Letters about James Horner's Titanic

Compiled by Lukas Kendall and Jeff Bond

We've stated our opinion in the aforementioned FSM (send $4 to Film Score Monthly, 5455 Wilshire Blvd Suite 1500, Los Angeles CA 90036-4201) in lengthy essays about Titanic, so we'll stay out of the way of the reader comments below. A lot of these are also in reply to various FSDs from January, which you can look up here at the site (http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/fsd.html)

If you make it to the end, buy yourself a sandwich.

***

From Mike Skerritt, mskerrit@umich.edu

While I do consider myself a fan of much of James Horner's work, his self-plagiarism is quite obvious. I thought, in case you hadn't heard it, that you might be interested in hearing how Horner describes himself in an interview for NPR:

Question: LH: well I'll tell--well, if I can--if I can be the bearer of maybe not bad news, but perhaps the bearer of information that comes from some of those places, very serious discussion of all film music that you've done and compare and contrast. I mean people really seem to pick it apart. And something that always comes up is self plagiarism. Do you think you steal from yourself?

Answer: JH: No. No. No. I actually don't think I steal from myself. I really try not to. I think, you know, as a writer matures, one should develop a very distinctive style in writing. One can be a complete chameleon for only so long. And even though you work on different films, it is the same writer. And I guess the only way I can relate to that is by going into an art gallery and you see 12 Monets assembled or you see Diebenkorns or you see Picassos, even. And somehow, even though they're all done for different clients at different times, you can see that it's the same painter doing them. And in film music, I think the same thing eventually happens as you develop a style. I don't think that there's anyway around it. And unique to film music is this feeling that one company owns a score. And no essence of that score or germ of that score can ever appear in anything else. It's all proprietary. That's unique in Hollywood. I've really tried very hard to put what I've done in my last film behind me and never refer to it again. But I think that one develops a style of approaching music against picture. And I think that that becomes a very distinctive quality. At least I try and make it distinctive. And maybe that's what they refer to.

I mean come on, is this for real? Picasso = Horner? How `bout Van Gogh, at least he was also a "hack" artist (man that was corny, my apologies)

***

From: Jeffswim@aol.com

After my third viewing of Titanic I promised not to speak ill of James Horner's musical choices in the film (at least not publicly), but with the Oscars nomination coming up in a week, the following question has been plaguing me, and I was hoping that someone could give me an answer: Since it is clearly obvious that Horner used some music from his previous films, such as Braveheart and Courage Under Fire, wouldn't he be ineligible for this year's Oscars, since he used material already composed? If I recall correctly, the same thing happened to Nino Rota's score for The Godfather. Apparently, Rota used music from a previous film and was therefore ruled ineligible for Best Score in 1972. Now, I don't know to what degree Rota copied from the other film, but I feel that if you take music from a score you have already produced, then the current one shouldn't be deemed an original score.

I may be totally wrong on this point or maybe just paranoid, but if anyone could shed some light on the subject, it would help me sleep at night.

***

From: Colin Travis Kliewer <ctk6054@tamug.tamu.edu>

I've been reading the "debate" going on about James Horner recently and I thought I'd add my comments. It's usually very easy for me to see all sides of an issue, and this is no exception.

I only have a few Horner scores: Star Trek 2 & 3, Braveheart, Aliens, and Apollo 13. I will be getting Titanic, Glory, and Cocoon in the near future, as well as Willow if I ever come across it. Some people will think that I haven't heard enough of his music to know completely what I'm talking about, and that may be true, but I am also basing some of my comments on what I have heard other people say about Horner.

I can tell from listening to Aliens how blatantly obvious Horner borrows from his previous works: it has phrases from both of his Star Trek scores in several places. This is where one side of the Horner issue seems to be: on his originality, or his lack of originality, from score to score. I wish that with every score he does he would give us the chance to listen to something completely new. I think it is appropriate for each composer to have a style that is characteristic of him/herself, but I believe that each score should also be able to stand as a truly original composition. Of course every composer occasionally borrows music from elsewhere and intertwines it with his own, but Horner seems to make this a habit. I once heard that Horner said he often does not remember things he previously composed when working on a new film. Does this mean that he just coincidentally come up with the exact same rhythm and intervals of notes for the Klingon theme in Star Trek 3 as he did for some of the action sequences in Aliens? I seriously doubt it. Also, and this is probably being unfair but I can't help but say it: could this habitual lack of originality be why Horner has only been nominated for Best "ORIGINAL" Score, and never actually won?

Another big side of the issue seems to be the real reason why many people like Horner's work, and I think that is because, as has already been mentioned, of the emotions it draws out from time to time. That is why I bought the Horner scores I did. I think this is the purpose of music: it's ability to draw out emotions, whether it is classical or heavy metal, country music or film music, and this is what we need to remember throughout this Horner controversy. I know many people who do not collect film scores but they still go out and buy the soundtrack to Braveheart or Titanic. Why? Because the movie was an emotional experience, and in no small part due to the music. If I mentioned James Horner to these people, they'd say "Who?"

These are only my opinions; please don't misunderstand them. James Horner is a wonderful composer and has put out some terrific film music. I wouldn't buy them if I thought otherwise. I will always set aside my feelings toward his use and reuse of his own music in order to enjoy the emotional experience he intended for the listener.

***

From: "BRIAN D. MELLIES" <dialbri3@earthlink.net>

As someone who found your Web site only recently, I feel I'm coming in at the middle of the movie, as it were. A quick comment about James Horner. The first James Horner film I recall seeing was Brainstorm, and I found the score to be strangely lacking in inspiration. You know, you hear it once and you know you've heard all there is.

