I must say that I find many of your remarks at this thread to be rather disingenuous in nature. And, despite what you say, you have palpably criticized Horner’s approach to film scoring by firstly illustrating that his malleability makes him a favourite of movie producers, and then by describing such movie producers collectively as being insouciant (or even poor) judges of the musical requirements of their movies. Many of these opinions are highly contentious.

You go on to say, “This thread is about his (Horner’s) popularity amongst producers and our disappointment in hearing that John Williams might not be scoring Harry Potter.”

This thread, MWRuger, began with the rumour that Williams might be bowing out of scoring Potter, and also that Horner might step in, for better or for worse.

It was you, MWRuger, who then initiated a branch of discussion relating to Horner’s producer-friendly approach to scoring.

Why is it okay for you to extend the discussion at this thread beyond the scoring of Potter into the realms of Horner’s approach to scoring, but inappropriate for others to do similarly?

Who are you to decide in which direction the discussion progresses?

As it happens, I believe what I have said in response to your ‘thinly-veiled’ criticisms of Horner, is very much relevant to the discussion. After all, surely the perceived quality of Horner’s music is an important factor when discussing the possibility of his attachment to Potter.

You then say there is little to be gained from yet another thread on why we love/hate James Horner. Well, firstly, that is your opinion. You must remember that new people are coming across the message board all of the time, and what seems like old-hat discussion to you may be of great interest to others. Anyhow, I keep reading terms like love/hate and god/devil when it comes to Horner’s film scores. Why is the discussion of Horner always characterized as being so extreme? It seems to me that those dissenters of Horner’s approach to scoring prefer to imagine that anyone who actually registers a generally positive opinion about Horner’s style as somehow being cracked.

Although you state plainly your opinion of certain movie producers, you more than intimate with your remarks about Horner. And that is what is so disingenuous about much of what you have said here.

Let me refer to your comments point by point.

You said – “1. He is a "name" since Titanic. Nothing succeeds like success. He is a bankable, oscar winning composer.”

Fair comment. He is all of those things, and such attributes will obviously ingratiate him with producers.

You said – “2. He is willing to bend his music to serve the movie at the cost of the music.”

As all good film composers should. What is more important, the enhancement of the movie at hand, or the compositional integrity of the music’s thematic structure? Film music is written to serve the movie – not the other way round. If something has to give, it’s got to be the music. Any film composer who does not bend his music to suit the movie (and the producers wishes), may be sabotaging the success of the overall movie.

You said – “Movie Producers are seldom score lovers and they don’t hear and wouldn’t care about his (Horner’s) ‘borrowings’.”

Well that’s a highly contentious opinion. Too often producers and directors are characterized as being musical philistines, unable to comprehend the true import of music in cinema. Now, I’m not saying that there have never been instances of a producer who has seemingly made an error of judgement by either dismissing or accepting a film score, but give these guys some credit. The producer or/and director are more concerned with the overall success of their movie – and box office is usually the overriding factor. Therefore, it is quite feasible for a film composer to come up with an original, thematically rich, and orchestrationally complex composition, and yet the producer will still chuck it out if he feels it doesn’t work with the images. It is not the quality of the music that matters, but how appropriate the music is within the movie.

You said – “3. His music is emotionally evocative and he will use any trick necessary to convey the director’s emotional intent. Including shameless manipulation and pandering that other composers night shy away from.”

Well, what film composer hasn’t shamelessly manipulated the audience? – they’re doing it all of the time. The measure of a good film composer is his willingness to provide the movie with appropriate music, simply that.

All of this conjecture about Horner’s talents leads me to ask, ‘how important is the musical score in the context of the overall picture.’

Obviously, each movie’s musical requirements are different, and the application of music to a movie is not an exact science, so let me talk in terms of what I perceive to be the importance of music in the ‘average’ movie.

I see the film-score as one important element of many in the creative mixture that goes to make up the overall movie. And, just like the script, the photography and the performances, the film-score is dependent on the rest of the movie for its success.

Your opinion of Horner’s score to THE PERFECT STORM is shared by many – I am yet to view the film, so will comment in due course. Anyhow, as an example, I didn’t think much of Horner’s work on DEEP IMPACT; but the movie itself was deadly dull anyway. And, because Horner’s music is usually so in-tune with his movies, the success of his score is far more dependent on the success of the movie itself – on my opinion. Therefore, DEEP IMPACT = dull movie = dull score. Obviously this is a bit of an oversimplification, but it helps to further illustrate what Horner’s approach to scoring a movie is all about.

On the other hand, take Goldsmith’s brilliant work on a, in my opinion, poor movie like THE FINAL CONFLICT. On listening to the album, such is the quality and power of the music, one could be forgiven for thinking that Goldsmith was scoring a cinematic masterpiece – viewing the movie shatters that illusion, in my opinion. What I am trying to say is, weighing everything up, personally speaking I would prefer to have an ordinary musical score to a good picture, rather than a brilliant score to a poor movie. Much as I love and admire film music, I guess the overall success of the movie is more important to me than simply the success of the score (in the movie or on the album). This is not a hard and fast rule, but is merely an indication of where I am coming from.

Putting the value of the music on the album to one side, Horner’s scoring of JUMANJI is a fine example of why I regard this composer so highly, not as a god, not as a leader of film composers, not as a saint, just as a fine professional film composer. Horner’s score to JUMANJI fits the visuals like a glove, in my opinion. The score has everything one could ask for from a fantasy/horror mix, and then some. I liked the movie, although it didn’t have much substance beyond the effects – it was almost pure eye candy, but sometimes that’s as good a reason as any to like a movie. I thought Horner’s scoring matched the outlandish special effects and action sequences particularly well. The thematic material, though familiar from previous Horner fantasy scores, is assured, but only loosely developed. It is the varied, rich, inventive and often dissonant orchestration that constitutes the score’s most potent and accomplished attribute – just like the movie itself, the score is all about effect.

Just for the record, owing to the insubstantial thematics and disjointed nature of the music, I think JUMANJI makes for a wretched stand-alone listen, so, the movie gets **1/2, the score gets ***, and the album gets *.

I agree, Bruce Broughton would be an excellent choice for Potter for the same reasons you have given. I believe Broughton to be one of those many fine film composers who have been underutilized over the years. Yes, he’s enjoyed some success, but considering his apparent abilities, he deserves a lot more.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Olivarez:
Soundtrack Magazine says that Williams is still scoring Harry Potter and has written a piece for the Trailer.

---

FSM Daily say the same today. They don't mention the rumour of him bowing out. I wonder if they don't know about it, or if they know it's not true.

Thanks for the analysis. I’ll be sure to put those comments to the appropriate use.

I was answering johnathon_little’s question about why producer’s love James Horner. That’s it. Every post I made has been in response to someone else’s post, including this one. Unlike other posters, I am not interested in steering the course of the discussion like some recondite navigator. You are free, as is everyone else, to drag the discussion any way that you can get someone to follow.

Of course, I share your grave concern that newcomers might miss the scintillating opportunity to discuss the abilities of James Horner. However, under this thread title, the newcomers may miss the chance to Bash/Defend Horner because they might think its about Harry Potter or John Williams. I certainly have no interest in yet another Bash/Defend Horner thread, but if you feel the need, by all means start one.