Shameful Tales From the Movie-Scoring Trade

[Monsieur Croche]

"Lesser artists borrow, great artists steal." - Igor Stravinsky

It is pathetically lame to use this quote in a sort of defense of film composers who crib or make wholesale imitative/derivative adaptions of other works.

The quote is from a composer who, like Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Berg, etc. took the music or musical premise of another and made of it something undeniably and completely their own.  I.e. and make it your own is a wholly implicit part of the total meaning of that quote.

[Karl Henning]

Why is Carmen part of "known literature", but Shostakovich's 14th symphony not?

You mean, apart from Carmen having been a fixture in opera houses the world over for a century and a quarter?

[mc ukrneal]

I repeat:  the Dies irae, or Carmen, is part of the known literature.  The allusion is essentially a sharing.

In the case of Horner here, it is laziness and cover-up.

This is just one of the issues.

No composer expects "clarinet solo" to be his intellectual property, any more than Rembrandt might have copyrighted a shade of brown.

Think of a student writing a paper, Neal.  You observe a line to draw, I should think, between citing something which is common knowledge (without reference), citing something which belongs to someone else (with acknowledgement), and plagiarism.  I really don't expect you to condone plagiarism on the grounds that "everyone borrows ideas from everyone else."

But Karl, now it seems to me that you are changing the argument. We weren't talking about plagiarism before. But now we are. So you are claiming that Horner plagiarized Shostakovich? Because this is a different claim (in my mind) than what we were saying before. I'll be blunt, Horner does not appear to meet the threshold of plagiarism to me. While similar in sound and atmosphere, It doesn't sound to me as if the parts are identical (though looking at the scores would clear that up). I can hear that Horner's is a 7 note 'melody', while Shostakovich is a 4 note melody (to start).

I think a more clear example of plagiarism would be Andrew Lloyd Webber's use of a theme from Puccini's La Fanciulla del West in Phantom of the Opera, where one can hear/see the theme is identical in melody/notes, rhythm, etc. I don't hear the same level of identicalness in Horner and Shostakovich. Similar, yes, but not identical. Plus the context is totally different.

[Monsieur Croche]

Why is Carmen part of "known literature", but Shostakovich's 14th symphony not?

Can this be as genuinely naif as it reads?

You mean, apart from Carmen having been a fixture in opera houses the world over for a century and a quarter?

Adding to Karl's quip that which barely needs to be said.

Throughout the west and many other cultures, the otherwise classical musically illiterate everyman on the street will instantly recognize as 'already known to them,' between one to three tunes from Carmen, without knowing it is an opera, the title of the opera, the aria, or composer.

In brief, Carmen, and a few bits of it, have as much international street cred -- and are unhesitatingly recognized as that familiar -- worldwide.  Shosty, well, my condolences Shostakovich fans; Dmitri is a total loser in this category 

[Mirror Image]

It is pathetically lame to use this quote in a sort of defense of film composers who crib or make wholesale imitative/derivative adaptions of other works.

The quote is from a composer who, like Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Berg, etc. took the music or musical premise of another and made of it something undeniably and completely their own.  I.e. and make it your own is a wholly implicit part of the total meaning of that quote.

My whole reasoning for using the quote is that I do believe there are some excellent film scores that are wholly inventive and artful without any kind of imitation or reliance on music in the classical world. I think it's "pathetically lame" for you not to realize that there are some good film scores out there and that you felt the need to equate these works with the works of composers writing in a completely different medium.

[Monsieur Croche]

My whole reasoning for using the quote is that I do believe there are some excellent film scores that are wholly inventive and artful without any kind of imitation or reliance on music in the classical world. I think it's "pathetically lame" for you not to realize that there are some good film scores out there and that you felt the need to equate these works with the works of composers writing in a completely different medium.

This thread is about those film composers whose scores are often highly derivative and peppered with skating on thin ice near plagiarisms.

For those composers and soundtracks the likes of which you mention [Bernard Hermann immediately comes to mind] another thread is not at all a bad idea, and the quote you inserted in the discussion here would not even be necessary.

Whatever the angle, film composers or other, it seems some have a real problem within the admittedly grey area when it comes to musical hommage and musical quotes, i.e. the equivalent difference between value and worth.  I bet a thread on that could run till this mid-century 

[Karl Henning]

But Karl, now it seems to me that you are changing the argument. We weren't talking about plagiarism before. But now we are. So you are claiming that Horner plagiarized Shostakovich? Because this is a different claim (in my mind) than what we were saying before. I'll be blunt, Horner does not appear to meet the threshold of plagiarism to me. While similar in sound and atmosphere, It doesn't sound to me as if the parts are identical (though looking at the scores would clear that up). I can hear that Horner's is a 7 note 'melody', while Shostakovich is a 4 note melody (to start).

The derivation, and the precise pitch duplication, seem to me to warrant consideration as plagiarism, Neal.

Now, I will grant the possibility that it may skirt a legally prosecutable charge of plagiarism;  I allow that my use of plagiarism is colloquial.  But that is why the adjective shameful and not illegal appears in the thread title.