I am still waiting for that first impression to be dispelled. I think Mr. Horner is an excellent craftsman. He obviously passed all of his classes in composition. That said, I am still waiting for him to write his first great score. I confess to always feeling a slight twinge of disappointment when I see his name on the movie poster. I own hundreds of soundtracks, but not even one by Horner. The closest I get is the Eric Kunzel "Symphonic Star Trek" which has a 12 minute suite from "Wrath of Khan". Hum, come to think of it, that's probably the best score Horner has done. The "Main Title" actually sticks in the mind. It's acceptable.

***

From: Tom Wallace <tect@earthlink.net>

Sorry, but I have to add my two cents worth regarding Horner's Titanic score. The first time I listened to it (when it was released in November) I blew through the entire disc in about 15 minutes and then had it up for sale the next day at Henk's Adbook because I thought it was total garbage. I was expecting something MUCH different than what Horner delivered, so it was a complete disappointment. I'm not really big on scores that sound overly synthesized, except for Basil Poledouris' score to Wind.

In the end, I actually wound up keeping the disc and listening to it carefully on plane rides to the East coast over the holidays, and I've since come to truly enjoy it. Track five is very cool to listen to at takeoffs, especially if you've got a window seat and the day is bright and cheery. If you time it right, it's perfect! Around time 1:48 is when the engines should be at full power and the plane starting its way down the runway in a hurry. To hell with what the flight attendant's tell you, keep your CD player playing. If you're gonna crash, might as well enjoy a few final moments of great music! The reason they want them turned off is so you can hear their instructions in case of an emergency anyway-but who wants to know they're a about to die?

The point being, as usual, I allowed my preconceptions of the score to alter the way I listened to it, and when I just played it as a "normal" CD, I really found a lot of interesting, likable material. So maybe it IS fraught with themes from Braveheart, Apollo 13" and Enya's song "Sun in the Stream"... It's still an exciting, highly emotional score which is well-suited for the film. Sadly, unless you're a lover of film music, I doubt you'd even notice the score with the film because the sound effects are so loud-I really had to listen for it. As for it topping billboard's charts, I wouldn't complain. I'm glad film music is finally getting noticed; the more attention it gets, the more likely we are to see more score releases.

I stated in a past review of The Pagemaster many years ago (in a different publication) that "I wish someone would give Horner an ocean adventure film to score" because I loved the ocean/pirate themes. Well, the resulting music of Titanic wasn't exactly what I meant or wanted (though I'll take it) so if someone would please write a movie like Cutthroat Island or Nate and Hayes and let Horner score it, I think we'd get a phenomenal body of music.

Favorite Horner scores are Battle Beyond the Stars, Krull, Once Upon a Forest, The Man Without a Face, Apollo 13 and Titanic. Least favorite Horner scores are Sneakers, Field of Dreams, The Rocketeer, Thunderheart, Patriot Games, A Far Off Place and Star Trek 3.

Is there any truth to the rumor that a further-expanded soundtrack to the existing expanded Krull CD is in the making right now?

If there's anyone out there who can help me get my special Princess Diana tribute CD legally released, please contact me. It's a combo of custom-mixed film score music and songs. The disc has been finished since November and all the artwork is done (3-page cover with liner notes, back cover and disc label.) It's all ready to go! At present, only Diana's side of the family, my family and a few close friends have copies of this disc, and I'd like the entire world to have it. Not interested in doing a bootleg, so please don't approach me with offers indicating such-I could do that myself. I've already received approval from two composers to use their music (it's a start...) Any help is beyond greatly appreciated! tect@earthlink.net

***

From: Jerry Young <kontiki@ix.netcom.com>

I have watched and studied films for nearly 30 years. My favorite composers of film scores include John Williams, John Barry, Jerry Goldsmith, the late Jerry Fielding, early Elmer Bernstein, whose John Wayne scores are a delight and who's early style was very distinguishable, Ennio Morricone and , yes, James Horner. All have written forgettable scores for countless movies, and remembered for some great and nominated scores. So, James Horner has had a half dozen Oscar nominations, 2 golden globes, a hit single and the hottest album in town. Horner has provided some great themes for films like FIELD OF DREAMS, GLORY, APOLLO 13 and BRAVEHEART. But, I haven't liked other scores including RANSOM. I could do the same with Goldsmith, whose scores for LIONHEART and POWDER are some of my favorites, I don't see you attacking him.

Some of your comments on Horner's music has gone to a personal level. I do not find that very professional. I don't like Nicholas Gage as an actor, but I don't make it personal.

But, for me, when James Horner's name is on the credits, I actually look forward to hearing his music, and yes, TITANIC is my favorite of his.

***

From: Bryan Frazier <bryanfrazier@fssi-ca.com>

FSM reader, Jennifer Murkham recently accused James Horner of plagiarizing the first movement of Schumann's First Symphony for his score of Willow. Yes, it is true, people do plagiarize. But I believe Ms. Murkham may be overstating the issue a bit. As a musician and songwriter, I own and listen to tons of music. Sometimes when I am writing my wife may say, "That part sounds a little like a Paul Simon line or tune." The truth is, that with so much music in a person's mind, it may be impossible to come up with something that is totally dissimilar to a piece of a song that someone else has written. There are those who set out to intentionally copy another's work, I hope they get sued. But we must remember, there are only so many musical notes, and only so many ways those notes can fit together. With so many songs and songwriters you are bound to hear similarities in their work. Perhaps it isn't always plagiarism. Perhaps we should call it a little creative traffic jam (pun intended).

