Quote:
Whether Huston and DeLaurentiis knew this or not is probably unascertainable by now, but if they had proffered a firm offer to Rózsa he would surely have withdrawn when the director's two-composer scheme revealed itself.


Which is why Huston originally wanted Stravinsky? For that gentleman could do BOTH techniques admirably, as is proven by his varied works.

There's a very important point to be made in all this, namely different takes on 'religious' music. In many traditions, emotional music is used to whip up an ecstatic state where the otherworldly perception is supposed to be generated. Many requiem masses and eastern dances attempt this. Call it Dionysian.

But the OTHER tradition is to get BEYOND emotion somehow. Here's where your Ligetis and Glasses and Tavener's 'icon music' come in. It's no good saying, 'I don't like this type of music, it lacks passion', because its intention is to try to go beyond what we 'like' i.e. our passions. This isn't new. Many old monastic communities structured their music thus. They'd find Rozsa's 'King of Kings' Prelude far too sexual and earthy, despite its 'uniting' quality of ascending to the heights as well! Even Martin Luther, who loved earthy music, and composed stuff, outlawed the organ from early Lutheran churches, as too 'sensuous'.

We can call these people narrow-minded if we wish, but at least they had the self-awareness and differentiation to know WHEN a composer was writing from his sexual life-force (the Romantics tried to do this, consciously often), and when not. The likes of Monteverdi straddled both traditions in his religious music, and the stark differences between Praetorius' secular dances and his church music is amazing.

So don't be TOO hard on those who think Rozsa's religious music cliched or less convincing than his other moods. It depends on whether you want to differentiate or mix the 'flesh/spirit' aspects of feeling. John Tavener likes to distinguish between what he calls 'ego' and 'inner self' music (there's that Jung man again!). Rozsa was usually an 'ego' composer, (which Huston knew when he said both flatteringly and critically that he'd never 'direct a Rozsa film' again!), whereas a lot of composers in 'religious' areas try to bypass ego and go deeper. Who knows if they succeed? Mayuzumi working from a consciously Buddhist perspective was different. Buddhism tries to bypass 'ego' to reach 'self' and beyond in meditation. In fact, like it or no, Rozsa's slightly snide comments about Mayuzumi are about as 'ego' as you can get. 'I'm better than he, so why didn't I get the job?'