JamesM

When I interviewed Roy Douglas last year, of the film composers he orchestrated for, he cited William Walton as being the kindest and most appreciative composer he worked for in his film career (which ended in 1946). It could be that William Walton, as well as being such a fine composer, was the Peter Cushing of the film composing world and not someone you would want to see blighted in any way.

Ted Holmes

I finally got around to watching the DVD with the Walton score. What an odd thing! The titles (when we get to them) are accompanied by Walton in Crown Imperial mode, the actual theme has a remarkable similarity to one of the principal themes of Elgar's 'Falstaff. But what do we see on screen behind the titles? A lengthy inspection of the Luftwaffe by German officers. There's nothing ironic in this juxtaposition of noble British music against a Nazi backdrop - it's either Walton being lazy (highly unlikely) or some re-editing of the film after the music for the Titles had alrady been written and rejected.

On top of this, later footage that seems to revel in the beauty of Spitfires and Hurricanes in flight is accompanied by a new theme which is so uncannily similar to Siegfried's horn call from Wagner's opera as to be almost plagiarism. Again, no question of irony here, just very questionable placement of Walton's score.

Anyone know anything about all this?

I'll stick with Goodwin in future.

Ted

djdave

I do know that Goodwin was unfairly criticised for his involvement with the project. Walton's dismissal upset some people - not least Laurence Olivier - but this had nothing to do with RG. What was he supposed to do, turn it down?

Incidentally, Goodwin replaced another composer - Henry Mancini - on Alfred Hitchcock's last British film, Frenzy. Hichkcock fired Mancini after yelling that: "If I'd wanted Bernard Herrmann I'd have hired Bernard Herrmann" RG later said that AH had said that Mancini's music wasn't "English" enough.

Guenther

John Barry turned it down. ;)

In fact Goodwin was the one Noel Rogers wanted, but Goodwin said no at first. Then Rogers asked a few (including John Barry) but nobody wanted to replace Walton. Then UA asked Goodwin again who then said he will do it if they pay him twice his usual fee (secretly hoping they would say no). To his astonishment they said yes. Goodwin then told him we would do it under the provisio that ONLY his music would be in the film. This of course didn't happen. So in the end they managed to betray two composers.

Guenther

The spotting on the DVD is quite odd and certainly not placed as Walton intended.

This music cue is called "The Young Siegfrieds" and was intended for the Luftwaffe pilots. The Wagner quote was deliberate.

Timothy Gee matched the original cue sheets with the surving tapes of Walton's score either he made a few goofs or as often in films, cues written for one sequence end up being used for another scene in a film.

Gee was under the (wrong) impression that the written manuscript score did no longer exist so he didn't bother to check it with the cue sheets. But still the Siegfried music should never have matched to the RAF pilots.

Aaryk Noctivagus

This is a great site listing almost all the rejected feature scores in cinema history... http://www.rejectedfilmscores.150m.com/

Even I have two listings on that site. My single claim to fame - lol

Both 'Battle of Britain' scores are on one CD release from Varese Sarabande... and its still available... http://www.varesesarabande.com/details.asp?pid=302%2D066%2D578%2D2

If memory serves me correctly though... Sir William Walton was dragging his heals about completing the score... or am I getting this mixed up with another. I think I'm accurate... That they sought another composer because Walton was not delivering the music quickly enough to be viable.

Ted Holmes

I've only just seen this response. Thanks for this information, it's most interesting. What a pity the Walton version of the DVD is rendered useless by such incompetence. Unfortuntely, it's out there now and will do Walton's reputation no good at all. Timothy Gee evidently has the ears of an opera producer.

vic pitcher

I think you are thinking about Alan Rawsthorne's score for "Cruel Sea" which was way behind due to his own personal problems. Nicholas Monsarrat in his autobiography "Life is a Four letter Word" comments about this.

Walton's score for "Battle of Britain" was peremptorily rejected by the Producers on the grounds that it did not sound "commercial" They had in mind a more populist "633 Squadron" type sound; "bottom-line" rules, OK!

Aaryk Noctivagus

No I can assure you I wasn't thinking about that, since that's the first time I've heard it.

Emphasis added.

