# “The Minions Do the Actual Writing”: The Ugly Truth of How Movie Scores Are Made



## Robin

“The Minions Do the Actual Writing”: The Ugly Truth of How Movie Scores Are Made


----------



## KEM

Very good read


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

VI-C gets prominent placement in this article!

Me thinks the composer as head of a bunch of ghostwriters has always made a bit of a mockery of the profession.


----------



## Trash Panda

@AudioLoco is famous!


----------



## davidson

The 'minions' who might complain after the fact certainly weren't complaining when they took on the work and got paid, else they wouldn't have done it. I've white labelled for years and I knew what I was getting into before taking on a new project. It is what it is.


----------



## labyrinths

davidson said:


> The 'minions' who might complain after the fact certainly weren't complaining when they took on the work and got paid, else they wouldn't have done it. I've white labelled for years and I knew what I was getting into before taking on a new project. It is what it is.


----------



## KEM

labyrinths said:


>


----------



## Markrs

People don't take work and be exploited because they want it, but because they need to earn in this industry that they have trained for. There is a power in-balance between top composers and those that ghost write, that leads to exploitation.


----------



## Kent

davidson said:


> The 'minions' who might complain after the fact certainly weren't complaining when they took on the work and got paid, else they wouldn't have done it. I've white labelled for years and I knew what I was getting into before taking on a new project. It is what it is.


What an extraordinarily bad take!


----------



## rgames

The equivalent of ghost writing happens everywhere. You think Steve Jobs created Apple products? Of course not. You think Joe Biden wrote legislation while he was a legislator? Of course not. Both had teams of people doing the actual work for them. It happens all the time.

That doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Leading is not the same as doing. Organizations are generally much more efficient when there is some amount of leadership focused on integrating the work of others and ensuring the overall success of the organization. That's a good thing - society is better served. We make better cell phones, provide better healthcare, put people on the moon, etc.

However, the most effective leaders are the ones who have actually done the work at some point in their career. There has been a shift in the past couple decades where there are a lot of leaders who haven't checked that box. It's always been that way in government but that approach is appearing much more frequently in private industry these days.

At least we haven't seen that yet in the music world. Zimmer definitely worked in the trenches for a while, as did a number of the other composers mentioned in the article. So if he shifts into a leadership role later in his career then that's fine. That happens in every other profession - why not composing?

And besides, nobody is forcing the ghost writers to ghost write. Let consenting adults do what they want without persecution.

rgames


----------



## Daniel James

rgames said:


> You think Steve Jobs created Apple products


Was there anyone ever who assumed that he made them all by himself? that's closer to the issue I think. 

Also if bigger composers didn't (as the article claims) take 9 projects at a time and instead only worked on as many as they could handle working on themselves....not only would there be no need for ghostwriters, there would be more good work for more people. Some people have all the resources to corner all the work, that's how our culture works unfortunately. Obviously, time will change this at some point, but it will be a difficult thing to change any time soon unless production companies and PRO's start to put their foot down on it all a bit more.


----------



## dcoscina

Film music has always been collaborative since the advent of the Hollywood Studio system. That’s not contestable. It’s the evolution of the system where there are a few big name composers taking all of the work because they have set up industries and a brand. This has resulted in a generic sound with few instances of variety and originality. Also, with so many cooks in the kitchen, the meal ends up lacking focus and distinction. 

There are a few cases where this isn’t true but that’s the exception not the norm.


----------



## Trash Panda

davidson said:


> The 'minions' who might complain after the fact certainly weren't complaining when they took on the work and got paid, else they wouldn't have done it. I've white labelled for years and I knew what I was getting into before taking on a new project. It is what it is.


I’m sure they complained. They just did so quietly away from eyes and ears that would put them on the black list for daring to speak up. 🙄


----------



## Kent

Respectfully,


rgames said:


> [...] nobody is forcing the ghost writers to ghost write. Let consenting adults do what they want without persecution.


'Consent' (in this usage) is only possible between equals. Power imbalances, benign or otherwise, remove that concept from the equation. 

In other words, this does not apply here.


----------



## dcoscina

I will add one more thing here- electing to work in the Hollywood system is akin to that old parable about the scorpion and the frog. You know you will get stung halfway across the river.


----------



## Dansereal

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> VI-C gets prominent placement in this article!
> 
> Me thinks the composer as head of a bunch of ghostwriters has always made a bit of a mockery of the profession.


Goes back at least to the 1940s when Andre Previn was ghostwriting for big-name composers of the time. In his memoir, “No Minor Chords,” he recalls that one of those composers turned to him during a session and said, “Young man, did I write this?” 

The memoir’s called “No Minor Chords” because a studio mogul, on learning that a score he didn’t like had minor chords in it, sent down an edict that henceforth there would be no minor chords in any of *his* movies.


----------



## Gingerbread

davidson said:


> The 'minions' who might complain after the fact certainly weren't complaining when they took on the work and got paid, else they wouldn't have done it. I've white labelled for years and I knew what I was getting into before taking on a new project. It is what it is.


Agreeing to an unfair system due to desperation amounts to coercion, not consent.


----------



## jbuhler

Ghostwriting/uncredited composers has been around as a regular practice since the dawn of the sound film. For whatever reason, film composers have historically been unwilling to acknowledge the ubiquity of the practice, and I imagine this thread is going to quickly fill up with exceptions without any awareness of how doing that has the effect of making it exceedingly difficult to talk about the issue.


----------



## KEM

Someone please tell me Ludwig doesn’t use ghostwriters…


----------



## Macrawn

Im just curious because I dont compose for film but do you folks belong to a union? It is probably the only way to solve the issue is with a standard contract that ensures credit be given. Im not talking about the associated names but the support under them.


----------



## rgames

Kent said:


> 'Consent' (in this usage) is only possible between equals. Power imbalances, benign or otherwise, remove that concept from the equation.
> 
> In other words, this does not apply here.


Exploitation happens in third-world sweat shops where the people either take the terms they're given or they starve.

I've never met a composer who couldn't make a living doing something else.

Therefore it absolutely is consent.

Your statement seems to imply that people have a right to make a living as a composer should they so choose. They don't. I'd love to make a living as a professional golfer but my 8 handicap makes that tough. I could try if I wanted to, but I'm guessing it's a bad idea. Because I have options other than golf my decision to pursue it as a career would absolutely be consent. Likewise for anyone one choosing to become a composer.


----------



## blaggins

One thing that could potential bolster the consent argument or take away from it... How many aspiring composers understand what they are getting into *before* dedicating a huge chunk of their life (time, money, effort - in the form of a music education, internships, moving to LA, working their way up, etc., and necessarily taking into consider the opportunity cost of having done all that instead of training for something else) only to discover the reality of the situation. I take it this is not an aspect of working in Hollywood that gets talked about a lot... so is there an expectation that everyone trying to become a media composer is supposed to already know this? Otherwise, I think exploitation is probably the correct word...


----------



## rgames

Daniel James said:


> Was there anyone ever who assumed that he made them all by himself?


Uhhh - yeah! (Maybe you're joking and I totally missed it...)

Jobs/Apple pays people and takes the credit. That's the deal. If you work for Apple, Apple owns everything you think up in exchange for a salary and maybe a bonus. You own none of what you create. Your name appears nowhere. That's 100% typical for private industry across the world.

It's a pretty good deal really - Apple takes the risk that you're a dud and you get paid. As long as the agreement is consensual then it's perfectly fine. The vast majority of salaried American workers work under exactly that scenario.

Ghost writing is the same thing. And it's a good deal for a lot of people.

