Shameful Tales From the Movie-Scoring Trade

[mc ukrneal]

I don't accept any of the hostile hypotheticals, nor your conclusion. Carmen is part of the standard lit, period.

Personally, I haven't particularly heard a reference to Carmen in the d minor symphony.  (Maybe I will if I listen again this week.)  If it's there, did he mean it, or not?  No knowing.

All of this is entirely beside the point, which is Horner's pilfering of Shostakovich.  No one seriously contests that.  There is a contingent who maintain that there is no actual artistic infringement in the pilfering.  I disagree, and most of my musician colleagues would disagree, as well.

But this is not an argument either. 'Most of my friends/colleagues agree' is the same type of argument as 'everyone else is doing it'. The only evidence you've provided so far is: "The derivation, and the precise pitch duplication" of the piece. And with Horner, there are really many other better choices for this type of exercise. What's more, Shostakovich repeats that theme much more prominently to my mind than does Horner (and to completely different effect with the voice).

But for argument's sake, let's say we were to agree with you 100% and say you were right. Let's say he did steal that from Shostakovich. What is the point? What are you trying to show? That the rest of the piece is somehow illegitimate or not his? Or something else?

[North Star]

But this is not an argument either. 'Most of my friends/colleagues agree' is the same type of argument as 'everyone else is doing it'. The only evidence you've provided so far is: "The derivation, and the precise pitch duplication" of the piece.

And that is not enough? What more could there be? Horner didn't even bother to change the tempo. It's a good 20 seconds before does anything himself to the music. And as if that wasn't enough, there's a good bit of inspiration from the ending of Shostakovich's 4th symphony at around 2:50-3:30.

[Madiel]

All of this is entirely beside the point, which is Horner's pilfering of Shostakovich.  No one seriously contests that.

How can that be the point, if pilfering isn't inherently bad?

And anyway, let me contest it for you. They're not exactly the same, and there's an incredibly dangerous slippery slope to be had here about declaring that one work is copying another on the basis of similarity, in a system of music with just 12 notes and millions of pieces of music.

A lot of the copyright cases about this are absurd precisely because they seize upon similarities in short passages and declare "this can't be coincidence" when there are only a certain number of viable combinations in tonal music. Someone did an excellent article on the 'Straight Lines' pop song case and showed all these other pieces of music, predating the piece allegedly copied, that shared exactly the same 'definitive' characteristic that was supposed to have been copied from this unique source. That with fragments only a few notes you long you can 'prove' just about anything.

Do you really, honestly think that Shostakovich is the one and only possible source for the idea that the sensible direction to head from a high-pitched held note on the strings is downwards? Do you think that no-one else has ever independently thought that a sense of hesitancy and uncertainty can be achieved by returning back to the held note? That's hardly enough.

But let's just accept for the sake of argument that it's not contested and that he knew he was imitating Shostakovich. The logical basis for this being shameful pilfering and for a myriad of earlier examples, including many by Shostakovich himself, to be non-shameful pilfering escapes me.

[Madiel]

Let me just also add, there's a very good reason why copyright only protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. It's because truly original ideas are rare as hen's teeth. I can't say there's anything in the start of the Shostakovich passage that makes me think "my God, I've never heard anything quite like that".

Of course, as one of my favourite lyricists has said:

You're not the first to think that everything has been thought before.

[Madiel]

The fact that each lifted under copyright segment was altered by the composer just enough to avoid copyright infringement while leaving the used music recognizable speaks volumes for itself.

That's a conclusion, not a fact. If you tried to present that as a fact in court you'd be in trouble.

It might be an accurate conclusion. But you'd have to get some evidence about his working methods. Otherwise, it's far too simple for a bunch of people who don't like Horner to play an elaborate game of "I will sit here and listen until I can think of something it reminds me of".

It becomes a bit like The Bible Code: secret messages found in the Bible that prove the Bible is a special book, only because that was the book you decided to look at because it's a 'special' book... right up until it was demonstrated the same kinds of 'secret messages' can be found in any lengthy book.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Let me just also add, there's a very good reason why copyright only protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. It's because truly original ideas are rare as hen's teeth. I can't say there's anything in the start of the Shostakovich passage that makes me think "my God, I've never heard anything quite like that".

Of course, as one of my favourite lyricists has said:

You're not the first to think that everything has been thought before.