I've consulted some sources and it is not true that Walton's score was rejected because it ' did not sound "commercial" ' It was rejected because of its brevity. Wikipedia (for what it is worth) states that United Artists objected to Walton's score because it was insufficient to make up a long-playing record. I've not been able to cross reference this... so what Wikipedia states is open to debate - as it always is when unverified. However, it is perhaps tied in with what you have heard regarding its commercial viability.

I have found nothing that confirms what you said that it was rejected for not being popularist enough.

The Sleeve Notes of the soundtrack release of both scores, states that William Walton was assisted by Malcolm Arnold - initially for conducting dutues... and because Walton was rather painstaking and slow in composing, Arnold also assisted in orchestration, and may even have composed some small portions since traces of Arnold's particular style can be found in portions of the score. (Sleeve notes are more authoritative that something like Wikipedia... but besides this, I've easilly cross referenced this information). IMDb goes so far as to state that Malcolm Arnold even wrote additional cues to Walton's score... though I think that is going a little too far.

Producer Harry Saltzman was the one who rejected Walton's score. His stated reason was that it wasn't long enough. I would concur with that for entirely non-commercial reasons. 'The Battle of Britain' is a long movie and Walton's score is painfully short and clearly insufficient for a movie which requires a much more extensive score.

Walton's scoring took a longish time and the resultant score was quite brief. This supports what I said, but I was unable to confirm the detail of what I said. (The only confirmation I could find was part of an article I wrote in 2004... not cross-referencing, but it shows I must have read it somewhere at that time).

Here's the relevent section of my 2004 article for you...

I can confirm that it was not rejected on the grounds that it didn't sound commercial enough... but simply because of its length... which may have been a commercial reason... but may also have been for more artistic reasons.

Walton was quite frail at the time he was asked to score the movie. It is a crying shame that his last score was a rejected one, but he did a stirling effort in what he did manage.

Guenther

Noel Rogers wanted Goodwin from the start and that's it. He never wanted Walton. And he got his way.

As head of UA Music he was only interested in a hit record and Goodwin was a big seller (633 Squadron, etc).

The same reason he got John Barry for Dr. No.

The other stories ("not long enough",etc) are just cover stories and bad ones.

For example United Artists used the "not long enough" excuse for not releasing a LP of the original "Magnificent Seven"! That score has some 70 min!

And Malcolm did write several cues on his own based on Walton's themes.

The reason "Battle in the Air" was left intact in the film:

Olivier threated to remove his name from the advertising campaign unless they got Walton back. The sequence was the compromise. And Goodwin was not very happy about that.

Aaryk Noctivagus

You have NO evidence to support that. That is supposition. It was Harry Saltzman's decision. Noel Rogers was in charge of nothing on the movie.

John Barry worked on 'Dr No' but the score was mainly composed by Monty Norman. Barry arranged it - and didn't even get a credit on the movie. Hardly in line with what you say about the rational for Barry being to get a hit record out of it. Plus John Barry was hardly known as a movie composer back in 1962.

Sir William Walton's entire score only comprises 9 cues and last for 20 minutes and 49 seconds. A 20 minute score for a movie that lasts 2 hours and 49 minutes - long enough, eh? Oh yes... more than long enough, eh (sarcasm).

Even with that extremely short score, Sir William Walton required help. He hadn't composed a score for a very long time... and to be plunged into the deep end with such a long movie... he simply was no longer able to cope. It was a sad end to a glittering career, but these things happen. Its simply called... 'getting older'. (Note John Williams has slowed down considerably in the past few years... he's getting older also).

Even you admit that Malcolm wrote several of the cues on his own based upon Walton's themes... which is further than I went. We're talking of a score little more than 20 minutes in duration from beginning to end. How few minutes of score did Walton manage???

That is a very unfair statement regarding Ron Goodwin... and totally untrue. Olivier threatened to have his name removed if they didn't include at least one piece of Walton's score.

When they aproached Ron Goodwin to replace Sir William Walton... he was puzzled as to why they would want him to replace a composer of such quality. Hardly the attitude of a man who would begrudge who he saw as a great composer, one cue. (And in some prints of the movie... two cues from Walton's score).