More importantly, it's up to them to decide whether it's a good deal. Again... consenting adults, you know...

rgames


----------



## jbuhler

rgames said:


> Ghost writing is the same thing. And it's a good deal for a lot of people.


I don't think the analogy holds. Working for Apple is more like being an uncredited composer than being a ghostwriter where you aren't able to take credit for your work, often not even allowed to acknowledge that you did work.


----------



## davidson

jbuhler said:


> I don't think the analogy holds. Working for Apple is more like being an uncredited composer than being a ghostwriter where you aren't able to take credit for your work, often not even allowed to acknowledge that you did work.


It's funny you mention that - we actually contracted for apple for 6 months (web development for a new apple release) and weren't allowed to advertise the fact. The same holds true for facebook, warner brothers, and air b&b among others.


----------



## rgames

jbuhler said:


> I don't think the analogy holds.


It does. You do the work. You get paid. You get none of the credit. Working for Apple or ghostwriting. Same agreement.

And Apple absolutely prevents people from disclosing that they're working for Apple.

EDIT: of course, anyone working for Apple has every right *not* to work with Apple. There's the consenting adults thing again...!


----------



## Henu

rgames said:


> That's the deal. If you work for Apple, Apple owns everything you think up in exchange for a salary and maybe a bonus. You own none of what you create.


That's standard, but your name not appearing anywhere certainly isn't.


----------



## rgames

Henu said:


> That's standard, but your name not appearing anywhere certainly isn't.


Samsung makes a lot of chips for Apple.

Ever seen Samsung conspicuously credited on an Apple product?


----------



## Henu

You wrote:



rgames said:


> Your name appears nowhere. That's 100% typical for private industry across the world.


Which I corrected, that's all. Besides, subcontracting is completely another story!


----------



## Vlzmusic

I think the streaming TV have the potential to become a much better system than PRO today. For example, it is relatively easy for them to insert a cue sheet of authors and tracks used in each episode, and a counter. Of course those are peanuts on a smaller scale, but once you got a few tracks in a hit show, you on a roll.
Unlike Spotify, streaming TV doesn't have millions of tracks to deal with, but the views are healthier, cause, lets admit - how many paying subscribers would find your music in pure audio service, and listen to it daily?
If everything is transparent - views count, per episode cue sheets, quarterly direct payments to authors, it may become a lucrative thing.


----------



## RSK

Daniel James said:


> Some people have all the resources to corner all the work, that's how our culture works unfortunately. Obviously, time will change this at some point...


Will it? As far as I can tell, clients and customers have always flocked to the ones who do a better job of marketing and/or networking, regardless of the industry.

But we're missing something important here, at least as it pertains to Mr. Zimmer; how many composer careers has he launched? I can name at least a dozen off the top of my head. What he has setup is more like the old apprenticeship practices of craftsmen, where you started out as a novice and were trained by those who were more experienced until you became of master of the craft yourself. 

It's hard to claim he's being exploitative when he has, in essence, created his own competition.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

rgames said:


> It does. You do the work. You get paid. You get none of the credit. Working for Apple or ghostwriting. Same agreement.
> 
> And Apple absolutely prevents people from disclosing that they're working for Apple.
> 
> EDIT: of course, anyone working for Apple has every right *not* to work with Apple. There's the consenting adults thing again...!



The kicker is that you don't even believe what you're saying, Richard.

Of course there's nothing wrong with composers hiring ghost writers, orchestrators, and anyone else. There isn't enough time for one human to complete the score on his or her own much of the time.

The issue is royalties and credit. I still get $.10 a year for cues I ghost wrote in the '80s, and I'm entitled to that dime.


----------



## Daniel James

rgames said:


> Uhhh - yeah! (Maybe you're joking and I totally missed it...)
> 
> Jobs/Apple pays people and takes the credit. That's the deal. If you work for Apple, Apple owns everything you think up in exchange for a salary and maybe a bonus. You own none of what you create. Your name appears nowhere. That's 100% typical for private industry across the world.
> 
> It's a pretty good deal really - Apple takes the risk that you're a dud and you get paid. As long as the agreement is consensual then it's perfectly fine. The vast majority of salaried American workers work under exactly that scenario.
> 
> Ghost writing is the same thing. And it's a good deal for a lot of people.
> 
> More importantly, it's up to them to decide whether it's a good deal. Again... consenting adults, you know...
> 
> rgames


I think I will have to just disagee with you on this. I think most people understand that Apple has a company of designers, software engineers, R+D.

I think it was obvious to everyone that Steve Job ran apple, but people are also accutly aware that he had a team around him. Whereas People literally think the scores with music by on the box are written by that person. I honestly don't think the general consensus with Apple customers is that Steve sat up in late nights, designed the concept, then the look, then programming the code all by himself in the way they do for a 'Music By:' composer, most assume they will touch _every_ note of the score singlehandedly.

I see the point you are trying to make but the comparison doesnt hold up. If the scores for example said Music by Remote Control (as iphones say made by Apple not Steve Jobs) and we all understood Hans ran the RC ship it would be an equal comparison. Because you expect the people working there to be doing musical things and the team gets the credit. Hans would still be the captain and still be the figure head but the assumtion wouldnt be that he wrote every note as the current 'Music By' credit would suggest. Just for clarification though, I have seen Hans be incredibly dilligent at trying to get others credited and on the cue sheet, there genuinly is a lot of red tape, so im not throwing him under the bus here its just the most obvious example to make.


----------



## Daniel James

RSK said:


> Will it? As far as I can tell, clients and customers have always flocked to the ones who do a better job of marketing and/or networking, regardless of the industry.
> 
> But we're missing something important here, at least as it pertains to Mr. Zimmer; how many composer careers has he launched? I can name at least a dozen off the top of my head. What he has setup is more like the old apprenticeship practices of craftsmen, where you started out as a novice and were trained by those who were more experienced until you became of master of the craft yourself.
> 
> It's hard to claim he's being exploitative when he has, in essence, created his own competition.


They, unfortunately, wont be around forever mate. Time gets us all. And with that, power dynamics shift. Thats how the world works.


----------



## jbuhler

Henu said:


> You wrote:
> 
> 
> Which I corrected, that's all. Besides, subcontracting is completely another story!


I guess you could say that ghostwriting is analogous to subcontracting and uncredited composing is analogous to working directly for Apple. But one big difference is that Steve Jobs never claimed that everything Apple did was his and only his work, even if Apple owned all the work.


----------



## Kent

Please don't strawman my statement.

Your logic is not sound here, on a number of levels:



rgames said:


> Exploitation happens in third-world sweat shops where the people either take the terms they're given or they starve.


'Exploitation' is a separate issue/concept, orthogonally related to consent/coercion. While one particularly egregious form of exploitation exists in the form you've indicated here, this is by no means the only form of that concept. It is a continuum of leveraging x for y purpose, and conditionally 'we' accept some forms as acceptable and some forms as unacceptable—to varying degrees of rigidity, as well.

To set this up as the equivalent to my statement is both a false binary and either a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of these concepts.


rgames said:


> I've never met a composer who couldn't make a living doing something else.


This is an argument from ignorance, ...


rgames said:


> Therefore it absolutely is consent.


So here you've set up an inductive statement if A and B, then C; in other words, C is true if and only if A and B are true. However, _neither_ A nor B are true, so it does not support your conclusion C.


rgames said:


> Your statement seems to imply that people have a right to make a living as a composer should they so choose.


