nor do I care), but I do know that for myself after watching Apollo 13 or Titanic I find myself drifting off in the shower the next day thinking of the film with JH's wonderful penetrating melodies in the back of my mind, and that's good enough for me.

[TheVamp]

Shnurgie & Choco,
I don't mean to question a film composer's devotion to their art. Far from it, since film music is my favorite form of music. It's just that it makes me sad (and pisses me off a bit) that they are so ill regarded by their counterparts in the concert hall.
To me, music is music. Either it works, or it don't. In a film or in a concert hall, where, I think we can all agree, different sets of rules apply.
I for one am glad that Williams, Goldsmith, Barry, Morricone, Elfman and yes, even Horner, chose the film scoring stage rather than the concert hall, because, in my opinion, any one of them could have succeeded in the concert hall as well.

[shnurgle]

To me, music is music. Either it works, or it don't. In a film or in a concert hall, where, I think we can all agree, different sets of rules apply.
I for one am glad that Williams, Goldsmith, Barry, Morricone, Elfman and yes, even Horner, chose the film scoring stage rather than the concert hall
I'm glad they chose to score films too. Well said.

[Sherief83]

Although I listen to film music for the music only and sometimes get bored if the music can't stand on it's own(John williams thread every one:D ). I think we should all judge horner on not only his music but on how well it works for the scenes because that is his music's true purpose.

[TheVamp]

Although I listen to film music for the music only and sometimes get bored if the music can't stand on it's own(John williams thread every one:D ). I think we should all judge horner on not only his music but on how well it works for the scenes because that is his music's true purpose.
Oh, there's no deny that Horner is a great dramatist. No denying that at all. One of his greatest abilities is to absolutely nail the emotional content of a scene. It's just the way he goes about doing it is where I take umbrage. To me, the truly great film scores are the ones that do stand on their own. But that's just me. ;)

[drew]

Oh, there's no deny that Horner is a great dramatist. No denying that at all. One of his greatest abilities is to absolutely nail the emotional content of a scene. It's just the way he goes about doing it is where I take umbrage. To me, the truly great film scores are the ones that do stand on their own. But that's just me. ;)

You are such idealists. Film music has but one purpose and that is to support and convey the emotions of the scenes in a film. Truely great film scores don't have or need to stand on their own and I think it is ludicrous to judge them in that regard. If they can stand on their own, that is a great thing, but film music should be judged on how it supports the film, nothing more nothing less.

[TheVamp]

You are such idealists. Film music has but one purpose and that is to support and convey the emotions of the scenes in a film. Truely great film scores don't have or need to stand on their own and I think it is ludicrous to judge them in that regard. If they can stand on their own, that is a great thing, but film music should be judged on how it supports the film, nothing more nothing less.
Then why bother with a soundtrack album? If film music's only purpose is to support the film for which it is written, why divorce it from that context? Why listen to it away from the visuals for which it is written at all?
I can't help but disagree. Yes, film music's first purpose is to augment the emotional content of the film for which it is written, but for me (and I can only speak for myself) the great scores are the ones that also stand on their own.
Are we to judge opera and requiems and music written for ballets by this same criteria?
If loving film music outside of the films for which it is written is wrong, then I don't wanna be right.

[drew]

Then why bother with a soundtrack album?

Money. Depending on how the deal is structured, it's a way for the composer to make some more money or for the studio to recoup some of the costs of music production.

It's Hollywod, it's a business and it's all about the bottom line.

[chocothrax]

I usually don't even see the film a score is attached to. How can I appreciate the music while watching the movie with the damn movie distracting me.

[zvenx]

lol
rsp

[exstreme]

i like james horners music too,that was when i heard the score of Titanic,it did sink me too!!:)

Titanic,Braveheart and Perfect storm,are my favourites,but i most say that his lattest score: The new world is also great!!:)

SVK

[LAcomposer]

wow, this thread really took off. I just want to say that I've changed my stance on horner in the last couple years. When I heard Shostakovich 5 in Troy (achilles theme) I was what I like to call "a music snob" and completly thought of him as being a plagiarist and all that. But then I also realized that he was called in veeerrryyy late in the project when they scrapped Gabriel Yared and had about 2 weeks to score. Obviously creativity goes out the window when you have 2 weeks to completely score a 2 and a half hour movie.

From what I understand, Horner does not like to use mock-ups often so that makes the job even harder for him. Plus he's got people asking him to do jobs saying, "I want this to sound like Braveheart, Legends of the Fall, or whatever" And he has to specifically cater to these requests (like all composers do) I'm sure it can get quite demanding most of the time due to ridiculous time constraints and always being behind schedule.