[Mirror Image]

The derivation, and the precise pitch duplication, seem to me to warrant consideration as plagiarism, Neal.

Now, I will grant the possibility that it may skirt a legally prosecutable charge of plagiarism;  I allow that my use of plagiarism is colloquial.  But that is why the adjective shameful and not illegal appears in the thread title.

I think James Horner is a hack in all honesty. I never have liked his work. Listening the clips from your initial post, you'd have to be deaf not to hear the similarities between that Aliens opening theme and Shostakovich's Symphony No. 14. Horner simply is conjuring, not only the same music, but the same kind of atmosphere.

[ritter]

Another concluson of this whole affair could be that good old DSCH's work doesn't rise above the level of bad film music (sorry, couldn't help it  )...

[mc ukrneal]

The derivation, and the precise pitch duplication, seem to me to warrant consideration as plagiarism, Neal.

Now, I will grant the possibility that it may skirt a legally prosecutable charge of plagiarism;  I allow that my use of plagiarism is colloquial.  But that is why the adjective shameful and not illegal appears in the thread title.

We'll have to disagree on the first. I don't think that is enough to warrant a charge of plagiarism.

Second, I have no idea what colloquial plagiarism is. This makes no sense to me.

Third, I don't understand what is shameful. What exactly should he be ashamed of?

[Monsieur Croche]

The derivation, and the precise pitch duplication, seem to me to warrant consideration as plagiarism, Neal.

Now, I will grant the possibility that it may skirt a legally prosecutable charge of plagiarism;  I allow that my use of plagiarism is colloquial.  But that is why the adjective shameful and not illegal appears in the thread title.

second track from Horner's Troy -- the brass 'signals/calls' at about one minute, eighteen seconds
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=25611.msg955625#msg955625
Britten. Requiem; sanctus, brass at about two minutes, eighteen seconds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MobaJ7oXl7s

Without that few bars of brass being replicate enough to be a direct infringement of copyright, they are replicate enough in rhythm, contour, durations and instrumentation that I am instantly reminded of the Britten. I first saw Troy via netflix at the home of a friend. She had seen it once already, was big on it because she thought it closer to Homer's epic than many another film attempt.

Whatever scene has this rip-off in it, when heard it I was instantly yanked out of the film's context into Britten / Requiem for the dead of WWI and WWII / deceased far too young British poets who died in the trenches / re-dedication of a newly reconstructed ancient British cathedral which had been near completely bombed-out in WWII.

That is all antithetical to what a film composer's job is when scoring a film of Homer's Iliad.  Adding further insult to the injury, the cribbed bit is badly tacked-on/in, i.e. not even worked-in, but just 'sorta there coming outta nowhere.'

The crux of this sort of debate, whether it is material cribbed, copied, quoted, or an Hommage, is in how much the composer made it their own, worked it in to the fabric of the piece, or musically and 'emotionally' well-placed a quote.

Horner's more directly copied inserted bits are more jarring, but only slightly more distracting than a listening experience a la Williams, where you can all too frequently recognize about every original source upon which his adaptions are based.

Within the context of the film industry and film-scoring, both composers were [Horner died last year]/ are top-rankers, with a litany of industry awards to their names. To others, who certainly recognize their craftsmanship, their remarkable speed to meet the film industry's schedule, it seems these craftsman-composers lack the ability to write anything truly fresh.  While the nature of the work over enough time -- i.e. being a jack-o-all-styles-and genres most certainly kills any possibility of a fresh individual voice -- it is that ability to write in any and all genres that ironically makes them always in demand.

Horner's work, apart from the recognizable cribs, is to me is that much more nondescript and generically very bland as compared to Willams, who is maybe less so because he is more successful at adapting and working an idea, even when the result is so derivative.

Unfortunately, it is exactly the composer who can write to order, all genres, facsimiles, and at a lightening speed, who is the one that the majority of the film industry and its directors want in the film-score department -- at the same time hoping for nothing too standout, nothing too original -- ergo, those who excel at that are the current top dogs in that industry, an industry whose very nature has these composers as highly successful hacks.

[Monsieur Croche]

Another concluson of this whole affair could be that good old DSCH's work doesn't rise above the level of bad film music (sorry, couldn't help it  )...

He improvised at the piano for movies in his youth, scored a number of films, and if you take the glamour mask off, he wrote a lot of dreadful music.

[Karl Henning]

Another concluson of this whole affair could be that good old DSCH's work doesn't rise above the level of bad film music (sorry, couldn't help it  )...

Oh, I'm feelin' the love 

[Madiel]

Can this be as genuinely naif as it reads?
Adding to Karl's quip that which barely needs to be said.

Throughout the west and many other cultures, the otherwise classical musically illiterate everyman on the street will instantly recognize as 'already known to them,' between one to three tunes from Carmen, without knowing it is an opera, the title of the opera, the aria, or composer.

In brief, Carmen, and a few bits of it, have as much international street cred -- and are unhesitatingly recognized as that familiar -- worldwide.  Shosty, well, my condolences Shostakovich fans; Dmitri is a total loser in this category 

Elsewhere the argument is that hardly any of the population is literate in classical music. But when it comes to Carmen, the argument is that it's familiar.