My statement implies only that 'consent', as used in that phrasing, is only possible between equals.


rgames said:


> They don't. I'd love to make a living as a professional golfer but my 8 handicap makes that tough. I could try if I wanted to, but I'm guessing it's a bad idea. Because I have options other than golf my decision to pursue it as a career would absolutely be consent. Likewise for anyone one choosing to become a composer.


I understand the point you're trying to make here, but:
A. These are not equivalent conceptual categories, so the analogy doesn't hold. 
B. The article isn't even about 'wannabes', it's about the actual working and musically-successful composers who are not career- or financially-successful. Even if the broad analogy _did_ hold, this would then be more analogous to your wearing a Hideki Matusayama mask at the Masters last year and winning it as him, but getting no recognition or commensurate remuneration for such a feat.


In short, while I'm sure you feel very strongly about these things (and that is certainly valid, though I disagree with those positions) there is absolutely nothing in what you've said here that actually supports your rhetorical goals.


----------



## RSK

Daniel James said:


> They, unfortunately, wont be around forever mate. Time gets us all. And with that, power dynamics shift. Thats how the world works.


No, they won't be around forever. And then the work will go to the people in the next generation who are best at marketing and/or networking.


----------



## blaggins

davidson said:


> It's funny you mention that - we actually contracted for apple for 6 months (web development for a new apple release) and weren't allowed to advertise the fact. The same holds true for facebook, warner brothers, and air b&b among others.


You may not have been able to advertise it at the time, sure. There are always a small number of skunkworks projects underway at big tech companies, but this is exception anyway, not the rule. Basically everyone in tech has a brag sheet (their resume) listing everywhere they've worked and details of what they worked on. Not enough details that any kind of confidentiality or NDA is violated of course, but enough to claim credit. Even in your case I imagine that you were eventually allowed to disclose your relationship to Apple (after the product shipped). 

I see this as a very different thing than ghostwriting. No one is saying that the score and the recording (the IP if you will) should belong to the ghostwriter. This is similar to how everything you come up with while working at Apple is owned by Apple, that's the contract you sign. But the credit of having worked on it is still yours, and someone may very well hire you for a future project because you have experience having worked on x, y, or z.


----------



## Daniel James

RSK said:


> What he has setup is more like the old apprenticeship practices of craftsmen


I think most working composers understand this concept. But its more taking credit for what they worked on so they can build their own reputations through helping out (which I think is fair) and I think most would be ok even being left out of the scrolling credits so long as they can add that work to their CV, and be able to talk about what they did. Right now you have to pretend that the lead composer wrote it (sometimes for legal reasons) and that you had nothing to do with it.

I do believe historically, if an apprentice does a piece they get credited for it but its usually attached with to whom they are an apprentice for, alongside. (is that right, its been a long time since I bought a battle axe 😂) ie this awesome score was done By Hans Zimmers new writing apprentice Lorne Balfe (obviously Lorne is killing it these days but I'm not sure who even works over there anymore)


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

Apple employees can most definitely publicly say they work at Apple - and often, exactly what area they are working on. Publicly as in you can see "their credits" on LinkedIn. Their names will also appear on patents that are awarded for their ideas (like it does for mine). Third-party companies usually can't say they work with Apple because of things like endorsement (which carries a lot of weight - and companies like Apple are hesitant to kingmake publicly).

This is not the same as ghostwriting where you cannot claim credit for your work.


----------



## RSK

Daniel James said:


> I do believe historically, if an apprentice does a piece they get credited for it but its usually attached with to whom they are an apprentice for, alongside. (is that right, its been a long time since I bought a battle axe 😂)


Close enough


----------



## Greg

It's painfully obvious that most studios have become risk management agencies for capital and investors, not unlike hedge funds. Budgets have exploded and ingenuity and risk is disappearing by the day, if there is even any risk left in films over $100m budget?? Composers with a legion of minions are a reflection of that risk management on the music side. There is simply too much money on the line to rely on a single human being.


----------



## NoamL

I *never ever* heard any RCP alumni referred to as a '*Zimling*,' here or anywhere else, before Joe Kraemer's twitter post.

That summarizes the article's problems. It's a look into our field that feels quite limited by who this author Mark Rozzo chose to interview.

I don't sense the author is interested in learning about our field comprehensively, both its triumphs and pitfalls. This reads like a bad attempt at an 'industry-changing exposé' piece. The article gloms together the issues of 1) declining royalties, 2) ghostwriting, 3), assistants, and 4) MeToo without any overarching thesis other than "FILM SCORING: EMBROILED IN CONTROVERSY?"

I appreciate the public learning about film composing but this article is not a fair look.

- I feel the article heavily implies that assistantships arose because of declining royalties from streaming and that a "rise" of ghost composing is somehow thematically connected to SJ's lawsuit aganst Disney. Chronologically false and a basic error.

- the article cites the Hans-Zimmer.com website and portrays _all 263 people credited there_ as current Zimmer collaborators. Does anyone here think that's fair?

- Saying that a lead composer only "sets the tonal palette" - is that a fair description of workshopping a suite?

- the article doesn't give a fair picture of _why_ composers hire assistants. The overall impression is that composers are capital F Frauds who take gigs they aren't chops-equipped to actually deliver. The article also talks about composers becoming "brands" and taking on 7 films a year that they delegate. These two concepts are true of some folks but not a fair brush to paint all A-list composers much less all working composers in the industry.

- the article doesn't discuss the benefits of assistantships besides money and negotiated credit. The article boils down filmscoring to "writing music," omitting all the psychological, relational, logistical, and managerial work that goes into making a score. The article undersells the value of veterancy and "being in the room" with a working composer.

- the lack of interviews with current composer assistants is notable, up to you to decide whether "assistants are too scared to talk" or nobody wanted to help this author's agenda or the author _did_ interview people and found their interviews to be "unhelpful"

- your mileage may vary but my impression is the article does not do enough to fairly and clearly distinguish - for a lay audience - the roles of "assistants" and "ghosts." The article also positions assisting as "gig work," which it is in some cases, but the article doesn't discuss when the work is more like apprenticeships.

- some extraordinarily basic iMDB sleuth work (for a JOURNALIST) would have uncovered which composers have short or long term relationships with credited additional composers.

- various romanticized crap like saying a composer is "gifted with perfect pitch." Why does every entertainment press article about our craft have to be covered in this Willy Wonka bullshit?

In short. There are a lot of problematic things about assistantships, and I don't expect a mainstream entertainment press article to delve into the details of what a DAW is or anything, but this article isn't as good as it could be.

The very nature of this industry is that we each only know about it what we have learned from our personal experience and what we have heard through the grapevine from friends and colleagues. That this article doesn't give what I'd consider a well rounded picture of the industry, but that's only from my perspective. I'm not saying this to be a defender of the status quo or anything. Just pointing out that there are a lot of missed opportunities here.


----------



## rgames

Daniel James said:


> I think I will have to just disagee with you on this. I think most people understand that Apple has a company of designers, software engineers, R+D.
> 
> I think it was obvious to everyone that Steve Job ran apple, but people are accutly aware that he had a team around him. Whereas People literally think the scores with music by on the box are written by that person. I honestly don't think the general consensus with Apple customers is that Steve sat up in late nights, designed the concept, then the look, then programming the code all by himself in the way they do for a 'Music By:' composer does.....what do they think the thousands of other Apple employees do?
> 
> I see the point you are trying to make but the comparison doesnt hold up. If the scores for example said Music by Remote Control (as iphones say made by Apple not Steve Jobs) and we all understood Hans ran the RC ship it would be an equal comparison. Because you expect the people working there to be doing musical things and the team gets the credit. Hans would still be the captain and still be the figure head but the assumtion wouldnt be that he wrote every note as the current 'Music By' credit would suggest. Just for clarification though, I have seen Hans be incredibly dilligent at trying to get others credited and on the cue sheet, there genuinly is a lot of red tape, so im not throwing him under the bus here its just the most obvious example to make.