***

From: "Eugene" <matijczy@interlynx.net>

The next segment of the seemingly eternal Horner debate cycle has raised its ugly head. Certainly most of the FSM crew uses Horner as a target, as do many FSM readers. I feel that Horner has written several beautiful original music cues, and he should be applauded for this accomplishment. I do not see how a film music lover can simply dismiss Horner's work completely. I am not a major Horner fan, but I would like the "negative" side to clarify its arguments by answering these questions:

1. Is Horner being judged for simply his music output, or is his character being judged as well?

2. If someone with an outgoing, friendly manner reused and plagiarized, would the feelings be so strong as they are against Horner?

3. Does reusing and plagiarizing automatically mean that Horner's quality music should simply be ignored? Is not saying that he composed none narrow-minded?

4. Did Horner admit to not reusing and plagiarizing?

5. Do producers/directors complain that he reuses and plagiarizes?

6. How many people watch a Horner scored film and frequently say that the score was inappropriate to the movie? Much more than Goldsmith?

One of the common complaints against Horner is that he reuses his own music, and that he borrows segments from classical pieces. I am sometimes glad that he borrows segments from classical pieces because often I do not enjoy listening to the piece in its entirety, while I do enjoy the segment.

The grounds of attack against Horner should be clear. I sense that his character is being attacked, and that reuse and plagiarism is the focal point of other attacks. I refuse to judge a composer's music based on character flaws, and I refuse to dispense with a composer's entire body of work because of reuse and plagiarism.

***

From: David Hardin <lowes.dhardin@capital.ge.com>

Well, I've read the commentary. It's amazing how different one person hears music from another! I, in general, loathe so called "popular" music because it has already been done over and over and over again. Then, there is music I would classify as a 'masterpiece'. It's so good and original that it sounds as if it was brought done from heaven and given to us as a gift. Vivaldi, Mozart, Bach, Scarlatti, are some names from the past that come to mind. But, they also did some less memorable work as well. I prefer to 'judge' composers by their 'best' works or ultimately I'll be a little disappointed. How would the 'masters' score films of today? Well, the answer is, there are some modern day masters today. Some of their work is great and some of it will be forgotten. John Williams has done some great work, but some of it is not. But, he's at least produced some great works.

The problem I run into when it comes to film scores is this. Do I judge the music on its own merits or on the effect the music has on the film? Music to listen to without the movie has to stand on its own merits. James Horner's music doesn't really move me from that standpoint. However, the musical score for Titanic I think is outstanding. It is romantic and powerful. The Gattaca soundtrack is outstanding music, but, as a film score, it was not enough to make the movie powerful enough (maybe no music could make it that way?). The Portrait of a Lady is one of my favorite soundtracks, but the movie was not good enough to make it a 'masterpiece'. Some film scores work as both, and, it is these that I remember the most. Scores such as Schindler's List, Sense and Sensibility, Bram Stoker's Dracula are outstanding film scores and music.

I suppose it all depends on how we want to look at it. And, that's where our biases come more into focus.

***

From: Steven Weigle <sweigle1@ic3.ithaca.edu>

In today's FSD article, you make several good points about James Horner, and bring up good reasons why you don't like him. I myself don't like the Titanic score when taken separately from the movie, but I think that in terms of artistic effect, it works quite well.

You point out several times that Horner uses "cliché" music that merely reinforces the images on the screen, good guy theme for the good guy, scary music vs. happy music, etc. However, there is one particular scene in Titanic which I think is one of the greatest uses of music to construct meaning in ANY film.

As the ship is sinking, water bursts through the glass dome above the first-class stairwell. Dozens of people are swept away to their deaths. Instead of tragic or action oriented music, Horner instead introduces a triumphant synth and string theme. This theme, which is not on the CD release, but was used in one of Titanic's trailers, changes the meaning of the scene and in fact personifies the ocean.

***

From: henry@coombs.anu.edu.au (Henry Fitzgerald)

Imagine a film with a musical score which opens with a five-note trumpet flourish and closes with a three-chord progression in the strings, and has 90 minutes of silence in between. Such a score may serve the film it accompanies very well. It may even be more appropriate than any other possible score. But if the composer of such a score were to win an award for it I'm sure we would all - quite rightly - think that there was something wrong somewhere.

It has nothing to do with the fact that the score contains very little music. We can imagine a film very well scored by the same three-chord progression repeated over and over again, orchestrated exactly the same way, at the threshold of consciousness, for the best part of the 90 minutes. My verdict is the same: this music may serve the film it accompanies as well as it likes; it doesn't deserve an award.

The reason is this. These two imaginary scores, although they demonstrate some skill (the skill of finding appropriate sounds), they don't demonstrate compositional skill. In order to win an award the score must not just accompany the images well, it must be good music; more to the point, it must accompany the images well *because* it is good music. Or to put it another way: the composer must sufficiently demonstrate his skill *as* composer.

Imagine a film in which every single character wears the same (rather ordinary) suit for all the time they're on screen. However appropriate this is, this film ought not win a "best costume design" award. (The costume designer did not demonstrate his skill *as* costume designer.) Cheesy special effects, stodgy camera work and a complete lack of makeup may do a film a world of aesthetic good, but should not be awarded Oscars for that reason alone. And so on.

I would like to add that I can't understand why so many people thought that Horner's score "worked" in the movie. Am I the only one who found it earthbound and directionless; who found the wandering synthesized mist anything but uplifting in the moments where it was meant to be uplifting; who objected to otherworldly voices accompanying by no means otherworldly subject matter? Well, perhaps it's just me.