Ted Holmes

Walton's score is hardly worth fighting over. There's not much of it and it's not particularly inspired. The First of the Few it 'aint. I'm not sure that old age can be blamed for his lack of inspiration, think about VW and many other aged composers. And even within Walton's fairly narrow compositional range this project should have been easy. I say narrow range because the violin, viola and cello concertos together with the violin sonata, Hindemith variatons etc. are pretty much the same piece. Maybe the problem was with the film itself which always feels like an edited down version of about ten hours of footage. Maybe Walton just couldn't have cared less?

Ted

Aaryk Noctivagus

I quite agree... though I think Walton's score is better than you give it credit for.

I think Ron Goodwin's score was better for the movie.

I'm not fighting, I was holding my own... I am surprised at what Guenther wrote... especially the cheap shot at those who rightly point to the brevity of Walton's score for its probable rejection (and the long time it took for that brevity to be composed). A cheap shot which I think I am not unreasonable in thinking was directed at me because of the content of my posts in this thread.

I can understand why some might prefer it if the case was nasty businessmen ill-treating poor defenceless composer... and it undoubtedly happens, but that is no excuse for forcing every case into the same pre-determined mould contrary to what is best evidenced and known facts of the case.

Yes, some composers stay very active right into their old age... but it is just as true that many slow down and even all but retire from movie scoring. It isn't to William Walton's detriment that he may fall into the latter camp... it doesn't make him less of a composer... though it might make him more of a human.

Many composers slow down their output (or virtually retire from the pressure of movie composing) as they get older... John Williams, John Barry, Ron Goodwin.

Jerry Goldsmith didn't slow down... and there are some who think it may have hastened his sad death (I'm not saying it did).

Guenther

Noel Rogers wasn't involved in the production he was a studio head. He was in charge of UA's Music dept.

He hired Barry to record and arrange the Norman's Bond theme. He rejected the BoB score and hired Goodwin... Where is the problem? He was way above the producers or the directors.

Guy Hamilton wanted the Walton score (he says so) so did probably Saltzman. (Walton was Saltzman's landlord at one time. Odd but true)

And Ron Goodwin stated that he didn't want Walton's music in the film. He agreed under the provisio that ONLY his music would be used as he feared exactly what has happened here.

Please tell me why this statement is unfair or not true?

And BoB wasn't Walton's final film score. It was Three Sisters (1970).

Aaryk Noctivagus

My problem is that what you are saying about Rogers seems contrary to the reported facts of the case.

Noel Rogers may very well have been against the hiring of William Walton... but he wasn't the person who had the say in rejecting Walton's score. Noel Rogers may very well have been behind the fact that Walton's rejected score was not released for years... but then this isn't particularly strange with rejected scores - which are seldom released.

It is quite well known that William Walton was a slow methodical composer (who was prone to composer's block at times throughout his career), and this does not easilly marry with the usual pressures of commercial movie scoring... which often requires its composers to score at a ridiculous pace. 'The Battle of Britain' was a very commercial movie... the slow methodical composing, coupled with such a short score at the end, undoubtedly played a large part in his removal from the movie.

Well, for 1... The statement you have just made is somewhat different in inferred tone to what you said in the previous post.

2... Would you care to share your reference for this?

Saltzman was the guy who rejected Walton's score against Hamilton's protestations. The word 'probably' is the giveaway word as to how uncertain you feel in this matter.

Did I ever say 'The Battle of Britain' was Walton's final score? It was his penultimate score. However, William Walton had not composed one single movie score for 13 or 14 years before he was hired for 'The Battle of Britain'. He scored 'Three Sisters' the next year for Lord Olivier... and then never scored a movie again for another 13 years up until his death.

So he has a 13-14 year break... scores two movies because Lawrence Olivier wants his involvement... then never scores another movie for the rest of his life (which was another 13 years).

A bit different to Jerry Goldsmith who scored 2 movies the year right before he sadly died... and scored several movies per year most of his entire movie career.

Some composers retire from the pressures of movie-scoring. Some composers slow down. Some composers continue to the grave.

It is unreasonable to assume that, after a 14 year break, any composer could straight away score such a long movie. Walton himself realised he needed help from Malcolm Arnold. Its like expecting Seb Coe to compete in the olympics again because he once could.

It is known that from the 1960s onwards, Walton found composing progressively more difficult - let alone movie scoring.