Yeah I got you. But think about it this way: RCP and Apple are both integrators. Apple takes pieces of things from other places and integrates them into a whole that they deliver as a product. They design very few of the parts that make an iPhone work - they buy/license them. Their competitive advantage is actually in integrating them and, more importantly, managing the supply chain (and branding). Apple is not an R&D company. They're a strongly branded supply chain. Google is an R&D company. Microsoft does a bit of R&D. But Apple is mostly supply chain and branding, not R&D. For example, which do you think Apple spends more money on: R&D or lawyers? I'll let you look it up 

Likewise with RCP. The notes are one piece. But so are the musicians, and the copyists, and the recording engineers, and the recording studio, and the caterers, and the editors, and and and. There's a lot of coordination that goes into that "Music By" credit. It's not supply chain management on the order of Apple but it's a difference of degree, not of kind. It's still supply chain management.

Given that it's mostly supply chain management, do the composers deserve all the credit for the "Music by"? I don't think so. So who does?

Certainly the caterers don't deserve PRO royalties for the music but ultimately the answer is simple: whatever everyone agrees to. Let them figure it out.

Consenting adults 

rgames


----------



## RSK

Greg said:


> It's painfully obvious that most studios have become risk management agencies for capital and investors, not unlike hedge funds. Budgets have exploded and ingenuity and risk is disappearing by the day, if there is even any risk left in films over $100m budget?? Composers with a legion of minions are a reflection of that risk management on the music side. There is simply too much money on the line to rely on a single human being.


Unfortunately, I have to agree with this. The biggest movie of the past 12 months was based on a best-selling, cult-status sci-fi book written forever ago. One which has already been made into a movie and a mini-series before.

Most of the rest are based on age-old IP as well.


----------



## Dansereal

KEM said:


> Someone please tell me Ludwig doesn’t use ghostwriters…


Beethoven lived at the very beginning of the artist-as-lone-god era, and as one of its chief proponents, no way was he going to let anybody ghostwrite his stuff. That was back when the ideal of utter, instantly-recognizable originality motivated everyone with high-art aspirations. You might even say that’s back when the idea of “high” (as in transcendentally original, almost-divine) art came into being.


----------



## Henu

NoamL said:


> Why does every entertainment press article about our craft have to be covered in this Willy Wonka bullshit?


Because we're extraordinary magicians, able to conjure tones and melodies from our mere souls which shake the foundations of human perception and change lives, and you know it! ❤️


----------



## dcoscina

KEM said:


> Someone please tell me Ludwig doesn’t use ghostwriters…





Dansereal said:


> Beethoven lived at the very beginning of the artist-as-lone-god era, and as one of its chief proponents, no way was he going to let anybody ghostwrite his stuff. That was back when the ideal of utter, instantly-recognizable originality motivated everyone with high-art aspirations. You might even say that’s back when the idea of “high” (as in transcendentally original, almost-divine) art came into being.


he was talking about Goransson. not Beethoven.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

rgames said:


> Yeah I got you. But think about it this way: RCP and Apple are both integrators. Apple takes pieces of things from other places and integrates them into a whole that they deliver as a product. They design very few of the parts that make an iPhone work - they buy/license them. Their competitive advantage is actually in integrating them and, more importantly, managing the supply chain (and branding). Apple is not an R&D company. They're a strongly branded supply chain. Google is an R&D company. Microsoft does a bit of R&D. But Apple is mostly supply chain and branding, not R&D. For example, which do you think Apple spends more money on: R&D or lawyers? I'll let you look it up


Have you actually worked at Apple, because this is totally false information.

Apple spends nearly the same on R&D as Google. And Microsoft just slightly less. I'll let you look it up.


----------



## RSK

rgames said:


> Given that it's mostly supply chain management, do the composers deserve all the credit for the "Music by"? I don't think so. So who does?


Here's a related question: if Big Name Composer hands me a Cubase file with the basic themes and asks me to orchestrate it, and I turn that into a gorgeous arrangement and mockup complete with notation for all the musicians, who actually wrote it?


----------



## KEM

dcoscina said:


> If you want someone to tell you fairy tales, ok.
> 
> he was talking about Goransson. not Beethoven.



I know he has assistants but he’s always seemed very authentic to me, I’d hate to hear that he uses ghostwriters


----------



## Daniel James

RSK said:


> Unfortunately, I have to agree with this. The biggest movie of the past 12 months was based on a best-selling, cult-status sci-fi book written forever ago. One which has already been made into a movie and a mini-series before.


Also wacking those big brand name composers front and center is obviously for the same reason, A film music fan is more likely to purchase an album with Music By: Hans Zimmer than by an apprentice without reputation yet, even if the work share was 90/10%. The same way most pop artists don't write their music these days but they are promoted as such cause none really cares about the guy in his bedroom putting in the work, they want their 'celebs'. I think we all get _why_ they do it.


----------



## Dansereal

dcoscina said:


> he was talking about Goransson. not Beethoven.


🙄


----------



## dcoscina

I think the real issue here is compensation for composers in this era compared to previous ones. Without knowing the financials, it's hard to say how assistants/uncredited composers/ghostwriters make in the modern era compared to the Golden Age or Silver Age of film music. 

I think we can acknowledge that there is less breadth of composers in Hollywood compared to the '40s through to the '90s. Most blockbuster films are going to the same 5 composers/houses.


----------



## Daniel James

RSK said:


> Here's a related question: if Big Name Composer hands me a Cubase file with the basic themes and asks me to orchestrate it, and I turn that into a gorgeous arrangement and mockup complete with notation for all the musicians, who actually wrote it?


That starts to move into the whole 'what is music' is it the melody? is it the arrangement. Like if someone does an EDM remix of the Inception theme, but created all the parts from scratch.... would we consider that original work by the remixer or Hans' work. Because a new Orchestral arrangement is naught but a remix in the same genre.


----------



## RSK

Daniel James said:


> Also wacking those big brand name composers front and center is obviously for the same reason, A film music fan is more likely to purchase an album with Music By: Hans Zimmer than by an apprentice without reputation yet, even if the work share was 90/10%. The same way most pop artists don't write their music these days but they are promoted as such cause none really cares about the guy in his bedroom putting in the work, they want their 'celebs'. I think we all get _why_ they do it.


While I don't disagree with the point you actually made, I do think that pop music is continually looking for the Next Big Thing while the film industry is more than happy to regurgitate something it thinks is "safe" because it's already been done. There is still an element of rewarding risk in pop.


----------



## NoamL

Henu said:


> Because we're extraordinary magicians, able to conjure tones and melodies from our mere souls which shake the foundations of human perception and change lives, and you know it! ❤️


This post deserves a reply from a better composer, but they're all dead.


----------



## nolotrippen

Dansereal said:


> Goes back at least to the 1940s when Andre Previn was ghostwriting for big-name composers of the time. In his memoir, “No Minor Chords,” he recalls that one of those composers turned to him during a session and said, “Young man, did I write this?”
> 
> The memoir’s called “No Minor Chords” because a studio mogul, on learning that a score he didn’t like had minor chords in it, sent down an edict that henceforth there would be no minor chords in any of *his* movies.


The difference is those folks were mostly on studio contracts that lasted years. Friedhofer was an excellent composer, but often had orchestrating and arrangin duties instead. But he got paid!