***

From: "Pieter Coenen" <mab@village.uunet.be>

These endless conversations about Horner are really too much. And especially his personal life. Does this kind of talk lead anywhere? I don't think a music admirer should comment about someone's personal life in a magazine about film scores. I read that Herrmann was a very difficult man to work with, so what? I will never speak to Herrmann, just as most of us will never know Horner. Your personal experiences with Horner should better be kept private and not be told here as some poor example of defense. Don't answer these freaks. Furthermore, if you have first hand reports from a "variety of people", you DO NOT have first hand reports.

***

From: Corey C. Witte <Galt1138@aol.com>

RE: Henry SkyMaker.

One of the key reasons people find Horner's music distasteful or unremarkable is because it doesn't get the emotional reaction you refer to. Like it or not, people's emotions don't always respond the same way. More to the point, emotions are important and relevant because we as humans know what the mean (provided we're not kidding ourselves). Our intellect is tied to them. Emotions in and of themselves are meaningless. It is only because they are tied to something that is relevant to us that they gain meaning.

RE: David Graveman.

I understand what you're implying by saying there has never been an original idea on the planet. But you had better check your premises or you run the risk of defeating your own argument.

From: bburnett@ua1vm.ua.edu

Bravo on a most enlightening and entertaining column today! I don't necessarily agree with you on some of your anti-Horner sentiments (e.g., I like his score for "Braveheart" an awful lot), but I agree with a great many more of them than I might have suspected at one time. I hated the Titanic CD when I bought it, absolutely despised it, but found it to be considerably more enjoyable once I had seen the movie.

I just wanted to let you know that I enjoy your analytical approach to film music. There is so little of it to begin with that it is always refreshing to read intelligent discussion of this peculiar hobby we seem to have.

By the way, on a non-film music note, I recently bought an album of symphonically arranged Led Zeppelin music and was surprised at how well they translated into the "classical" idiom. If you haven't heard the album, stop by a record store sometime and have someone play it for you. It's pretty good.

***

From: "Gary S. Howard" <"howardz@erols.com "@erols.com>

Bravo, Lucas, for going the distance and revealing your deep-seated feelings about James Horner, his music, and how the man's personality affects the way you listen to his work. We should all be so introspective and honest in our approach to music and the movies.

Apparently, Bernard Herrmann, if you caught him on the wrong day, could be a miserable, fire-breathing SOB. Misanthropic, yes. Patronizing, never. His music depicts the difference. It is disarmingly genuine and, in the most lyrical passages (i.e., Vertigo, The Ghost and Mrs. Muir, even the quieter moments of the hellish Psycho), reveals that beneath the scary surface of this social T-Rex pounded the heart of a pussycat yearning to be stroked.

I think what these Hollywood folks are like in their private lives, how they treat their wives and families, how they interact with their peers, indeed, how they regard the everyday people, does have significance. (For instance, I'll never look at a Woody Allen film quite the same way.) Some in the movie business are shrewd enough to fake their work, especially with today's audiences desperately starved for entertainment and romance. But, very frankly, many of us know in our hearts when we're being sold artificial goods.

So by no means should you: one, feel guilty about spilling your guts; or, two, make the final word on the subject.

Where else are we going to get this stuff?

***

From: Michael Lyons <MikeyL7076@aol.com>

I enjoyed reading your article about Horner and finally coming to a full understanding of why you "dislike" James Horner's music so much. But, I really want to make a point about all the ripping off Horner does of not only his own music, but of others. In my listening experiences, I have come to notice that other composers other than Mr. Horner also take pieces from their scores to a prior and incorporate that into their newer works. With all of this going on, however, no one really ever seems to notice this and make comments to that end. Taking this in mind, I wish to give a few examples to clarify that.

First, let's start with John Williams. I know, he is probably one of the best film scorers of all time. But, he, like everyone else, has had times when he has either ripped off himself or other composers when writing his music. Two examples of this come to mind. The first one comes from his new score to Seven Years in Tibet. In some of the action type scenes like the track "Peter's Rescue", the music, especially in the string sections, sounds exactly like an action set out of both The Lost World and Jurassic Park. Furthermore, the music that is used in the award ceremony scene at the end of Star Wars, at the very beginning of the fanfare, seems to be exactly the same as Felix Mendelssohn's Wedding March from A Midsummer Night's Dream.

The next composer I will focus on is Basil Poledouris. Now, I have only really listened to two of his scores, Hunt for Red October and Starship Troopers, but I have noticed that, especially in Troopers, he has ripped not only himself off, but Horner as well. The electronic percussion that is lightly heard in the background of the piece "Destruction of Roger Young" is an exact repeat of percussion used by Mr. Poledouris in "Nuclear Scam" from Red October. Furthermore, in "Tango Urilla" from Troopers, Poledouris, in an obvious attempt to make his music sound like the temp track originally on the film, uses a large portion of Horner's "Bishop's Countdown" from Aliens with only a few minor changes.

Next comes Hans Zimmer. His music always seems to sound strangely similar. The percussion, rhythms, and male chorus always seem to sound exactly alike with little difference from previous work. In addition, some of the string sections in works like Crimson Tide and The Rock sound exactly like string passages from one of his more original works, Beyond Rangoon.

The final composers I will focus on are David Arnold, Elliot Goldenthal, and Danny Elfman. While Arnold has not been writing mainstream scores for very long, an exact repeat from Stargate can be heard about halfway thought his highly entertaining piece "Backseat Driver" from his new score to Tomorrow Never Dies. With Goldenthal, most of his brass-based action passages sound the same, and the "Steel Cello Lament" from the movie Heat sounds like a passage from his theme to Alien3. Finally, while Elfman doesn't really rip himself off chord for chord like some of the other composers do, his music, especially of late, has been filled with the same bongo drum, electric bass, drum solos, and chorus writing as in his works prior.