So now honestly i think that even though Horner may cut corners from time to time, he still gets the job done and ELOQUENTLY might I add. As long as the music fits the picture, he's done his job. I think that to make great music that stands on its own is a wonderful plus--but its not necessary--If the album sucks, dont buy the album. Download a single off Itunes or something.

[shnurgle]

Horner does not like to use mock-ups often so that makes the job even harder for him.
How does not doing mockups make the job harder? Mock-ups at least triple the amount of time it takes to compose. Just writing pencil to paper at the piano you can expect a pretty decent rate of output. Sitting there and putting together mockups can take forever--much longer than it takes to just write, with no mockups. Much easier that way.

[TheVamp]

I agree that films scores don't have to stand on their own in order to serve the films for which they are written. All I'm saying is that, for me, the scores that do stand on their own are the ones that go beyond function and become something more. Are they art? I don't know.
Look, I don't have a huge film score CD collection, only about 500 CDs. The scores I've bought are the ones that hit me emotionally when I saw the films for which they were written. In fact, the reason my collection is so small is that rarely do I buy a soundtrack to a film I haven't seen.
Again, this is just me. Do film scores have to stand on their own? No. Are the ones that do the ones that I prefer? Yes.

[LAcomposer]

Well, I guess I was mislead. I thought the whole purpose of mock-ups were to create a listenable experience for the director that is completely recallable in the event that the director does not like what he or she hears. I've heard that mock ups are a much cheaper way of conveying what will be the final score before you actually use real musicians--and before you waste thousands of dollars re-recording because the director changed their mind. So, no offense intended shnurgle, I dont see how writing with a pencil and paper is faster than creating effective mock-ups when it comes to fully realizing the music that is to be heard. Because getting all the players, engineers, mixers etc. would take a long time I would suppose. But I do see your point: all you do is just write and then record! Maybe what I'm saying is that it CAN be faster to use mock-ups; i dunno i really. I guess it just depends???

[drew]

I don't have a huge film score CD collection, only about 500 CDs.

Only 500?? And you call yourself a film music fan.:D

[TheVamp]

Only 500?? And you call yourself a film music fan.:D
OK, OK. 502. ;)

[kstevege]

What's wrong is if I want to listen to Willow and hear the danger motif I don't want to start thinking the general from enemy at the gates is around because he uses the same damn motif for the general. That degrades my listening experience.


Now that you mentioned it, I have heard that "Enemy at the Gates general theme" in more than one film score. I loved it in Enemy at the Gates. But it bothers me when it used for different films. Actually if you pay close attention, there are a lot of film scores that borrow melodies from other film scores. I really don't like that at all. Using other scores or other music for ideas and influence is one thing, but to copy note for note sections of a piece for more than one film is pretty gross. (I'm not talking about sequels)

[wlbwlb]

When it was announced that Star Trek II was going to scored by someone named James Horner and not Jerry Goldsmith, I went "Huh, who the crap is that?"
Needless to say, Trek II blew me away. So did Trek III, and he kept blowing me away... right up until Aliens.
Then I heard Khachaturian for the first time and I said to myself, "Oh, James... no you didn't." The same thing happened when I first heard Prokofiev, and Shostakovitch, and Schumman and... well, I won't bore you with the details.
I never minded when Horner borrowed from himself... for a while. What I could never stomach was when he "borrowed" from others.

A few years ago I decided to listen to all the Mahler symphonies. My first reaction was they all sound like film scores. Mahler, of course, never wrote any film scores. Weeelll, guess what. Just about everybody is copying Mahler too.

I love the end of Die Hard when Jerry Goldsmith just says, to hell with it, and lifts Sibelius's Finlandia, unchanged save for some more reverb, and plunks it down a the end of the film. At least he was honest about it. I think Sibelius even gets a credit.

But you gotta remember that people on this list and other musicians can spot this material. The general public can't. And blockbuster producers couldn't care less about originality as long as the cash register goes chinga chinga.

Bill

[dcoscina]

A few years ago I decided to listen to all the Mahler symphonies. My first reaction was they all sound like film scores. Mahler, of course, never wrote any film scores. Weeelll, guess what. Just about everybody is copying Mahler too.

I love the end of Die Hard when Jerry Goldsmith just says, to hell with it, and lifts Sibelius's Finlandia, unchanged save for some more reverb, and plunks it down a the end of the film. At least he was honest about it. I think Sibelius even gets a credit.


Bill

Mahler is awesome, especially his slow mvmnts. Also try The Song of the Earth (aka Das Lied Von Der Erde) and Kindertotenlieder. Both very moving orchestral song cycles.

As for Finlandia- Renny Harlin, who's Finnish himself, asked Michael Kamen (not Goldsmith) to include Finlandia into the score of Die Hard 2. Kamen, the composer of all 3 Die Hard films used Beethoven's 9th Symphony in the first film extensively. In all cases, Kamen wasn't trying to fool anyone. They were deliberate quotes. This is quite different from Horner who steals or lifts very obscure classical pieces and passes them off as his own.