----------



## RSK

dcoscina said:


> I think the real issue here is compensation for composers...


Is it? I was told the issue here was credit.

In reality, it's both.


----------



## Daniel James

rgames said:


> Likewise with RCP. The notes are one piece. But so are the musicians, and the copyists, and the recording engineers, and the recording studio, and the caterers, and the editors,


But no one expects these people to be credited for _writing_ the music, which is what that credit means. Also those roles are free to promote their involvement in the project doing that role and build their own career reputation. A ghostwriter cant even say in private that they were involved at all in some cases.


----------



## RSK

NoamL said:


> This post deserves a reply from a better composer, but they're all dead.


I see what you did there.


----------



## AndrewS

I think there's starting to be a culture shift, as a lot of the younger generation who came up post 2010 or so start to get to the point where they're hiring additional composers. Yes, ghostwriters are still being used, but there's more focus on being open with them about the reasons why credit can't be given in certain circumstances (usually political), as well as more of an inclination towards offsetting the instances where lack of credit/cuesheet comes into play with more money.

This new generation are the people who've written massive amounts of music for large studio projects, who did it on low per minute rates for the 2.5% writers they were expected to be genuflecting for. They understand the intricacies of additional music/ghostwriting work, and realize they're in a position to change the landscape going forward. Every successful composer gets to the point where they need help, so if you're there or on your way, it's on you to understand that the help you hire needs to be treated like human beings.


----------



## RSK

Daniel James said:


> That starts to move into the whole 'what is music' is it the melody? is it the arrangement.


Exactly. Can we really have this debate without discussing that?

If a composer walks in to his/her assistant and says "Here's the A melody and the B melody. Please turn this into a rising, 3-minute cue with an ABA structure," should that assistant get a writing credit and a royalty cut? That question seems essential to what we're discussing.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh

I think ya'll are missing the point of this article.

This is Oscar season. The purpose of this article, which is most likely paid for by a PR team as 80% of VF shit is nowadays, is t*o sow doubt in the Oscar voters' minds about the authenticity of the Dune soundtrack*. Zimmer and the _Dune_ team have been on a PR blitz... and while Harvey isn't around any more to remodel people's bathrooms, this is the tried and true method to clandestinely affect the voters.

This is a powerplay... and it _might_ actually work.


----------



## AndrewS

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> I think ya'll are missing the point of this article.
> 
> This is Oscar season. The purpose of this article, which is most likely paid for by a PR team as 80% of VF shit is nowadays, is t*o sow doubt in the Oscar voters' minds about the authenticity of the Dune soundtrack*.



That’s just crazy enough to be true. This post should now shift to wild speculation as to who is truly behind this article.


----------



## Kent

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> I think ya'll are missing the point of this article.
> 
> This is Oscar season. The purpose of this article, which is most likely paid for by a PR team as 80% of VF shit is nowadays, is t*o sow doubt in the Oscar voters' minds about the authenticity of the Dune soundtrack*. Zimmer and the _Dune_ team have been on a PR blitz... and while Harvey isn't around any more to remodel people's bathrooms, this is the tried and true method to clandestinely affect the voters.
> 
> This is a powerplay... and it _might_ actually work.


Bit of a tinfoil hat perspective, but it might yet hold water.

Ideally the end-result would then be that teams would then be Oscar-eligible, or that the category shifts to Music Head (or some such nomenclature) without requiring nor implicitly suggesting full/majority-percentage authorship-and-execution.

Alas,


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh

Kent said:


> Bit of a tinfoil hat perspective


...not really. Someone at Sony (or maybe it was WB?) pushing Timothée Chalamet tried similar shenanigans against Gary Oldman in 2018, only with social media. The person responsible for that campaign against Oldman was fired after it was exposed.

This kinda stuff is common. ...and I guarantee if someone sees this from HZ's team, they're going to send it up to check its validity, then craft a response.


----------



## Varishnipu

Yes…I have many servants and interns to do heavy lifting of song writing…I only take half of publishing and let the others split the rest…too much works to write every note cause I am the boss of the men


----------



## jbuhler

Kent said:


> Ideally the end-result would then be that teams would then be Oscar-eligible, or that the category shifts to Music Head (or some such nomenclature) without requiring nor implicitly suggesting full/majority-percentage authorship-and-execution.


The first few years of the Academy Awards did award the best music Oscar to the music director of the studio. 

I've gone through business records for a number of films from the studio era. I've yet to come across one that did not include music by (and signed contracts of) uncredited composers, often four or five, some of whom were also doing orchestrations both for their own cues and for other composers hired for the film. Mostly I've looked at Selznick International Pictures materials, because they are close at hand, but nothing about them seems unusual aside from the fact as an independent producer Selznick had only a music director on staff and so the composer was hired freelance (often borrowed, like Steiner and Waxman, with a fee from other studios) and there are contracts for every cue that was assigned to someone other than the principle composer (as well as any music the principal composer wrote while working at the home studio but that was used in the Selznick film).


----------



## Tralen

Daniel James said:


> A ghostwriter cant even say in private that they were involved at all in some cases.


I think the "ghost-" there is evidence of the intent of being dishonest.

Why is there this necessity to pretend that one person did all the job? Why not have "writers" instead of "ghostwriters"? Why isn't the soundtrack credited to "Hans Zimmer Studios" instead of "Hans Zimmer"?

EDIT: 
Just to point out that I'm using Zimmer as an example, I'm not picking on him in particular.


----------



## Mister Grady

Macrawn said:


> Im just curious because I dont compose for film but do you folks belong to a union? It is probably the only way to solve the issue is with a standard contract that ensures credit be given. Im not talking about the associated names but the support under them.


The AFM Local 47 doesn't cover composition; it covers orchestration, for which there is a minimum 4-bar page rate based on the number of lines for the score page. The rate itself is insufficient for most orchestration tasks, but for A-list features it's common to get triple or more if you're in demand.

All orchestrators/arrangers have ghostwritten _some_, even if they avoid it like the plague, since various scenarios can arise in the course of a project that require it.

Real world example: The composer was tasked with scoring some scenes that required period swing music, and these were not source cues where you could just license something. The composer made an honest attempt, but came up short, so the supervising orchestrator had to do some of it, but also had to call in a friend since he had to score produce as well (this was all being done while the conventional scoring cues were already being recorded). No "Additional music by..." credits were issued for this, and everyone on the team was under NDA.

This is all apart from people who make most of their income from a lifetime of ghosting, the best of whom make excellent income. But composer assistants who do it, thinking that this amounts to "paying your dues", eventually find out otherwise in all but a small percentage of cases.

This is a very complicated subject; there are many angles to it and versions of it, and one size does not fit all. It could fill a book, but that'll never happen, just as there will never be a composers' union, just as there will never be equitable compensation for arrangers who create arranging hooks that help make a song a hit as much as the lead sheet itself, but no credit or royalties.

There was a time right around 10 years ago or so, where everything had been lined up with both parties of Congress committing to pass legislation that would've improved the matter greatly—they were right on the cusp of doing so—but Google and other bottomless pockets stepped in at the 11th hour and put the kibosh on the whole thing.


----------



## gwscores

Long time coming.


----------



## AndrewS

Mister Grady said:


> There was a time right around 10 years ago or so, where everything had been lined up with both parties of Congress committing to pass legislation that would've improved the matter greatly—they were right on the cusp of doing so—but Google and other bottomless pockets stepped in at the 11th hour and put the kibosh on the whole thing.