I feel that this letter may give a good indication to you about my true opinions about the amount of ripping off that goes on with film music. This is definitely not limited to James Horner, even though it is more evident in his music than in everyone else's. Keeping this in mind, however, I think that, before you or anyone else goes off and mercilessly attacks his next score, remember that everyone at some point uses pieces of their previous work in new music, so don't judge Horner based just on that. If you do, you would have to do the same for everyone else's music as well.

***

From: Jeff Commings <Jeffswim@aol.com>

Hey Lukas, you are the man! Thanks for saying in very elaborate words what the rest of the country buying the Titanic soundtrack is afraid to admit. Yes, his use of other people's works (and his own) is effective, but they buy it because they know the music subconsciously and can immediately recall the feeling that Mr. Horner wants them to feel. It's sad that one person, outside of our government, can manipulate the public so well.

***

From: "Brown, Alphonse V." <ABrown@tmh.tmc.edu>

Since a lot of your readers like Horner considerably enough, what are the odds of having a FSM Video Interview a la the Basil Poledouris interview? I don't know how the sells are going for the one out now, but I'm sure it wouldn't be a bad idea to get Horner to speak out about his compositions/arrangements. That being if you could get through his assistants which you said were "nasty" and hostile. With him winning the GG, that really made me want to know more about the man and his music, the same way you all splendidly examine Basil and his music.

You mentioned, also, that some composers are "nice" and some are not. Well, I briefly would like to share my experience in meeting James Newton Howard at the Creature Feature signing a few weeks back. He was a very down to earth man. I was afraid, at first, that he wouldn't want sign the 15 CD's that I brought for him to sign, but he had no problem with that. He even signed the covers and the bootleg promo "Flatliners/Falling Down" (which he had to purchase himself). The fact that he was on vacation when he came, is proof enough that he is a very thoughtful man. I chatted with him about his upcoming Dial M for Murder remake with Michael Douglas and we both share opinions on his favorite scores which are Grand Canyon and Alive. He posed for a picture with me and he asked if I was interested in becoming a composer. I felt as though if I'd said, "Yes" that he could have easily taken me under his wing like he did for John Frizzell (sp), but I told him, "No, I just enjoy listening." I'm no musician, I try to play themes on my keyboard, but that's it!! All in all, I think JNH would be a very nice suggestion for a video interview as well.

***

From: "Mark Bagby" <bagby@calcot.com>

No, Lukas, I think you're right on the money. Horner is, for the most part, simplistic, much along the same lines as Max Steiner, another composer either reviled or admired, for the most part. His scores are, again for the most part, not much more than sonic wallpaper.

Now there are times that is exactly what is called for...a triumphant moment should be triumphant. It really has to do with depth, however...and when full orchestra and chorus hit a crescendo major chord, we tend-through prior experience and exposure-to realize this is indeed a triumphant moment.

On the other hand, it's not necessarily the only way to do it, and through either unusual instrumentation, or restraint, not going for the 'over the top' approach, the total effect works so much better on all planes.

Mr. Horner's approach is almost never unusual, nor groundbreaking. He is indeed a very fine craftsman, as was Steiner. His scores almost always 'work' in the context of the film, and he has composed scores I have listened to and enjoyed. The complaint of 'sameness' is valid...if you aren't a fan of a particular style, you won't like it. I am personally a big fan of John Wayne. It never really mattered after about 1956 what the character's name was, that was John Wayne we were seeing regardless of the movie, with the possible exceptions of True Grit and The Shootist, which were more like theme and variations, to use a musical term.

Horner's approach is one of breadth, not of depth. He doesn't seem to grasp the subtext underlying the film, and you are correct in asserting that he doesn't really try to tackle a film beyond melodrama. I cannot imagine him scoring, say, Hamlet, or Amistad or Schindler's List. And as much as I enjoyed viewing Braveheart, the score was thoroughly unremarkable; serviceable, yes, appropriate most of the time and effective, without question. Good? No. Like most film scores, it wasn't much more than temp track stuff. Horner's scores wind up having a sense of incompletion to them...and he simply does not have the apparent understanding and absorption of the material that a better composer possesses. His comment in the Time or Newsweek article a couple of years ago, "How do you score a disembowelment?" or words to that effect, tends to sum it up: let's go beyond the obvious, on-screen effect and create something much finer.

But, no, he tends to slip into the Tiomkin or Steiner mode of catching every action and pushing it with the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Nothing wrong with that, if you're driving rail spikes...but not very good if you have tacks to tie down.

Enough about Horner, per se. Frankly, I could care less if he's Albert Schweitzer or Adolf Hitler. His personal life is his, and he'll have to deal with that on his own terms, and his Maker's...Bernard Herrmann wasn't exactly a gem to work or live with, either. Musically, there's no comparison, though Horner has probably scored more 'big' films than Herrmann was ever offered. On the other hand, Herrmann probably turned down more big films...like 2001 and Exorcist because he knew the director was not really interested in what a properly done, well-crafted score could do for the film.

As for Horner's disc being number one on the charts...so what? It is the first instrumental soundtrack album to do so well, since, well, gosh, Star Wars, I guess. So? I think it's more a case of people who reallyreallyreally liked the movie so much that they've got to have... something...from it, and right now this is all they could have. You suppose they'll sell a few videotapes too? Doubtless.

