# Soundtracks ripping off other classical pieces



## Ephemerid (Nov 30, 2007)

I rather enjoyed Ridley Scott's film Gladiator a few years back, but there are two scenes that I immediately noticed: 

(1) the opening battle scene against the Germanic tribes has music that is almost identical to Holst's "Mars, the Bringer of War" (from The Planets) except (if I recall correctly) the metre was changed to a fast triple metre rather than 5/4. 

(2) there is the scene near the end of the film where Commodus has stopped the coup attempt and the next morning there is a dramatic scene between him & his sister. The music is very VERY similar to the first movement of Gorecki's third symphony.

In the DVD there was an interview with the soundtrack composer. I was expecting some sort of nod to these two composers, but there was none!  

I don't think I'm imagining this.

There have been other instances where I've seen this happen-- slight changes to a piece of music-- an airline company did this a few years ago with Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue -- just the chords and melody were slightly altered, but the instrumentation and key were identical. 

What's up with this? Thoughts? Other examples? Am I crazy? LOL

~ josh


----------



## CampOfTheSaints (Dec 11, 2007)

No, you are not crazy!!!

This is happening because of the greed and moral bankruptcy of Hollywood. :angry:

1. Hollywood is too cheap to pay a REAL composer to compose REAL works of music.

2. "REAL" composers are getting harder to find, as the proliferation of cheap, rip-off, "composers" who have no real ideas of their own, pimp out their half-baked works to Hollywood at cut-rate prices.

You mentioned Gorecki..... think about this....

How hard would it be for a movie maker to travel to Poland, make Gorecki a handsome offer for a NEW commision, to write a NEW WORK, specially for the movie???? 

But of course, that would involve lot's of time and MONEY, which Hollywood does not want to spend. And when you factor in the contempt that Hollywood has for WESTERN CULTURE, you can see why they don't have problem ripping off well known works.


----------



## Ephemerid (Nov 30, 2007)

Money is definitely a factor, yes-- but also, whose idea was it to basically take Holst and change the metre up a bit? Did some producer say "Yeah, that music would be great-- write something just like it!" or was the soundtrack composer that lacking in imagination?

What galls me is the underlying contempt for audiences: "Oh, most people won't know what this classical stuff is anyway, so they wouldn't know I was ripping off some other composer-- they wouldn't know the difference." 

I've come across a few other instances, usually adverts (though I rarely watch TV))-- but none come to mind at the moment. Are there other instances of this? How widespread is this sort of thing?

~ josh


----------



## Aristocrat (Dec 10, 2007)

Yes, it is rather horrible. However, what is even more annoying is when they don't even make the effort to change the key, alter the melodic line slightly and do whatever they can to make it convincing. It's more than stealing - it's laziness!

It really isn't too hard to make a piece original. But, hey, it's the modern world, and Hollywood is made up of people who can't do things. Most Hollywood actors can't act. Most Hollywood directors can't direct. Most Hollywood composers haven't a clue how to compose.

Hm, I used to live around five minutes walk from the heath where they filmed the opening scene of Gladiator...Everyone always goes on about how fantastic the music is for that film, but I disagree with that completely. The best soundtrack for a film I've ever heard is that of The Pianist. It's all Chopin, and it is lovely (except for the cut version of the G minor Ballade...*grumbles*).


----------



## Rondo (Jul 11, 2007)

This has been going on for so long that it has become a trend. Some film composer feels that he or she has been influenced or inspired by a particular composer (which can, for the most part, be narrowed down to about half a dozen different composers), so they use the same styles.

You can, for instance, (and I believe this has been mentioned before here), hear _The Planets_ all over the _Star Wars_ music. Speaking of which, the 5-meter rhythm in Mars, alone, is becoming very popular. Someone mentioned Gladiator, and another which comes to mind at the moment would be the Gunfight Montage from The Quick and the Dead.

But also, some film composers are influenced by _other film composers!_ A very popular "grand-daddy" is Bernard Hermann, who is most famous for his score to _Psycho._ Listen to Danny Elfman's "Serenada Schizophrana" and you'll hear it.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

I feel I need to come to the defence of the film industry and its composers, if only a little bit, to present an alternative point of view.

Film music differs from concert music in that its primary function is to set a mood or atmosphere rather than carry a listener through a set of themes and their variations/developments/conclusions. Through the history of this tradition, film composers have developped a certain "palette" of mood devices that are by definition similar to each other. And because most film composers studied formal classical music, this palette, albeit a broad one, is by necessity derived from the music of the great masters of the past.