Composers are actually excluded from unionizing due to being classed as employers rather than employees. It would take significantly more legislation reform than anyone could follow through with to change this ruling unfortunately.


----------



## walkerht

Good read. 

What has been more worried to me in this read is the fact that Hans Zimmer said:

"Last fall, when _The New York Times_ asked Zimmer if he was worried about streaming cutting into his studio’s revenue, he responded tartly, “*I stopped being worried about it because it’s already happened*.”"

I believe this is the most important thing. Budgets are shrinking, even for guys like Hans Zimmer. So how do you think us, little composers, will be able to make a living in the future ? 

There is clearly an issue where productions, producers and directors ask for too much for too little money, which force us to accept 8 projects per year which force us to hire assistants and additional composers and which force us to pay them what productions are giving us. That is to say not a lot...

The goal is not to lose any money in the process. Before we had a lot of back end royalties, but now with streaming, how are we supposed to do ? 

Accept 1 or 2 projects only, and write them alone entirely.


----------



## liquidlino

rgames said:


> Uhhh - yeah! (Maybe you're joking and I totally missed it...)
> 
> Jobs/Apple pays people and takes the credit. That's the deal. If you work for Apple, Apple owns everything you think up in exchange for a salary and maybe a bonus. You own none of what you create. Your name appears nowhere. That's 100% typical for private industry across the world.
> 
> It's a pretty good deal really - Apple takes the risk that you're a dud and you get paid. As long as the agreement is consensual then it's perfectly fine. The vast majority of salaried American workers work under exactly that scenario.
> 
> Ghost writing is the same thing. And it's a good deal for a lot of people.
> 
> More importantly, it's up to them to decide whether it's a good deal. Again... consenting adults, you know...
> 
> rgames


I think also, with regards to media composing. The opportunity for the music to be heard wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the investment by the production house / label etc. The only risk that the composer has taken is to provide their time to create music. No material investment per project than this (the music studio investment is spread out across all projects, so we'll ignore that - and frankly a modern studio costs less than a pick up truck that a plumber has to buy to do their job, and any per project production costs such as orchestras are covered by the production company, not paid for at risk by the composer), whereas the production company puts millions upon millions of dollars at risk for each production, and has to tirelessly promote and market the resulting product long after the composer has moved onto the next project and has nothing do with future success of the product. So "work for hire" makes sense in this context.

Different if the product is solely the music, thats where royalties make much more sense, as the composer usually has to be actively promoting the music, touring etc, for it to make much sales/streams.

My 2c. And I'm one of those guns-for-hire in the software industry, who gets zero recognition or ongoing revenue from things I help to create, or businesses I help to become more profitable and efficient. Very happy with the arrangement.


----------



## aeliron

rgames said:


> Yeah I got you. But think about it this way: RCP and Apple are both integrators. Apple takes pieces of things from other places and integrates them into a whole that they deliver as a product. They design very few of the parts that make an iPhone work - they buy/license them. Their competitive advantage is actually in integrating them and, more importantly, managing the supply chain (and branding). Apple is not an R&D company. They're a strongly branded supply chain. Google is an R&D company. Microsoft does a bit of R&D. But Apple is mostly supply chain and branding, not R&D. For example, which do you think Apple spends more money on: R&D or lawyers? I'll let you look it up
> 
> 
> rgames


Hmmm. Pretty sure that describes Dell, but not Apple, even in the slightest.


----------



## carterburwell

It’s true that most products don’t credit everyone who had a hand in their creation, but oddly feature films do - the drivers, the caterers, down to the 200th special effects person. As long as that’s true, anyone who writes music for the film deserves credit. There are various reasons they don’t get it but NONE OF THEM ARE GOOD.

Regarding compensation: without collective bargaining (in other words a guild) we can never make it fair, but it would help to have the SCL publish standards and practices, so pay and cue sheet credit aren’t completely arbitrary. So people on all sides can agree on (or at least be shamed into) some minimal humane treatment.


----------



## RSK

Tralen said:


> Why is there this necessity to pretend that one person did all the job? Why not have "writers" instead of "ghostwriters"? Why isn't the soundtrack credited to "Hans Zimmer Studios" instead of "Hans Zimmer"?


Zimmer missed out on an award nomination because he listed too many people as co-writers. Not everyone is so magnanimous.


----------



## rpaillot

carterburwell said:


> It’s true that most products don’t credit everyone who had a hand in their creation, but oddly feature films do - the drivers, the caterers, down to the 200th special effects person. As long as that’s true, anyone who writes music for the film deserves credit. There are various reasons they don’t get it but NONE OF THEM ARE GOOD.
> 
> Regarding compensation: without collective bargaining (in other words a guild) we can never make it fair, but it would help to have the SCL publish standards and practices, so pay and cue sheet credit aren’t completely arbitrary. So people on all sides can agree on (or at least be shamed into) some minimal humane treatment.




I absolutely LOVE your film scores Mr Burwell. Conspiracy Theory is one of my fav  (too many too list but this one is special to me)

Very cool to see you here !


----------



## jeffrona

To be honest, this is hardly news, and frankly, I don't know many producers, directors, or studio execs who really care how the sausage is made.

I ghost wrote cues (and even entire scores) for years, and there is no better "music school" than ghostwriting.


----------



## szczaw

Damn, that's ugly.


----------



## MauroPantin

The article is interesting. But I don't think it portrays what we do in an objective way. 

Let me preface by saying the problem does exist, and stealing credit is never okay. Everyone that participates in any creative or technical capacity in a film or tv score (and elsewhere!) needs to be credited. Everyone has a right to the fruit of their own labor and to speak freely about their accomplishments and use those accomplishments to further their own careers. 

My problem lies with this holier-than-thou attitude the article has. This sanctimonious idea that old-time composers wrote for the purity of the art. I find that totally disingenuous and, frankly, I just hate that argument with a passion. Händel, Mozart, Beethoven, Bach... these guys. Greatest composers of all time, yeah? They wrote for the "glory of god" and art and from their heart and what not, sure. And also money. 

There's nothing wrong with getting paid and expecting compensation for your music does not diminish its artistry in any way. This thinking is the backbone of this stupid argument we then have to encounter around when people are shocked that we would pretend to... *checks notes* OMG, MAKE A LIVING OUT OF MUSIC?! No, no, you're supposed to be a lawyer or some other, more respectable thing, or just accept being a starving artist and do the music on the side as a tortured genius, just for the love of the art and the occasional exposure. I always ask people that come up with this ideas to kindly f*** off with that.


----------



## Jdiggity1

There's obviously some good discussion points in the article, but the author lost me at "Henry Gregson-Williams"


----------



## CT

Jdiggity1 said:


> There's obviously some good discussion points in the article, but the author lost me at "Henry Gregson-Williams"


Yeah how hard is it to get "John Williams" right?


----------



## chillbot

NoamL said:


> This reads like a bad attempt at an 'industry-changing exposé' piece. The article gloms together the issues of 1) declining royalties, 2) ghostwriting, 3), assistants, and 4) MeToo without any overarching thesis other than "FILM SCORING: EMBROILED IN CONTROVERSY?"


This was exactly my thoughts when reading this. Agree with everything else @NoamL said. It's a very poorly-written article (sorry).

Regarding ghostwriting, this term covers a lot of ground. There is good ghostwriting and there is very bad ghostwriting, and it's usually quite obvious which is which. (Here's a hint: the good ghostwriting involves keeping royalties.) I've done a lot of the good ghostwriting for most of my career and feel very fortunate and never taken advantage of.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh

carterburwell said:


> without collective bargaining (in other words a guild) we can never make it fair, but it would help to have the SCL publish standards and practices, so pay and cue sheet credit aren’t completely arbitrary. So people on all sides can agree on (or at least be shamed into) some minimal humane treatment.