Enough on Horner. He's a hack; well paid, talented, educated and intelligent, but a hack nonetheless. My only hope is that he has the wisdom to rip off Alfred Newman's wonderful 1940 Mark of Zorro for Mask of Zorro. Now there was a truly talented hack...

***

From: Wdp321 <Wdp321@aol.com>

I am so pleased that you are so honest with everyone with your views I myself hate it when one sugar coats criticism. I have to admit that I'm only 20, a bit naive with scores, I love Herrmann, Williams, Goldsmith, Menken, and Horner. I listen to the Titanic CD all the time I guess because I can hear Braveheart...Aliens....Apollo 13...Cocoon....Ransom, among others it saves time. Ha Ha.

To add to this even in pop music most artists are the same for example Madonna, Cyndi Lauper, Janet Jackson, any other recording artist sounds the same, but my point is so do some of the great film composers, although I believe it is extremely hard to compose a score those who have done this are greatly appreciated, it is amazing to hear new scores by Williams, and Goldsmith, Elfman, Horner to see if any thing is different and If they have went above the call of duty.

***

From: rewalt@firstambank.com

When Horner first appeared on the scene, I was very impressed with his work. Although Battle Beyond the Stars was a outrageous rip-off of ST:TMP, Humanoids of the Deep had its moments. He really blossomed with Star Trek II.

The first big disappointment was ST III. So much of the material seemed, well, recycled. To me it was a lazy score. But I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and attribute it to a short schedule or whatever.

Brainstorm was terrific. One of my favorite of his scores. Then came ALIENS. (Let's not mention Project X, which is unwatchable thanks to his music.) Don't get me wrong, I love some of the action sequences. Some of his most effective and intense writing occurred in that score. But his music almost ruined the film for me. Opening the film with Gayne by Khatchaturian so outraged me that I may have actually gasped out loud. This was plagiarism, pure and simple.

Now, many great compositions have used other melodies, be they folk songs, classical, and so on. Could this be an homage to 2001? No. And here is why I think not. Copland interpolated a shaker melody into Appalachian Spring. Ives is well known for his, almost, I would say, sound montages of popular songs in his symphonies and elsewhere. But there is a very big difference between these composers and Horner. They made the music their own. They interpolated it into their own compositions. It became part of the fabric of the piece. When Horner steals, he just lifts big chunks of other people's music and drops it down right in the center of his. No weaving, no interpolation, no manipulation of the tune or modulation into a minor key, etc. It, many times, sounds just like the original. Even the orchestration seems not too different. And, amazingly enough, he does that with his own music. He'll take a riff from the Mutara Nebula in ST II and drop it right in to his current action sequence. Come on! ST II was 16 years ago!

After all of this, I will also say this :I don't think it is all his fault. If it was, would we really have a Sneakers, or Field of Dreams, or Spitfire Grill? I think he often gives the filmmaker, whether he be the director or producer or studio, exactly what they want. I believe that when he works with a strong director who knows what he or she really wants, they just plain won't let him get away with the lazy crap. They can get a good score out of him. My admiration for James Cameron knows no bounds and I think Titanic is a magnificent film, but his comments at the Golden Globes about Horner's score indicate that he got just what he wanted. It worked well in the film, which is the most important thing, but I have listened to the CD once and have not found a compelling reason to listen to it again.

***

From: "Jeffry D. Heise" <jdh@socialstudies.com>

First off, I will not bash you or your article for speaking your mind about that extremely obscure filmmusic composer, James Horner. I have never seen a single composer cause so much positive or negative feeling, with the same amount of passion on either side. With the exception of the discussion on what the next series of STAR WARS films scores should be like, no other score seems to have stirred up as much talk as the one to TITANIC. I, for one, found your opinions well thought out and sensible compared to some I've been reading lately. I may not agree with some parts of your argument-I loved both the film and the score-but at least you argue your points logically and don't resort to name calling or a questioning of Mr. Horner's right to call himself a human being. I have liked and disliked his scores for the same reasons you mention in your piece, and this is not my favorite one (that goes to GLORY), but I have been absolutely fascinated by the ongoing discussion. May I suggest a moratorium until after the Oscars are awarded, so that the arguments don't peter out beforehand? I can't wait to see what THOSE are going to be like!

***

From: henry@coombs.anu.edu.au (Henry Fitzgerald)

I don't believe it ... it's *patriarchal* to make the hero good, the bad guy bad, the love scenes romantic, and so on? (I wonder what matriarchal conventions would be like.) The Star Wars films are ironic precisely because they're not ironic? (What does this mean? How can you tell?)

The reason *I* dislike Horner's music has nothing to do with--I have to say it--indigestible postmodernism. It certainly has nothing to do with irony; although it may have something to do with distancing. So speaking as a 20th Century theoretician of another kind ...

Some people think that what we call "sad" music is music that makes us feel sad. Not so. This may seem plausible enough in the case of sadness, but it is certainly not plausible in the case of other emotions. Music that sounds angry, for example, is not music that makes us *feel* angry; or even, necessarily, music that makes us feel anything at all; and the same applies for any number of other anthropomorphic terms that we apply to music: stern, sour, lively, sympathetic, etc. There is a difference between expressing emotion and inculcating emotion.