Or:
"What oft was thought, but ne'er so well express'd."
- Alexander Pope, 1709

[mc ukrneal]

And that is not enough? What more could there be? Horner didn't even bother to change the tempo. It's a good 20 seconds before does anything himself to the music. And as if that wasn't enough, there's a good bit of inspiration from the ending of Shostakovich's 4th symphony at around 2:50-3:30.

How about 2 seconds (ok, maybe 3-4, I didn't bother to time it)? The theme is different (number of notes is immediately noticeable as different), which means the melody is immediately and noticeably different. And inspiration is not stealing. I have no problem saying he's inspired by Shostakovich. Karl has already conceded that it is not plagiarism (though he called it colloquial plagiarism, whatever that means), will you do the same?

[kishnevi]

It is rather ironic that the Fourteenth Symphony itself contains a rather obvious  borrowing from Bartok's Sonata for Two Pianos and Percussion.

[Monsieur Croche]

That's a conclusion, not a fact. If you tried to present that as a fact in court you'd be in trouble.

It seems you are near determined to avoid / miss this point.

The fact the composer knows enough to stay just outside the line of possible copyright infringement is very telling.

That brass signal/call I mentioned that Horner lifted straight from the Sanctus of Britten's War Requiem and literally 'inserted' into the second segment of his score from Troy is musically not at all integrated, or 'justified'.  He varied it but only a tiny bit; it is the coolest bit of that track and it sticks out in that stream of music like a huge red barn in a green prairie landscape. [Both links are in this earlier post.]
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,25611.msg955656.html#msg955656

Right, then. The owners/controllers of the Britten estate hear this more than a little derivative snippet in the Horner score and instantly recognize it as both a rip-off and that it is altered enough [not much] that there is no worth in pursuing a lawsuit for copyright infringement.

Of course, any argument it is an exact rip-off would not fly, while there is also no way to either logically or legally prove or disprove that passage sounding so like the Britten is or is not chance coincidence.

I don't think Horner grew up on some farm deprived of a radio and records and just happened to never have heard the Britten War Requiem.  I mean what would be the odds of that, really

If you asked most laymen with average hearing capacity to compare the two side by side and told them which piece was written first [the well-known Britten, from decades earlier] most would say it is obvious that Horner ripped-off Britten.

Altering the cribbed passage just enough to be free of copyright liability makes him a bit of an egg-sucking varmint in my book. Maybe others admire a lack of originality and those who steal the materials of others while altering the materials just enough that the theft remains outside the reach of the law. I think its just slimy.

[Madiel]

My scepticism about the judgements of laymen in this sort of things is vast.

And the main reason for this is a vast logical error: the fact that two things are similar is NOT by itself proof that B copied A. Because both could have been inspired separately by some other source. An earlier piece, or just the cultural library of semiotics that tells you, for example, that brass instruments evoke certain things.

I've already mentioned this was the glaring problem in the Straight Lines case. People were asked to compare two songs. They were not asked to consider whether the earlier of those songs was the origin of the allegedly copied elements. And they should have been.

Just today I read how one bestselling fantasy novelist is suing another, referring to similarities in a secret society of heroes that saves the world. Most of the allegations relate to elements you could find in dozens of fantasy plots.

Similarity is not proof of copying. It can just be proof that both of you are playing with the same tropes and neither of you is being especially original. Being unoriginal first is not a prize.

[Madiel]

Also, I've never heard the Britten piece. You make it sound like its inconceivable that a person could be a serious musician or composer without having heard it. Apparently I haven't been living in a city, or something.

This is pretty much cultural snobbery again. Assuming that other people must know what you know, because otherwise they wouldn't be credible

[Karl Henning]

My scepticism about the judgements of laymen in this sort of things is vast.

But I am not a layman, I am a composer, too.  If I worked the way that Horner worked here, I should be ashamed.  (Of course, he was paid for it, so that counterweights any conscience he may have exercised on the matter.)

Similarity is not proof of copying. It can just be proof that both of you are playing with the same tropes and neither of you is being especially original. Being unoriginal first is not a prize.

My skepticism about your musical judgement here is vast.  The Shostakovich is beautiful and strikingly original.  Horner agreed, and copied it blatantly.

Oh, also:

My scepticism about the judgements of laymen in this sort of things is vast.

But this is not an argument either. 'Most of my friends/colleagues agree' is the same type of argument as 'everyone else is doing it'.

