Steven Schwartz <[log in to unmask]> writes in reply to me:

>I hear the litany of all these composers Williams is supposed to have
>ripped off, and I must say, except in deliberate Korngold pastiches and
>an at times too-eager reach for Holst's Mars and Orff's O fortuna, I don't
>hear it myself, any more than I hear Stravinsky's Rite of Spring in certain
>works by Bartok, Honegger, Jolivet, and Prokofiev, none of whom I'd
>describe as hacks.

I know this is veering seriously off topic now, but - to coin Steve's
delectable Southern phrase - oh foot!  These composers had enough
personality of their own to justify their "appropriations", even
where (as in Prokoviev's Scythian Suite) the looting was wholesale.

Personality.  To return to my Prom Concert experience, this was precisely
what was missing in most of these admirable movie soundtracks.  That's what
makes them good film music, and poor concert music - the virtue of good
film music is that you don't really notice it's there at all.  The
showerbath theme in "Psycho" is a classic case.

Exceptions, where the music carries the film or contributes structurally,
are comparatively rare.  I'd put some of the Glass scores in this category,
such as "Mishima", as well as "Alexander Nevsky", Walton's "Henry V" and
Shostakovich's "Hamlet".  In all these cases the music does draw attention
to itself, and justifies that attention.

>Now copyright exists primarily for publisher.

Steve raises some meaty points about the 18th c.  versus our own time, but
even if this one is true (which I'm not sure about) it's scarcely relevant
to the moral question raised by movie appropriations.

In this age of individualism, composers don't have the defence of common
musical parlance to fall back on - and much though we might regret the
minor loss of liberty to take what we want, I think we might agree that
the copyright laws have been almost exclusively a Good Thing for creative
artists.

>The question is: Is John Williams bad art? I can accept people not liking
>his music, just as I can accept people not liking Mahler's music.  But I
>just can't see calling it "bad." It strikes me as at least "capable."

Yes, as more or less passive music for movies.  No, as music for active
listening.  That's the only distinction I'm trying to make.

Noel Coward, who knew a thing or two about cheap music, was very clear
about its potency - and why we get so passionate about it.  No question,
Bad Art (or kitsch, if you prefer a less inflammatory phrase) is of course
infinitely more fun than the dull, worthy stuff - I need my weekly dose of
Ketelbey, too.

But is there any point in trying to defend the Kitsch Kings on musical
grounds? This rather strikes me as a classic case of helping lame (and
often comfortably fat) dogs over stiles.

>if you want, I can point out Vaughan Williams's paraphrases of Elgar,
>particularly since Vaughan Williams pointed them out himself.  Have you
>ever read VW on "cribbing?" Delightful and enlightening.

Yes indeed.  But also disingenuous.  He was so prone to overstate those
borrowings that he made a rod for his own back.  Indeed some of his
self-confessed "cribs" are so mild as to be practically invisible, and I
can't believe his heart-warming modesty should be used as an argument to
excuse the wholesale rip-off merchants.

>I doubt whether most composers are particularly moral beings while they
>are composing.  There's too much else they have to worry about.

Really? Most of the ones I've come across have been acutely moral
beings where their art was concerned, sometimes even to their own cost.
Pragmatism is of course the highest virtue; but there is a little word,
"integrity", which is particularly precious to most artists - at least
to those imaginative spirits who keep on striving to create something
worthwhile in today's less than auspicious cultural circumstances.

Christopher Webber,  Blackheath, London,  UK.
http://www.nashwan.demon.co.uk/zarzuela.htm
"ZARZUELA!"