Horner always sounds to me as if he is trying to inculcate emotion, rather than express it. This is *not* the job of a film composer. The job of the film composer is to narrate. When we follow Marion Crane's flight in Psycho, Herrmann is not just trying to push our buttons directly and make us feel nervous: he is *telling* us that *Marion* feels nervous. The sort of music that would make us *feel* nervous, by itself, would be unpredictable, atonal, otherworldy, and so on. Herrmann's music is none of that. It flows, it has a warm string sound, a lyrical melody every so often, it doesn't startle us--it expresses but does not inculcate nervousness--but precisely because Herrmann is narrating rather than hissing in a stage whisper, "Feel nervous!" we are all the more likely to genuinely feel nervous. Not on our own behalf, but on Marion's.

I could rattle off examples from other composers. In particular, I'd like to defend my favorites: Miklos Rozsa and John Williams. I don't think either composer has (or had) an ironic bone in their bodies. Both are (or were) romantics in deadly earnest. But the reason I respond to them more than Horner is that I don't think they're trying to storm my emotional citadel directly: they are primarily interested in musically *expressing* the power of Rome, Luke Skywalker's lonely destiny, etc., and only secondarily interested in bringing tears to my eyes. A direct assault on the citadel is less likely to succeed. And if it fails, it fails utterly: the composer has nothing to fall back on, because he wasn't trying to invest any particular qualities in the music itself, to begin with.

***

From: Douglas Lopenzina <DLopenzina@aol.com>

Finally, I will close by saying that I agree Horner is exceptionally good as a craftsman of what he does, which is why argument about his scores is so passionate. It is also interesting to note that since 1990 his scoring choices have been almost exclusively children's films-Jumanji, The Pagemaster, etc.-or high profile mainstream fare which also emphasize traditional western heroes and stories-Apollo 13, Braveheart, Titanic, the Jack Ryan movies. With the sole exception of Sneakers, which remains inexplicably good, Horner's scores for more adult, ambiguous fare have been for movies that disappeared without a trace: House of Cards, Jack the Bear, To Gillian. Except for Sneakers, he simply self-destructs on movies that disallow "the obvious" (not to mention plagiarism) and mandate more sophisticated formal structures.

In 1995, James Horner composed four scores that I am aware of:

To Gillian..., Spitfire Grill, Apollo 13, Braveheart

Blockbusters notwithstanding, I believe that Horner chooses his movies from the heart; what you may describe as adult ambiguous fare, I would rather categorize as beautiful movies, which I find the music integrally woven into. James Horner has a rather eclectic background of selections.

Does the fact that House of Cards and To Gillian... have disappeared make them bad movies or bad scores?; it sounded as though you were implying it. I believe (without proof) that he doesn't make nearly as much profit from movies like these as he does from an Apollo 13 And I believe he scores them entirely on their emotional impact to him. A good example is "Searching for Bobby Fischer" The moments and the music connect so beautifully, that I can't envision one without the other.

To address quickly the plagiarism issue, I'll say that in terms of musical education, I have little, but I have an excellent ear, and I've found in my extensive collection no fewer or greater examples of self-plagiarism in Horner's scores than I have in William's or Goldsmith's for that matter.

***

From: "William N.Zarvis" <WnZarvis@cc.berkshire.org>

James Horner is a musical wild card. Out of all the composers in the industry or in the history of composing, James stands out in both the most negative and sometimes the most positive of lights. He has been shunned and applauded by many filmscore listeners and music critics who can't quite decide whether he is a insightful composer who (re)writes really beautiful music or a lazy rip-off artist who (re)writes easily forgettable scores. It comes as no surprise that for every diehard, unswerving, Horner fan in the world, there is someone else listening to his music and patiently waiting to pounce on James Horner when the first sign of an already written theme rears it's ugly head. Sounds over dramatic? It isn't.

The truth is, he has become a target for any slick person who wishes to pontificate on the values and standards of filmscores and deliver quip filled diatribes in front of unsuspecting fans. It has almost become tradition to pop in your new James Horner C.D.--god forbid DO NOT listen to the music on any level of aesthetic and technical appreciation--and play a "Where is Waldo" game in search of already written themes and orchestrations. It drives me nuts when I ask someone,(example:)"Didn't you sob uncontrollably at the end of the Titanic and didn't you feel that the music was incredibly powerful in those last scenes?" and the reply is, "The music sucks. It sounds like Horner's other scores." Well, thank you Mr.Perfect Filmscore Pitch! Everybody should have your amazing ability of forensic musical analysis.

When people offer shallow critiques that are only similar in depth to someone belching loudly after a big meal, it's obvious your wasting your time. Poor James Horner who has become the scapegoat of our superfluous disappointments. Horner lynch mobs seem intent on proving their strange aversion to Horner by endless lists of what previous filmscores are contained in his latest efforts. Well I am going to do something blasphemous right here and now. I am going to turn the negative Horner tide that is being wrongly perpetuated by Horner Bashers and shift the blame of unoriginality to EVERY COMPOSER IN THE UNIVERSE!!! That's right! You thought Horner was bad?: check out Goldsmith: Poltergeist contains a direct rip-off of Star Trek the motion picture. Rudy, Powder, The Edge all start with their main themes with the same notes. You like that cool scary bear music in The Edge? Listen to it in Star Trek First Contact when Data turns around the corner to see that the Enterprise has been assimilated. WWAARRRRROOOOoooo! Legend is cool right? Then you'll love Star Trek 5, The God motif. And while I'm on Legend, have as anyone ever heard of the musical, Man of La Mancha? You would enjoy to listen to the song, "The Impossible Dream" because it sounds just like Legend's Main theme. Hey! was that Outland I heard in The Secret of NIMH? What? The Tree theme in Medicine Man, The Supergirl love theme, and, the love theme from King Solomon's Mines all start with a sixth interval? Voyager, Rudy, and, Hoosiers all contain the same descending fifth then whole octave motif in their themes?

