> It is irrelevant. Dont you see? What we are discussing is Horner´s
> plagiarism. Period. The theme is not of his authorship. If is from Parry,
> Holst or [bleep!]ing Palestrina, it doesnt matter. It doesn´t matter which
> was his source. He claimed that a melody that already existed was his.
> That´s the only question here.

Well, that's NOT THE ONLY QUESTION: this is meant to be a discussion not a court case. There is a huge difference between holding a discussion and simply asserting something. Besides, I AM talking about Horner's plagiarism, and what I'm saying is this: seeing as even some classical composers based their tunes on pre-existing music that they admired, does it ultimately really matter that much if Horner did borrow a little hook from Holst? Another example would be that Horner's "William Wallace Theme" in Braveheart is obviously modelled on the old scottish song "Lochlomond". Whatever your view on this is, whether you think it constitutes plafiarism or not, you must take on board the fact that composers have always incorporated folk music into the fabric of their work, especially composers like Gustav Holst. So, my response to the question conerning Horner and The Planets is to say that on Braveheart, Horner is just working in the same way as they did so why the big song and dance??