[TheVamp]

But you gotta remember that people on this list and other musicians can spot this material. The general public can't. And blockbuster producers couldn't care less about originality as long as the cash register goes chinga chinga.

Bill

You're absolutely right about the "chinga chinga", as obviously people keep hiring Horner. And of course most people won't spot the music that he lifts from. It's just that after I had been exposed to the music he's "borrowed" from, it started to bother me.
I still listen to his early stuff, though. I guess it has enough sentimental value that I can overlook his "borrowing." Star Trek II and III, Krull, Cocoon, Aliens, crap, even Battle Beyond the Stars which is loaded with "borrowed" material. Still love 'em. I'm just not interested in his current stuff anymore. Ah, well...

[HornMeister]

Horner is a good one

although in ym eyes he is still behind Wiliams and Zimmer

but he has his own style

and its really cool

by far his best work has to be A Beautiful Mind

that was simply incredible

The piano works in that was amazing

enuff said;)

[kcwh]

Last summer I was learning a folk song and immediately recognized part of the melodic line as the main theme from Braveheart. I got out the soundtrack and looked at the credits, but of course, there is no mention of the original folk song. I don't mind him borrowing from the song because it's a wonderful tune, but it does bother me that he doesn't give credit where it's due, assuming that the ignorant masses will think he composed the melodic line.

[Sherief83]

So I guess everyone can agree in the end that james horner is a great composer and can win an oscar if he starts to admit and credit the composers he is using their music off..."Best music mixing"...:D

[HornMeister]

So I guess everyone can agree in the end that james horner is a great composer and can win an oscar if he starts to admit and credit the composers he is using their music off..."Best music mixing"...:D

something like that.....:rolleyes:

[lovelysilence]

I saw Horner composed for "A Beautiful Mind" last time i watched it. Great score IMO. The same theme is repeated endlessly, but it never gets dull, in fact it gets more interesting everytime those same 4 chords are repeated. Well done James.

Oh and Yared's soundtrack for City of Angels i think is great too. But i should post that in the Gabriel Yared section, right? :)

[Nathan Allen Pinard]

I think James Horner is smart due to his borrowing because he applies a "signature" to every one of his scores.

I have a knack for listening to a score and determining the composer without looking by the end, James Horner makes this rather easy (And Hanz Zimmer and James Newton Howard tricke me on Batman Begins)

[chocothrax]

I think James Horner is smart due to his borrowing because he applies a "signature" to every one of his scores.

I have a knack for listening to a score and determining the composer without looking by the end, James Horner makes this rather easy (And Hanz Zimmer and James Newton Howard tricke me on Batman Begins)

A signature like his danger motif. I listen to a score with it and start picturing some other movie he scored that has the same motif and just turn it off cause it's annoying. If that's the desired effect then yeah, pretty smart.

[josejherring]

Horner is great. No doubt about it. I think that he borrows from himself just because he doens't have time. Also, I'm sure that the films he does are temped by his own music. Once the director hears that it's hard to all of a sudden come up with something original, especially if it's you.

As far as him borrowing from other classical composers that's probably temp track stuff too. One very big music supervisor use to instruct his editors to temp with the classics. I was in his office once and behind a closed door I was hearing some guy cutting up tch. to fit some movie. Oh well, name of the game I guess.

Jose

[action9000]

I must say, I am a big fan of Horner's work, despite the criticisms he has received. Overall, his soundtrack to "The Land Before Time" still has a beautiful effect on me, to the point where the film still has an impact on me, at age 19.

I am a moderator at a successful Land Before Time forum (http://s7.invisionfree.com/thegangoffive), and conversations regarding the music come up from time to time.

The most obvious connection I have noticed between Horner's work existing music has to be a comparison between "Peter and the Wolf" and Horner's "Foraging for Food" track on the LBT soundtrack. I will also agree that Bartok's "The Wooden Prince" has distinct similarities to the title track in LBT, "The Great Migration".

I think that he borrows from himself just because he doens't have time.
I think James Horner is smart due to his borrowing because he applies a "signature" to every one of his scores.

I feel as though you are both right. I honestly have no negative issues with Horner "borrowing from himself". In a way, it adds a vertain charm to his music, which probably influences my interest in his music.

[ComposerNYC]

My fave Horner score is "Searching for Bobby Fisher" -- it's really beautiful & not many people know about it. He borrowed a lot of that for "Beautiful Mind" and built upon it. I'm also listening to "The New World" a lot lately... it's really quiet & intimate and the arrangements are kinda intricate. I like it.