Social pressure certainly is a formidable force in Hollywood, but SCL, I think most could agree, doesn't have the right manner of persons to run such a campaign. You need killers.

Also, even if there were a guild/union, look at the number of actors who go Fi-Core now. Combined with the fact that talent is now dispersed all over the country instead of the normal hubs, and the field is going to be dominated by streamers for the foreseeable future, there's very little that could be done to instigate more equitable (in the contemporary sense) terms for composers, or terms rewarding meritorious work as such.



chillbot said:


> This was exactly my thoughts when reading this. Agree with everything else @NoamL said. It's a very poorly-written article (sorry).



This is one of the reasons I think it's an 'op' by one of Zimmer's Oscar rivals. Journos are not these disheveled-yet-intrepid characters "just asking questions" and speaking truth to power. They stare at Twitter all day until a special interest emails them with what to print that week -- glorified stenographers. It's why the author is misspelling names, and clearly doesn't have a deep understanding of the topic.


----------



## KEM

carterburwell said:


> It’s true that most products don’t credit everyone who had a hand in their creation, but oddly feature films do - the drivers, the caterers, down to the 200th special effects person. As long as that’s true, anyone who writes music for the film deserves credit. There are various reasons they don’t get it but NONE OF THEM ARE GOOD.
> 
> Regarding compensation: without collective bargaining (in other words a guild) we can never make it fair, but it would help to have the SCL publish standards and practices, so pay and cue sheet credit aren’t completely arbitrary. So people on all sides can agree on (or at least be shamed into) some minimal humane treatment.



Carter Burwell is on here now?? Wow… welcome!!


----------



## Rctec

…from Geoff Zanelli a few seconds ago:

”Some of my old assistants are texting me today in light of the Vanity Fair article thanking me for crediting them and putting them on cue sheets so I’m texting you to say the same: thank you for always treating me fairly. Much love!! Xoxo Gz”


----------



## Rctec

just saw this. It’s a few years old…









Hans Zimmer on Ghostwriters, Music Department Credits, and Studio Budgets — Outlier Studios


Hans Zimmer sharing insights on how ghostwriting, music credits, and studio budgets work. This is something many people don’t really understand unless we’re in that world on a daily basis.




www.outlierstudios.co


----------



## Barrel Maker

Jdiggity1 said:


> There's obviously some good discussion points in the article, but the author lost me at "Henry Gregson-Williams"


Maybe the author was referring to composer Henry Jackman-Gregson-Williams.


----------



## KEM

Rctec said:


> …from Geoff Zanelli a few seconds ago:
> 
> ”Some of my old assistants are texting me today in light of the Vanity Fair article thanking me for crediting them and putting them on cue sheets so I’m texting you to say the same: thank you for always treating me fairly. Much love!! Xoxo Gz”





Rctec said:


> just saw this. It’s a few years old…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hans Zimmer on Ghostwriters, Music Department Credits, and Studio Budgets — Outlier Studios
> 
> 
> Hans Zimmer sharing insights on how ghostwriting, music credits, and studio budgets work. This is something many people don’t really understand unless we’re in that world on a daily basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.outlierstudios.co



I trust this guy


----------



## Daniel James

jeffrona said:


> To be honest, this is hardly news, and frankly, I don't know many producers, directors, or studio execs who really care how the sausage is made.
> 
> I ghost wrote cues (and even entire scores) for years, and there is no better "music school" than ghostwriting.


Thats the same reason I did the ghosting I have done in my career. I wanted to see how they were doing it. I was able get involved at the highest level with none of the risk the main name has to carry. I went in knowing full well I can never ever even suggest I worked on them (some people have even asked if certain cues were by me before and had to decline to comment lol) but in doing so I managed to get the gist of how all the parts work, what matters and what doesn't. And it has served me incredibly well. I wasn't taken advantage of, they had something I wanted, I had something they needed.

This usually only becomes an issue when the ego grows beyond the role but you continue to do it, and I sincerely believe a degree of ego is required to make any kind of success in art. Its the reason I needed to stop doing it (except to help out mates of course) because I had taken stock of my own value and determined I was worth more than what I was doing ghosting for others, and it was time to build a reputation of my own (its getting there, a bit messy but its mine XD). Its now a much more risky profession without 'guaranteed' work, I no longer get to work at the highest level for every gig or hang out with as many famous people but that's the choice you have as a composer. Do you hedge your bets or go all in, you can't do both. If you are ghostwriting and its an issue for you, _you_ need to be the one to walk away. I can't see it being productive to blame negative outcomes of your own decisions on others, regardless of how shitty it is. If you agree to it, you have to own that decision. That's not to say those who hire ghosts simply to take advantage are not complete knobheads however, they absolutely are unethical pricks. But there are good reasons to ghost that one cant put all on the person hiring negatively. Also its not cool to sign on to work being promised credit but then being denied it, but that only ever happened to me once so I don't think its that common. I think most know what they are signing up for.

Worth pointing out BTW that ghosting and 'additional music by' are different. I still do lots of additional music work, which is sort of like ghosting but with all the perks. But I do believe its not always possible legally speaking to allow others to help, that's where the ghosts have to make like Casper and fuck off out of sight 😂 and again you would know this going in.

Its a very grey subject, that definitely needs to be restructured so that its not some secretive thing As others have mentioned, a more 'master and apprentice' type relationship would make way more sense moving forward, where proteges are almost expected to help out, the public could then watch your career grow alongside someone they respect, allowing the composer to get the help they need and for the new composer to build their own reputation in a more acceptable and open way were everyone benefits. It mostly sucks right now cause it feels shady and secretive. But I think it can be fixed in a positive way.

Edit: Jeff just to clarify (as I quoted you for this post) I was saying all that introspectively, I wasn't saying any of this as a retort to what you said. I agree wholeheartedly that there are reasons to do it.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic




----------



## Nigel Andreola

For a video game, a children's book, a science fiction book cover, a matte painting for a movie, or a cartoon, an illustrator is credited for their work. There are art production companies with teams of artists. Each artist that had a hand in the project is listed in the credits under the heading of their production company. Why is the music world different?


----------



## charlieclouser

Never ghosted, never had a ghost. Neither would allow me to sleep at night.


----------



## KEM

I’ll ghostwrite for people all day but I could never allow myself to have ghostwriters for something with my name on it, feels disingenuous, of course I’d need assistants but if they write any music they’re getting credit for it, it’s only right


----------



## NekujaK

Back when I worked as a game producer for a prominent video game company - several decades ago - we had an in-house saying: "credit is cheap". Meaning it doesn't cost anything to include people's names in credits, however large or small, material or conceptual, routine or informal their contiribution to the game was. If contributions didn't fit into an established category, then they were included in the "Special Thanks" list. This created goodwill, provided recognition, and encouraged employees to have an interest in contributing ideas and work to our products.

Although the analogy doesn't directly translate to films and film composing, it seems unreasonable to exclude people's names from credits when they've made material contributions to the work. As others have pointed out, everybody and their brother's dog gets included in film credits these days, why not the folks who contributed to the creation of the music?


----------



## Tralen

RSK said:


> Zimmer missed out on an award nomination because he listed too many people as co-writers. Not everyone is so magnanimous.


Sorry, I don't mean Zimmer in particular, I should have made that clear (will edit that post).

I mean, why is there this culture in the soundtrack business that everything should be done by one person? Why can't the music be credited to a studio?