I think one shouldn't be too hard on film composers for borrowing a motive here or there. One tends to forget the historical context in which this borrowing is taking place. We tend to think of the great composers of the Romantic and Classical eras as lone icons in a wasteland of musical emptyness. The truth is, however, that each one of our favourites (Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Mahler...) had dozens of imitators contemporary to them, writing music that sounded very much the same, whether through direct borrowing or just through the broader language of their word. _And in my view, this is OK_. The difference between these somewhat forgotten contemporaries of the Masters and average film composers is that the music in films is subject to microscopic scrutiny through multiple hearings, given its medium.

I believe that imitation helps an art progress... a whole bunch of people create bodies of work, feeding off of each others' ideas, until that style becomes a mannerism, at which point an artist comes along, and fully aware of the tradition that preceeded him, turns in a new direction. A good counter-argument to this is that film-music isn't necessarily "progressing" as an art, and that when film composers borrow motives or sounds from other composers, they're not really doing anything _NEW_. But while I realize this, I also have to respect the fact that composing film music is a very specific, technical and difficult task. So while film composers may tend to borrow a motive here and there and perhaps use a bit of a standardized palette, they have _other_, very technical skills, that certainly many of the great masters of the past would have found quite daunting.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

My opinion is that if a film composer does use a classical motif, they should at least try and disguise it! (different orchestration e.t.c.) In the film Troy, James Horner totally rips off Shozzy's 5th 4th movement. Don't steal the peice!


----------



## Ephemerid (Nov 30, 2007)

What astonishes me is not say, John Williams Star Wars soundtrack for example sounding very similar to Holst (for example)-- I have no problem with that per se-- but what I'm talking about actual plagiarism, as in the case of those two excerpts from Gladiator. If you listen to them, they sound almost exactly the same-- the a metre change, a reversal of two or three notes, and that's ALL.

Good god, its worse than I recall-- go to this youtube page to hear what I am talking about. Scroll to the 1:30 mark and listen at least up through the 4:30 mark. This guy (Hans Zimmer) is not just "borrowing" from Holst-- he's lifting wholesale right out of "Mars, The Bringer of War" (right down to the bloody snare drum!). The 2:35-3:20 mark is so obviously a case of actual plagiarism!

Now compare to Holst's piece here from the beginning til about 2:10, and then 5:20 to 6:06.

This is not just "influence" or "borrowing" but out and out theft!

OK, just comparing the two now like this, I really am not crazy (can't find the "Am I not merciful section" on YouTube where Gorecki is being ripped off as well...)

~ josh


----------



## Ephemerid (Nov 30, 2007)

I dunno what ever came of the court case, but Zimmer did get taken to court for plagiarising Holst. No mention of Gorecki though.

~ josh


----------



## ChamberNut (Jan 30, 2007)

Conti - The Right Stuff soundtrack, uses a theme from Tchaikovsky's violin concerto.  And apparently also borrows from Holst's Planets.


----------



## Rondo (Jul 11, 2007)

Ive never really listened to the _Gladiator_ soundtrack, but I have heard _The Planets_ all the way through dozens of times, and have read the score, so Ill have to give Gladiator a listen and see.

Speaking of plagiarism...Ive noticed that a spider from turnitin.com has made it to the forum.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

I listened to the YouTube Gladiator Clip you provided, FonH, an indeed it is remarkably *Marsian*... but it is _not_ "copying" or plagiarism. To me, these terms are reserved for a direct extraction of someone else's (copyrighted) material, presented as your own original creation.

While the Gladiator excerpt you mention owes it's entire existance to Holst's Mars... it is in the same style, it uses similar rhythmic, melodic and harmonic material... it is _not_ copied. It is a blatant reworking of Holst's musical ideas, but it _is_ a reworking, and I would say that even on a purely musical level, it is _different_. On a legal level, there are undoubtedly hundreds of musical examples such as this one that would fall into this category, and that's probably why this "case", presented by the Holst society, had no legal success.

Because if it did, no one would be safe, _not even Beethoven_.


----------



## CampOfTheSaints (Dec 11, 2007)

I think Kurkikohtaus has some good points. And yes, I too think that imitation helps the progress of art. However, I really question most of the film music that comes out of Hollywood. 

Is it really "Art"???

Rarely does a movie have a really good soundtract. One of these, is, "The English Patient", one of my favotite films of all time.

Not only is there a good amount of Bach's Goldberg Variations played in the movie, but the entire score is moving and original composed by Gabriel Yared.

Not to mention, that it is proformed by The Academy Of St. Martin In The Field.  

I just wish more films were like the English Patient, with lot's of good composers like Bach featured, as well as having a sweeping, moving ORIGINAL score.

Now that is ART!!


