I am at a disadvantage with these two releases, having seen neither of the two films which spawned them. However, I do have a relevant point of reference: 30 years acquaintance with this particular Waxman score and oeuvre, about 20 years familiarity with Horner's musical offspring (though, I confess, at a much more casual level than with Waxman's).

Therefore, I admit to minor pleasure in discovering I actually liked the music of Enemy at the Gates, and minor disappointment in recording that Objective Burma left me less impressed than I was prepared to be. That is, expectations fuelled by advance reaction - and Waxman's status in the pantheon of film music - had led me to expect a masterwork, and Horner's reputation as a reactor to, rather than a creator of, original film music, had led me to expect less than I got.

Nevertheless, let me state immediately that Burma is superior to Gates - by the approximate distance which separates the Japanese war front from the Russo-German. Yet much of the Waxman is moody filler, even as much of the Horner is of a solemn sameness. Since, however, I confess a predilection toward dark preoccupations, Horner's single-hue mood painting is not unpleasing. Waxman, in this respect, is far more various - sometimes spectacularly so - in his jingoism and orchestral derring-do (as to the generational difference in tone, see comments on Waxman's Prince Valiant ). Errol Flynn seems to bring out this exuberant quality in his composers. Much of Objective Burma has the multi-coloured muscularity of Korngold's Robin Hood and The Sea Hawk , and Steiner's Adventures of Don Juan or in Dodge City. Sample the tracks Jumping and its part-retread Landing for what Waxman could do with an action sequence.

Withal, the over all mood is sombre, befitting the advance of realism in Hollywood product toward the last days of the Second World War (the film's 'realism' in respect to the comparative contribution of the U.S. in the Burma campaign did not prevent Warners from having to withdraw it in England, under protest that the British Burma effort was ignored). Enemy at the Gates is predominantly sombre too, but Horner's efforts do not have the monotony-defying contrasts of the Waxman. JH is also not helped by the recording, which is murky and fairly distant, whereas the Moscow forces are recorded in the up front style to which we have become accustomed from Marco Polo, and which suits the John Morgan restoration of Burma perfectly, even as it does virtually every score emanating from the 'Golden Era'. (Some of Bernard Herrmann's work might be a conspicuous exception to this generality.)

Nevertheless, Objective Burma leaves me wondering whether the complete score trend does justice to the realistic intentions of the composer. I have heard that Alex North informed Jerry Goldsmith that it would be inappropriate to record the complete score of Spartacus. I am sure this reserve about the practicality of completism would be shared by most of the greats. After all, much of what was written for the soundtracks of even Hollywood 'A' product served no better purpose than mood-inducement (check track 10 - Missing the Plane, Waiting etc), sometimes memorably enough to merit permanent documentation, sometimes perfunctorily - and that's being generous. Therefore, I have mixed feelings about the 71:38 running time of Burma. Perhaps 40 minutes of Burma, 20 minutes of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941, MGM version), and 10 minutes supplement of any unfamiliar Waxman material might serve the collector better. And run less risk of aborting the marvelous and pioneering work of Morgan, Stromberg and Marco Polo in midstream. Gentlemen, I am not ungrateful. I just want the public to get the best sampling of the range of Hollywood's best musicians. Before the goose that lays these 'Golden Age' eggs takes off.