Don Satz:

>>...if I were doing a remake of Ben Hur or Quo Vadis, who else would
>>one call on for the music?
>
>Let's see if I have this in the right order.  Composers such as Korngold
>wrote film scores for swashbuckling films in the 1940's, give or take a few
>years.  John Williams continued with this type of music for swashbuckling
>films from the late 1900's.  Now we are in the 21st century, and the same
>type of music is again mandated? Whatever happened to progress, creativity,
>and innovation?

First, two of those things are aesthetically irrelevant.  Second, the films
that Williams applies the style to were deliberately retro.  He matched
this in the music.  Williams has a much wider range than that indicated by
Star Wars, just as Korngold had a wider range than that demanded by The Sea
Hawk.  I refer you to Williams's scores for Dracula, Close Encounters, The
Reivers, and The Fury.

>I can't go with this premise, and I don't believe that human evolution is
>so stagnant that alternative musical styles are not available.  There was
>a progressive rock group in the 1970's with the name "Emerson, Lake, and
>Palmer".  I have no idea what those guys are doing these days or even if
>they are alive, but I think they could come up with film scores for the
>above films mentioned by Mr. Wilson that would make the typical Williams
>film score just sound like a relic of the past.

You mean, like Bach? The idea that art progresses is to me a dangerous
one.  It's more accurate to say that it changes.  Furthermore, it's not
necessarily the job of the artist to innovate.  Beethoven was ahead of the
times, Bach behind them.  The important thing is that they wrote vital
music.  If someone wrote a vital piece of music in the style of Bach -
indeed, so good that you would mistake it for Bach - you'd be crazy to
throw it away.

Steve Schwartz