----------



## Rondo (Jul 11, 2007)

There is some license here for creativity when it comes to mediums of art- whether it be music, movies, or fiction. Many people, instead of _copying_, use an existing piece as a starting point, and write their own from that, as a variation from it. Now, Im not sure how the legalities in music work out, but, aside from those, is a variation considered copying? Does Zimmer mention anywhere on the CD inserts or website that he used _The Planets_? In books and articles, etc... the legalities are much more defined. Art seems to have some elasticity...but then again...many artists (including Billy Joel) have been sued for these reasons. Maybe it's cryptonesia, maybe it isn't. Maybe it's that the most popular works ever written have seeped down so deeply into the collective consciousness (or the separate collective consciousness for classical music enthusiats, which would be much more vast) that people plagiarize (or re-work) without even knowing it!


----------



## Ephemerid (Nov 30, 2007)

Writing a piece of music "in the style of" a certain musician is one thing-- and to "quote" music is another thing-- but to take a piece of music, lift it out wholesale and simply change simply add a beat to each bar is more than mere "influence." Its obviously not a coincidence (we're not talking about just three or four notes, not a fleeting second or two, but whole MINUTES).

If that's not stealing, I dunno what is-- I shouldn't be able to get away with re-writing a piece of music, like say, the finale of Beethoven's 6th symphony in 4/4. That's not just lack of originality, that's out-and-out theft.

There's a world of difference between, say Stravinsky's adaptation of a Mozartian "sound" and actually taking a piece of music and making a slight modification. John Williams' "Imperial Theme" from Star Wars is obviously "Holstian" but not actually Holst re-written. It has a resemblance to Chopin's Funeral March, but its ONLY a resemblance.

I just don't know how someone can actually DO that with a clean conscience.

~josh


----------



## Rondo (Jul 11, 2007)

fool on the hill said:


> I just don't know how someone can actually DO that with a clean conscience.


Personally, I don't either. You could make a case for the general decline in originality in music over the past decade (or longer). I can't really say much more about that particular score, as I have not heard it. But if he did COPY it...maybe he at least had an "in-music" citation.


----------



## Ephemerid (Nov 30, 2007)

Rondo said:


> Does Zimmer mention anywhere on the CD inserts or website that he used _The Planets_?


Well, see, that's what I had expected. But no. A few years ago I watched the extras on the DVD expecting Zimmer to give a bit of a nod (and thinking, hey, what a great way to direct fans to Holst or Gorecki), but no, nada, zip, zilch, no mention whatsoever.

~josh


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

fool on the hill said:


> I just don't know how someone can actually DO that with a clean conscience.


I think you hit the nail on the head there. It comes down to one's personal artistic integrity, in how much he allows the work of another composer to "influence" his own, staying true to the artist's responsibility of allowing oneself to be influenced, but not _re-creating_ the work of another, as Zimmer did.

But I will still defend Zimmer in saying that he did not _copy_ Holst. Although I have not seen the score to _Gladiator_, I do know the _Mars_ score quite well and I can tell you that by listening to the _Gladiator_ clip, it is very _different_ on the level of the "ink on the paper", and therefore probably by legal definition as well.

But I agree with _Fool on the Hill_ in that it is not different _enough_ for Zimmer to maintain his artistic integrity by any imaginable measure.


----------



## dsunlin (Feb 19, 2008)

Apparently it's quite common for a director to choose a "temp track" often of "borrowed music" such as the classics. This is done allegedly to help imagine what the film's mood is going to be like. It's probably got a lot to do with the director saying, "hey, write something like this!" 

Still, no excuse for not using your imagination.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

Just came back to check the last entry in this thread, and I'm a bit confused by *Ephemerid*'s name... first of all, what does that mean and secondly... _Fool on the Hill_? Is that you?


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

Kurkikohtaus said:


> Just came back to check the last entry in this thread, and I'm a bit confused by *Ephemerid*'s name... first of all, what does that mean and secondly... _Fool on the Hill_? Is that you?


You weren't paying attention, were you?

See this.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> (1) the opening battle scene against the Germanic tribes has music that is almost identical to Holst's "Mars, the Bringer of War" (from The Planets) except (if I recall correctly) the metre was changed to a fast triple metre rather than 5/4.


He was sued for that.

Yes composers today use music based on music previously written.

Amazingly, composers of the Romantic era did the same.
Wow, so did classical and baroque.

Music evolves, if you don't use what comes before you, you have already lost. Originality is a farce, no music can be completely original and good. the 20c has been overrun with people requiring a completely different sound than someone else. Remind me, was Mozart COMPLETELY different from Haydn?


----------



## dsunlin (Feb 19, 2008)

Yagan Kiely said:


> He was sued for that...


It's almost as if they budget some money for paying these off.  Kubrick was sued for messsing with Ligeti.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

Yeh... Kubrick just used Lux Aeterna without permission.


----------



## opus67 (Jan 30, 2007)

Hey, check these out!










Close?


----------