Well sorry, but no. I'm sure it's recognised more readily, but having just listened to the relevant piece for a he first time last week, I didn't jump out of my seat and yell THAT'S CARMEN. And I've heard Carmen.

There's a huge air of cultural snobbery involved in declaring what is in and out, and what's acceptable referencing and what isn't.

[Madiel]

You mean, apart from Carmen having been a fixture in opera houses the world over for a century and a quarter?

Who goes to opera houses? A hell of a lot more people go to cinemas.

[Karl Henning]

Who goes to opera houses? A hell of a lot more people go to cinemas.

Thanks for conceding the point, dear chap.  Carmen is standard lit, while the Shostakovich Op.135 remains a modern near-rarity.  The fact that in our day more people go to the cinema than to opera, does not alter Carmen's being standard lit, any more than the fact that fewer people going to the theatre means that Hamlet is somehow not standard lit 

[Madiel]

Which doesn't alter the fact that the logic of your argument seems to be "reference that I think is likely to be recognised is supposed to be recognised and thefore okay, reference that I think is unlikely to be recognised is attempted plagiarism that I've successfully caught out".

There's no rigour to that logic.

One of Beethoven's early opuses has a theme and variations, and for many generations people thought the theme was Beethoven's own. Eventually it was realised that the theme was actually a tune from a recent opera at the time.  Where exactly does such an example fit within your framework? Whose state of knowledge are we supposed to rely on?

Your assertion that people know Carmen is easily countered by selecting a different audience, that doesn't know Carmen so readily. There's no such thing as 'standard' without a point of reference. Something that might have been quite well known to 1790s Vienna was completely unknown to even professional musicologists for generations. Whether your Shostakovich audience is in the West or in the Soviet Union has the capacity to make a colossal difference.

Last night I read how the novel The Gadfly, which is Irish, was wildly popular in Russia and almost totally unknown in Italy where the novel is set. Chances are the only reason YOU'VE ever heard of it is because of Shostakovich and the film he was involved in. Did you know it was a novel? Any Russian would've known that. Standard lit at the time.

[Madiel]

In fact, I'd say the logic of your argument only works if a piece of music is virtually ubiquitous.

I already pointed out to you that I didn't notice the resemblance to Carmen when I listened to Shostakovich's 5th last week. What does that imply? That Shostakovich was trying to pull a fast one on the non-Carmen literate part of his audience, with a secret reference? Or is it all okay because you're satisfied that a sufficient number of people would have heard the association?

Is there some sort of sliding scale where a composer is supposed to calculate the likely percentage of crossover between audiences before making use of material?

[Monsieur Croche]

Elsewhere the argument is that hardly any of the population is literate in classical music. But when it comes to Carmen, the argument is that it's familiar.

Well sorry, but no. I'm sure it's recognised more readily, but having just listened to the relevant piece for a he first time last week, I didn't jump out of my seat and yell THAT'S CARMEN. And I've heard Carmen.

There's a huge air of cultural snobbery involved in declaring what is in and out, and what's acceptable referencing and what isn't.

The fact that one or more tunes from Carmen are recognized as already-heard and familiar by the classical musically illiterate 'man on the street' [and that without their knowing the name of the aria, opera, composer] was the very point showing exactly how widely known and recognized a few of the arias from that piece are.

At least you got that much.

This has nothing to do with cultural snobbery, or even quality; it is just one factual report on what is so extremely popular that it is known to the global citizenry a.k.a. 'the man on the street' who have no other associations with the music than, ''I know that tune.''

'Referencing' in the context of film scores most often includes a near-direct lifting of another composer's music still under copyright, and this alleged 'referencing' is usually not referencing at all, but the film composer pretty much stealing the idea [and money or food] from the other guy's table.

It takes very little to but slightly alter something under copyright and have it be a clear, but hair-line, distance away from being an actual copyright infringement. 'Virtually the same, with very minor differences,' is often enough to avoid any and all successful copyright lawsuits.

Horner's scores are near infamous for these near to wholesale inserted chunks of music of Prokofiev, Britten, Vaughan Williams, etc. etc. etc.  This film composer's fans like to say that when Horner did this he was paying hommage to the composers whose music he lifted.

The ugly unvarnished truth is this was the way of a hack working on a tight schedule lifting material not his -- material better than any he ever wrote himself -- and using it to fill-in or spice up his own bland writing.  This was not done out of any sense of artistic hommage, but done in the manner of a thief taking something of monetary value belonging to another for use toward his own economic advantage.

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.  It means none of these 'similarities' peppering Horner's scores are in any way mere 'coincidences' and it shows he was well-aware he was lifting that which did not belong to him and using it for his own monetary gain.

[Karl Henning]

I already pointed out to you that I didn't notice the resemblance to Carmen when I listened to Shostakovich's 5th last week. What does that imply? That Shostakovich was trying to pull a fast one on the non-Carmen literate part of his audience, with a secret reference? Or is it all okay because you're satisfied that a sufficient number of people would have heard the association?

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.