Donald Satz wrote:

>I'm not one who maintains that music for movies is usually derivative.
>There are many movies which have had scores that I love as pure music and
>in the context of the film.  But, John William's scores are not in that
>category.

I'd love to take issue with this statement--defend movie scores, modern
composers, and all that--but throwing John Williams' name in there as a
qualifier of makes it tough.  Williams' scores just aren't in the category
of the ones by Korngold, Herrmann, Waxman, etc., not to mention a lot of
great classical British composers who wrote for film, not to mention Aaron
Copland while we're at it.  They do the job of working with the movies, but
that's about it.

There was one John Williams score (I think it was his) that I liked, and it
bears absolutely no resemblance to his big blast-off scores.  That is Henry
and Iris (I think that's the name) with Jane Fonda and Robert di Niro.  The
one where di Niro plays an illiterate who learns to read.  The music here
was almost Mancini-ish, but better, more intimate, less commercial
sounding.  Maybe my memory is rosy on this--it's been years--but I remember
thinking it was charming and that it almost made up for the score to the
first Indiana Jones (the only one I saw) movie.  I winced in embarrassment
every time that corny march theme was played.

I should add that I have never seen Born on the Fourth of July or
Schildler's List nor heard their music.  I am told they have fine scores,
particularly the latter.  Maybe they work toward arguing with Don's
statement.

Roger Hecht