The same "type of argument," only with teeth, since we are comparing musicians and laymen.

[Madiel]

But I am not a layman, I am a composer, too.  If I worked the way that Horner worked here, I should be ashamed.  (Of course, he was paid for it, so that counterweights any conscience he may have exercised on the matter.)

My skepticism about your musical judgement here is vast.  The Shostakovich is beautiful and strikingly original.  Horner agreed, and copied it blatantly.

Well, I'm glad that's all proved then, despite the repeated observation that the two pieces actually differ in their details. Copying so blatant, it deviates after about 3 notes.

I bet that if I bothered looking, I could find music with at least some features similar to this 'strikingly original' Shostakovich. The first place I'd look would be in the previous 134 opuses of Shostakovich.

[Madiel]

Perhaps someone would like to identify precisely what is strikingly original and had never been done before by anyone, ever, instead of merely making the assertion?

EDIT: I think we can safely say that choosing something resembling the Dies irae for music associated with death is not going to make the grade.

SECOND EDIT: While we're at it, can someone explain how Britten's use of brass to evoke something military is just completely and totally unlike anyone else's previous use of brass to evoke something military. Ta.

[Karl Henning]

In fact, I see another foot which can do with a shoe: in my view, it is you gents who are perched upon the slippery slope, taking Ives's "America" Variations as 'proof' that "all composers do the same thing," cheerfully conflating categories and contexts, and refusing to consider that there is an established practice of ethical use.

(And I repeat: one of my tenets here is, the instances are technically legal, but by professional consensus unethical.)

The refusal-or-inability to see the blatancy of the Horner example is a bit like a natural-remedies advocate saying, "why these pointless distinctions between aspirin, acetaminophen, and ibuprofen? They're all pain relief – and why should a physician's opinion on the matter mean more than the Food Babe's?"

I see the initial objection to my illustration, of course. So another simile is in order.

Say I'm an enthusiast for the music of Telemann, or of Dittersdorf. I like their music a great deal, in fact I like it even more than the music of Bach or of Haydn.  I can claim that T. is just as good a composer as B., and no one can "prove" to me otherwise, because of the nature of the subject. A half-note in 3/4 time, or A#5, is a fact which cannot be disputed;  but practically anything about the work of Bach which makes it Bach's work, lives arguably in the realm of interpretation, and if I am determined to insist that the watermarks which make this other music Telemann's work is "just as good" as Bach's, Charles Rosen himself could argue the point, but I should not be obliged to accept it – my opinion is just as good.  The Food Babe doesn't understand biochemistry, but we can point to different formulæ for aspirin, acetaminophen, and ibuprofen.  Cannot quite do that with music. Musical judgment depends upon the longterm application of the listener.  Beethoven and Mozart may sound just the same to a neophite.  The neophite may be an intelligent adult, may know a great deal more than do I about any number of things.  But he may not intuitively hear any difference between Beethoven and Mozart, and no amount of discussion on my part will mend that.

I want to clarify my position, interests, and limitations in the present discussion.  I spend some time every week composing.  Some weeks, I compose a great deal indeed.  Not infrequently, my work involves arranging, adapting, or alluding to, the work of other composers, or music which is General Property.  My business is the creation of work which is my own.  In my work, I observe gradations and distinctions, which I may not have the verbal tools to spell out to you.  (That and, honestly, I am a working stiff Monday through Friday.  Not a complaint; merely a fact.)  I accept that I may not be able to (that it may be impossible to) explain to you, to your satisfaction, why Horner's work here (and John Williams in copping the Stravinsky example – something which makes even ardent appreciators of Williams cringe, at least a little) is not merely in the grey area, but inarguably in the scoundrelly zone of the grey area.  I cannot compel you to respect my opinion as an artist on the question;  and that fact does not much matter to me;  I am defined by the work I do, not by this discussion on an interesting, if rather contentious, topic.  If your argument is, it's not technically illegal, my answer is, true, but that tactical "innocence" does not oblige me to have any particular respect for them.  (Neither Horner nor Williams needs my respect; they have the money  )

I thought I was doing you both a sonic service by demonstrating a clear instance.  And a little to my bafflement, the reaction has been (in part), "Who are you going to believe? Your own ears, Karl, or what I tell you?"

So, yes, I have learnt something by this thread.

