Shameful Tales From the Movie-Scoring Trade

[Madiel]

And now I'm thoroughly confused as to how being reminded of a scene directed by Kubrick and scored by Khachaturian can possibly be used as further proof of copying of Shostakovich.

If anything, that someone was reminded of something not by Shostakovich would weaken the case, not strengthen it.

[Karl Henning]

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.

That's good.  I'd say the takeaway, though, is that there is no question that the music is substantively the same.  If (never happened, but for discussion) Shostakovich tried to sue Bartók, Bartók's defense is that his source was Léhar, and in the Public Domain.  But chances are good, given his admiration for music "from Bach to Offenbach," that Shostakovich was alluding subtly to Léhar, himself.

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

Back in the days when we in the West did not honor Shostakovich's copyright, the credit could have been listed with no hurt to Horner's check.  But now that the rights to the Shostakovich catalogue are administered by Sikorski, there would certainly be an apportionment of the spoils revenues.

[Cato]

And now I'm thoroughly confused as to how being reminded of a scene directed by Kubrick and scored by Khachaturian can possibly be used as further proof of copying of Shostakovich.

If anything, that someone was reminded of something not by Shostakovich would weaken the case, not strengthen it.

Proof of copying would come from looking at the printed scores.  I simply posed the question of Horner's desire: did he want to evoke a similar sound as the one in that scene from 2001 ? I believe there is a similarity of style: lonely strings with a melancholy atmosphere for a spaceship in the void.

[Madiel]

That's good.  I'd say the takeaway, though, is that there is no question that the music is substantively the same.  If (never happened, but for discussion) Shostakovich tried to sue Bartók, Bartók's defense is that his source was Léhar, and in the Public Domain.  But chances are good, given his admiration for music "from Bach to Offenbach," that Shostakovich was alluding subtly to Léhar, himself.

No, there's no question that the music is substantively the same. The point is, though, that similarity is not proof of copying. And too often (including in high profile court cases) it's assumed that copying is the only way that similarity can arise.

[Madiel]

Proof of copying would come from looking at the printed scores.

Sigh. No. Proof of similarity would come from looking at the printed scores.

[Karl Henning]

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?

Because it is two pieces, a calendar, tempo, pitch level, scoring, and texture.  You're arguing for coincidence, which in the present case, given the weight of factual evidence, is naïf.

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.

[Karl Henning]

No, there's no question that the music is substantively the same. The point is, though, that similarity is not proof of copying. And too often (including in high profile court cases) it's assumed that copying is the only way that similarity can arise.

Again, the standard is not what is needed to prosecute in court, but what an impartial quorum of professionals will consider reasonably ethical.

[Madiel]

Because it is two pieces, a calendar, tempo, pitch level, scoring, and texture.  You're arguing for coincidence, which in the present case, given the weight of factual evidence, is naïf.

I'm not arguing for coincidence, at all. I'm arguing for a similar origin.

It isn't two pieces. It's the entire history of music up until the movie was scored. You assert that Shostakovich's 14th symphony is 'strikingly original', an assertion that is immediately problematic once someone points out the resemblance to the Dies Irae.

[Madiel]

Again, the standard is not what is needed to prosecute in court, but what an impartial quorum of professionals will consider reasonably ethical.

I know. But the processes of reasoning I'm talking about have nothing to do with standard of proof. I'm merely pointing out the serious logical fallacies involved in assuming that because two things resemble each other, the second must be a copy of the first.

I've no problem with the notion that copying raises ethical issues. But the fact remains that similarity is not in and of itself proof of copying.

It reminds me rather of certain DNA cases, where people have misunderstood what the probability of a DNA match means to the extent that someone has been convicted of a crime despite a strong alibi indicating they had no opportunity to commit the crime.

But the very simplest way I can show you the logical problem is by noting that I resemble my older sister despite not being her descendant. And this would still be true even if there were a 20-year gap in age between us, so that she were 'old enough to be my mother'. It still wouldn't mean she was my mother. This is very different from saying that my resemblance to my older sister is a coincidence. Of course it isn't.

[amw]

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's notable that film music has a specific "repertoire" of musical "topics" that act as a kind of diegetic shorthand to tell the audience what emotions they're supposed to be feeling. Soft, sinuous high violin lines (with or without a sustained bass pedal, but otherwise unaccompanied) are in the film world pretty much a universal topic for foreboding and unease, girl-walks-into-haunted-house kind of stuff. There are examples going back to Shostakovich's day (indeed Shostakovich may have played a role in popularising the topic, seeing as he was a film composer himself... or it may predate him). It's possible that Horner wrote a high violin line, because it's SPOOKY, taking care to make it somewhat different from the high violin line written by John Williams last week also for SPOOKY purposes, without having any particular conscious knowledge of the high SPOOPY violin line written by Shostakovich a decade+ earlier. Which in turn may have been written without any particular conscious knowledge of the 2SPOOYK4ME viola solo in Mahler 10 (whose later recurrence in the violins is probably the grand-daddy of all these 3Sp00Ky5U violin solos everywhere; most film music seems to derive its hermeneutic language largely from Mahler).