What about John Williams? Certainly he can't be a composer that rips off his and others work? Don't bet on it. Johnny boy loves to fool us by reworking his arsenal of themes. Do you like E.T? If yes, then listen to it again on the Empire of the Sun soundtrack. It's harder to hear because it's really slowed down but it's there. J.F.K.'s main theme was stolen directly from "Superman", when Clark Kent's human father delivers pearls of fatherly wisdom. And many more!

Granted that These composers do not Steal as much as Horner does, they still do it and that is reason enough to lay off Horner if you're not going to give the other big wig composers, such as Williams and Goldsmith, an equally hard time. And yes, I know that Horner is the most blatantly obvious composer who takes no measures to mask his "lifting". However, he has created many beautiful soundtracks that rise above those arguments of similarity to his other works. A friend of mine who doesn't like filmscores said to me once, "John Williams Sucks! All his music is the same thing over and over!" We can forgive him for his ignorance and yet, respect this simple opinion that is unbiased by cluttered thoughts of soundtrack trivia .To my friend, it wasn't a question which score is better, it was a question of what makes us happy.

To many James Horner fans there is a very real connection to his music and the feelings it creates. One person may never experience the connection another person does. That doesn't mean you should try to justify your opinion as fact over another person's opinion. It just means people are complex and hard to figure out. Even best friends disagree.

The point is don't expect what you want and you'll get more out of life. More importantly it is incumbent upon us as filmscore fans to learn more from our favorite music than what score sounds like what. We must find the message that these incredible composers share with us through their amazing music and LEARN something about ourselves. That is the point of art. Don't put your foot in your mouth unless you are prepared to eat it. Believe me I've done it. I apologize for the lengthy therapeutic letter. By the way, it may seem that James Horner is my favorite composer: I'm actually a Goldsmith fan!

***

From: "Kyle Beatty" <saracen_cabana@email.msn.com>

Let's say that a score made up of pop songs is an acceptable practice--just for argument's sake. Would we want to hear "Brown Eyed Girl" in every movie? And even if we did, what would it mean to us if we have "Theme from Dead Man Walking: Brown Eyed Girl", "Tara's Theme: Brown Eyed Girl" and Love Theme from The Van Morrison Story: Brown Eyed Girl"? It would reduce the music to aural filler while the visual spooled out. In a less extreme manner, that's what we're getting from James Horner and his directors. Every score is not going to be a masterpiece. Or maybe they already are and we're merely debating how many film composers can dance on the head of a pin.

Reminded me of a story I heard from Richard (Auricle) Grant--this was second-hand, but all the session players at the Rocketeer session were kind of fuming because at the end of the last session Horner apparently said "I know this was difficult music, I suppose you did your best."

***

From: Zafier <Zafier@aol.com>

About Mr. Kendall's 1/22 article. On your last two paragraphs:

Firstly, some titles; The Spitfire Grill (real high profile), The Devil's Own (real good vs. bad), Courage Under Fire (the hero was an alcoholic who was responsible for killing his own troops), Legends of the Fall (they all died at the end: not happy). Your accusations of Horner only scoring dumbed down or children's films in the 90's is a little unfounded. Here are four scores that were all risks, and in no way conventional good-guy vs bad- buy popcorn flicks. You might not have enjoyed them all, but they were all artistic risks. On a related note, boy that Lost World, which was apparently by a "real" composer, sure was purely an artistic endeavor with no attempt to frighten people. It wasn't about being able to show realistic dinosaurs on film. It was about the story and the characters, not special effects. Be fair. Consider all the facts next time.

Secondly, come down to meet the people. It's very brave of you to summarize the century's social trends in a hundred words or less. I wouldn't be so bold. The one thing you may have overlooked is that the focal point of your criticism is Titanic. I don't know about you, but I think it was a period piece for the most part, so the fictional characters kind of had to be period characters. The period being the early twentieth century, Kate Winslet's character trying to break free from the Victorian age and Leonardo DiCaprio playing the character helping to bridge the gap. It wouldn't exactly be appropriate for it to be "ironic" seeing as the film depicts a true occurrence where 1500 people lost there lives.

Thirdly, it is unfair for you to judge and print material on James Horner the person when your only source is his "people" and a few stories that have filtered out. I know about five incidents in my life such as the one you described involving Horner that I am very embarrassed about and are inconsistent with my normal self. You have a responsibility as a writer with a very public outlet to do your job, which is to write about film music. Not whether Horner is a nice guy or not, but whether his music is good or not. You say you have no vendetta against Horner, and then in passing add he's actually a pretty mean guy. You might want to consider that you just lost a lot of credibility here. When you write about film music, you do a fine analytical job, both about the actual scores and the industry. I find the opinions very intriguing. But please, limit yourself to film scores and not to tabloid or philosophy. I don't read to be lectured.

***

From: Jus678 <Jus678@aol.com>

Where do you get off telling stories about Horner that makes him look bad? If you were there at the sessions of Braveheart then you can comment on his character but until you attend something like that and see first hand that Horner acts that way, then you can be justified in making comments. My father has known James Horner for 12 years and I've been privileged to be around him a few times and I've never heard or seen Horner be as cruel as you claim him to be!! As far as the accent goes.. Horner was born in Los Angeles and grew up most of his life in England (fact) then moved back and has lived in North America for the majority of his career, this would account for his muddled accent. Also for a filmmusic "critic" (if you can call yourself that) you're not doing a very good job!! Filmmusic exists in films only to help the film tell its story not to entertain people through their stereos!! What works in a film works and you have no right to tell Horner how to do his job!