[Cato]

Consider this: was Horner doing an homage to this scene by "appropriating" the Shostakovich 14th?  It was the first thing I thought of when I started looking at this topic this morning.

https://www.youtube.com/v/XRD43FAiHPY

[Karl Henning]

Also, orfeo and Neal . . . if I have not been clear, I respect you both, and enjoy your many contributions to GMG.  Trying to get a sense of why we differ on this matter has been rather a slippery challenge, but I think I have thought of this only as an exchange of ideas, and I hope we remain friends.

[Karl Henning]

Consider this: was Horner doing an homage to this scene by "appropriating" the Shostakovich 14th?  It was the first thing I thought of when I started looking at this topic this morning.

https://www.youtube.com/v/XRD43FAiHPY

Well, the difference I see is that Kubrick scored his movie, using selections from the literature.  The score is not credited to George Gamut, who raided the classics.

Another consideration:  maybe it is arguably illegal, but the film composer and the studio as a team are too formidable an entity to bother with litigating such a shadowy point.

Why do I suggest such a thing?  If I "wrote" a piece, which did with Shostakovich's De profundis or to Stravinsky's Le sacre, what Horner and Williams respectively have done, and sent it to my publisher, he would refuse to publish it, for perfectly legitimate concerns about legal reprisals from the legatees of the two composers.

He would not simply publish it under the Lux Nova imprimatur, because "it's exactly the sort of thing composers do all the time."

[Madiel]

I thought I was doing you both a sonic service by demonstrating a clear instance.  And a little to my bafflement, the reaction has been (in part), "Who are you going to believe? Your own ears, Karl, or what I tell you?"

No, the reaction is largely: why should I accept that it's clear, just because you think it's clear?

That there is a resemblance is undoubted. That's what my ears tell me.

The rest has nothing to do with ears. It has to do with reasoning. That this resemblance is as a result of Horner copying Shostakovich is an assertion that can easily be accepted so long as you look only at those two pieces and a calendar.

But this is the heart of the logical problem: why look at only those two pieces, as if no other relevant music existed? There's a real danger of assuming, without proof, that anything in the first piece can only have originated in the first piece. It can be easily accepted, thanks to the calendar, that it can't have originated in the second piece, but that's not a complete answer to the key question: how did the material end up in the second piece?

It's also undoubted that there is a resemblance between Shostakovich's work and the Dies Irae. Yes? Do you accept that? If so, presumably you would also accept a resemblance between Horner's work and the Dies Irae. If you then look at not just two pieces, but three, then how exactly do you know that Horner copied Shostakovich? It's at least logically possible that Shostakovich referenced the Dies Irae (which is standard literature I'd say), and Horner also referenced the Dies Irae, and the resemblance of the two works is driven by them having chosen the same earlier music as a reference. It then becomes critical to explain why borrowing by Horner from Shostakovich is more likely than borrowing from the Dies Irae.

Shostakovich is in fact involved in a well-documented case of this exact logical problem. It was long thought that Bartok had parodied Shostakovich's "invasion theme" from the 7th symphony. However, that theme is itself a reference to a tune from Lehar's The Merry Widow, and it's now thought that Bartok may well have been referencing the Lehar, not the Shostakovich. Certainly, that's what one of Bartok's friends/colleagues subsequently said. Which would mean that both Shostakovich and Bartok picked the same tune to refer to, independently (and quite possibly for similar reasons, as the tune had a Hitler association).

[Cato]

Well, the difference I see is that Kubrick scored his movie, using selections from the literature.  The score is not credited to George Gamut, who raided the classics.

Another consideration:  maybe it is arguably illegal, but the film composer and the studio as a team are too formidable an entity to bother with litigating such a shadowy point.

Why do I suggest such a thing?  If I "wrote" a piece, which did with Shostakovich's De profundis or to Stravinsky's Le sacre, what Horner and Williams respectively have done, and sent it to my publisher, he would refuse to publish it, for perfectly legitimate concerns about legal reprisals from the legatees of the two composers.

He would not simply publish it under the Lux Nova imprimatur, because "it's exactly the sort of thing composers do all the time."

Amen!  And Shostakovich has no lawyers!   

I do wonder if Horner wanted to evoke that scene from Kubrick's movie, and unable to come up with his own ideas, simply plucked this Russian composer's work for the purpose.

Shameless is the right term.  Would it have been impossible to credit Shostakovich somehow?  I suspect Horner's fee would have been the same!