A lot of film composers don't seem to know much classical and mostly listen to... other film scores. Which makes sense, kinda.

[Madiel]

It's notable that film music has a specific "repertoire" of musical "topics" that act as a kind of diegetic shorthand to tell the audience what emotions they're supposed to be feeling. Soft, sinuous high violin lines (with or without a sustained bass pedal, but otherwise unaccompanied) are in the film world pretty much a universal topic for foreboding and unease, girl-walks-into-haunted-house kind of stuff. There are examples going back to Shostakovich's day (indeed Shostakovich may have played a role in popularising the topic, seeing as he was a film composer himself... or it may predate him). It's possible that Horner wrote a high violin line, because it's SPOOKY, taking care to make it somewhat different from the high violin line written by John Williams last week also for SPOOKY purposes, without having any particular conscious knowledge of the high SPOOPY violin line written by Shostakovich a decade+ earlier. Which in turn may have been written without any particular conscious knowledge of the 2SPOOYK4ME viola solo in Mahler 10 (whose later recurrence in the violins is probably the grand-daddy of all these 3Sp00Ky5U violin solos everywhere; most film music seems to derive its hermeneutic language largely from Mahler).

A lot of film composers don't seem to know much classical and mostly listen to... other film scores. Which makes sense, kinda.

Yes, thank you, exactly. Film composers are working with common tropes all the time, for precisely that reason. It's pretty much essential for the job. The last thing they want to do, especially in the big Hollywood movies that people like Horner and Williams are scoring, is move outside those tropes.

[Cato]

Sigh. No. Proof of similarity would come from looking at the printed scores.

And if they are identical?   "Copying by ear" 

Now there is a question: if similarity cannot contain "identicality," can "identicality" contain similarity?   0:)

[vandermolen]

If not already mentioned try comparing.
The March from Prokofiev's 'Love of Three Oranges' with 'March of the Ewoks' (Star Wars: Return of the Jedi)

[mc ukrneal]

Again, the standard is not what is needed to prosecute in court, but what an impartial quorum of professionals will consider reasonably ethical.

I was writing a response to your earlier post when I saw this. And I had two immediate thoughts: 1) No - that is not the standard. and 2) Are you serious? Because I don't write music, I don't know what is ethical and what is not (and apparently, playing an instrument, reading music, studied and listened to music does not give me enough knowledge in the area to make such a decision)? Here's a quorum of professionals for you: Lady Gaga, K West, The Bieberette, Britney Spears, and katy Perry. Somehow, I doubt you would be happy with them.

[Madiel]

And if they are identical?   "Copying by ear" 

There's no doubt that the closer to things are to each other, the greater the chance copying was involved.

I would point out, though, that there is a vast ocean of difference between "entire piece is identical", "passage of 22 bars is identical", and "sequence of 5 or 6 notes is identical".  The smaller the identical section, the greater the chance copying was not involved.

[Madiel]

If not already mentioned try comparing.
The March from Prokofiev's 'Love of Three Oranges' with 'March of the Ewoks' (Star Wars: Return of the Jedi)

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".

I should have said insert the film composer of your choice...

[Karl Henning]

I'm not arguing for coincidence, at all. I'm arguing for a similar origin.

It isn't two pieces. It's the entire history of music up until the movie was scored. You assert that Shostakovich's 14th symphony is 'strikingly original', an assertion that is immediately problematic once someone points out the resemblance to the Dies Irae.

No your assertion that both pieces are simply similar to the Dies irae, without reference to one another, is either problematic, or a heckuva coincidence.

Yes, thank you, exactly. Film composers are working with common tropes all the time, for precisely that reason. It's pretty much essential for the job. The last thing they want to do, especially in the big Hollywood movies that people like Horner and Williams are scoring, is move outside those tropes.

The argument is, Horner cannot have copied the Shostakovich, because we're sure he didn't listen to it? 

[Karl Henning]

I was writing a response to your earlier post when I saw this. And I had two immediate thoughts: 1) No - that is not the standard.

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  )

and 2) Are you serious? Because I don't write music, I don't know what is ethical and what is not (and apparently, playing an instrument, reading music, studied and listened to music does not give me enough knowledge in the area to make such a decision)? Here's a quorum of professionals for you: Lady Gaga, K West, The Bieberette, Britney Spears, and katy Perry. Somehow, I doubt you would be happy with them.

That's a non-argument, thank you for conceding the point.

[Madiel]

No your assertion that both pieces are simply similar to the Dies irae, without reference to one another, is either problematic, or a heckuva coincidence.

I'm not sure you mean the same thing by "coincidence" that I do, then.

Neither explanation of why Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra resembles Shostakovich's 7th symphony involves blind chance. And a suggestion that both Shostakovich and Horner were both thinking about death and spookiness and therefore the Dies Irae does not involve blind chance either.

And I don't know what you mean by 'without reference to one another', either.

[mc ukrneal]

That's a non-argument, thank you for conceding the point.

Karl, you seem to really only be interested in hearing what you want to hear. So I'll leave you to your thread...