I was watching some film animations and the credits said "Animation by Blur Studio". It didn't say "Animation by Tim Miller".


----------



## RSK

Tralen said:


> Sorry, I don't mean Zimmer in particular, I should have made that clear (will edit that post).
> 
> I mean, why is there this culture in the soundtrack business that everything should be done by one person? Why can't the music be credited to a studio?
> 
> I was watching some film animations and the credits said "Animation by Blur Studio". It didn't say "Animation by Tim Miller".


That doesn't really solve the problem though, does it? People are complaining that the people who write the music (assistants, ghostwriters, whomever...) aren't getting credit or royalties. If the place you work for gets the credit, we haven't really moved off square one, have we?


----------



## RSK

Tralen said:


> Sorry, I don't mean Zimmer in particular, I should have made that clear (will edit that post).
> 
> I mean, why is there this culture in the soundtrack business that everything should be done by one person? Why can't the music be credited to a studio?
> 
> I was watching some film animations and the credits said "Animation by Blur Studio". It didn't say "Animation by Tim Miller".


I know you didn't mean Zimmer specifically. What I was saying is that everyone else saw that he missed out on that nomination because of listing too many writers, and they want to make sure that doesn't happen to them.


----------



## GtrString

This culture is sick, let it die. Just start stopping.


----------



## nolotrippen

You'd be surprised at how many people think of film scoring as akin to house painting -
Richard Rodney Bennett​


----------



## Tralen

RSK said:


> That doesn't really solve the problem though, does it? People are complaining that the people who write the music (assistants, ghostwriters, whomever...) aren't getting credit or royalties. If the place you work for gets the credit, we haven't really moved off square one, have we?


It does, because listed just below the studio name you often get the lead artists and then the other artists. Take a look for these credits for one of Blur's works, under "Art Department". Everyone is listed there.

Now compare with the credits of Dune, take a look under the Music section.


----------



## RSK

Tralen said:


> It does, because listed just below the studio name you often get the lead artists and then the other artists. Take a look for these credits for one of Blur's works, under "Art Department". Everyone is listed there.
> 
> Now compare with the credits of Dune, take a look under the Music section.


Right; everyone is listed, not just the company. I don't understand your point.


----------



## Tralen

RSK said:


> Right; everyone is listed, not just the company. I don't understand your point.


The point is that there is a collective name for the artists, so people can say "animation by Blur Studios" and people understand that it represents not just a single person (with everyone else hidden underneath it).

A similar credit for music would be:



> *Music by RSK Studio*
> 
> Lead Composer: RSK
> Assistant Composer: Tralen
> Assistant Composer: Mary
> Recording: John
> etc...



EDIT:
And just to clarify: IMDB often lists the music department in detail, but it is not listed during the film itself the same way other specialties are (like clothing, makeup, etc).


----------



## dcoscina

This is an enlightened read.

__


----------



## dcoscina

jeffrona said:


> To be honest, this is hardly news, and frankly, I don't know many producers, directors, or studio execs who really care how the sausage is made.
> 
> I ghost wrote cues (and even entire scores) for years, and there is no better "music school" than ghostwriting.


Jeff, I would be interested to know if you think things have changed since you ghostwrote. Or is it largely the same with similar opportunities. I'm genuinely asking (I remember your articles from Keyboard Mag in the 90s which I found really excellent and informative btw).


----------



## JohnG

*What I Didn’t Care For*

I agree with @chillbot that the article suffers from an unnecessary dearth of research. Why not interview a few more composers, assistants, “additional music by” contributors, and orchestrators? It’s not like they’re impossible to identify or locate. They’re all over IMDB and many have agents or are easily searchable online. A pity, but then maybe he had a deadline?

I also find it unfair that the article seems to insinuate, or at least by juxtaposition imply, that HZ isn’t fair to others, at least in some cases. This is a guy who has included many other composers on cue sheets and given end credit to them as well, not to mention a startlingly large number (John Powell being a conspicuous example) whose careers he single-handedly helped to launch. JP in an interview some time ago credited HZ with having backed him on his (JP’s) first major feature; without that backing, JP said in the interview he wouldn’t have gotten the job. 

Naturally I don’t know everything anyone did in his career, but in my own interactions with HZ he proved himself generous, unselfish, and kind.

Not everyone is mercilessly greedy. Personally, I was lucky to start off writing for more-experienced composers who gave me at least some cue sheet credit. IDK if that’s still how it is for new people.

*What I Liked About the Article*

Nevertheless, I do think there are a few bits that unfortunately are all too true:

1. Royalties under threat — someone said we’ve substituted “digital pennies for analogue dollars.” That seems quite true to me. Some bits, like games, often don’t offer any backend at all, as many know. Hope that’s not infectious.

2. Endless editing makes it hard to be a solo composer — it’s brutal. No other word for it; some scores are threaded together by music editors because last minute picture changes are so numerous that they don’t resemble the scenes for which the music was originally written.

*Health*

It’s hard to do it yourself. I wrote all seven-plus hours of music for a miniseries and honestly if that project had gone on any longer I think it would have driven me into the ground. As in, underground. I gained a ton of weight, never slept, drank so much coffee — you get the idea.

*Why Bother?*

So yes, the article is correct that the industry is nearly impossible for the ‘sole practitioner.’ Nevertheless, for myself, I actually did get into this inspired by trying for something artistic, or at least well-crafted. If you just want to make tons of money, scoring is about as low-percentage an avenue as you could pick, except maybe writing poetry. If you want to make a lot of money, it seems obvious that tech or finance is a more reliable route.

I’m a great admirer of the craft — JW, JNH, HZ, Burwell, Powell, Kamen, Beltrami, Silvestri — so many you would need pages to list them all. 

Notwithstanding the problems in the industry I just can’t keep away; it’s still the coolest thing to me.


----------



## tarantulis

Such a negative take...it's easy to get bitter about all the perceived injustices but this is Hollywood, not H&R Block.

What's completely left out of this article is what RCP does for young composers who are new to this city and need work. You can be a nobody from out of town but if your demo is good enough and you're willing to work hard, you can break in and get all the experience you need to start your own career...the same can be said for anyone who hires additional writers.

Last I checked, none of the "composers listed on one hand" had any internship programs or ways for young composers to learn the craft. If they did, less film music would sound like Zimmer's.


----------



## davidnaroth

@tarantulis totally agree, I think the article was a bit confusing and could have had much more direction than seemingly focusing a lot of attention on HZ, whom I've never heard anyone working for him say they felt underpaid or under-credited, undervalued and so on. RCP is great and definitely helps a lot of people have a chance, I myself am hugely grateful to those opportunities starting at RCP.

However, there are a lot of Composers who do take advantage of their assistants/interns/additionals, paying a non-livable wage for 16-20hr days 7 days a week for months on end.. I havent experienced anything like that, but I have friends who have. 

The article definitely could have looked further into the issue. Regardless, Its nice its being talked about.


----------



## blaggins

If it's a "hit piece" they really phoned it in.

#1 dredge up some steamy hot goss
#2 make up some unnecessary details to add legitimacy to a badly researched article
#3 lay it all at the feet of the most famous composer in Hollywood (and likely the only one that most VF readers will recognize)


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh

tpoots said:


> If it's a "hit piece" they really phoned it in.
> 
> #1 dredge up some steamy hot goss
> #2 make up some unnecessary details to add legitimacy to a badly researched article
> #3 lay it all at the feet of the most famous composer in Hollywood (and likely the only one that most VF readers will recognize)


All three are why it’s obvious it is part of a campaign by the Encanto folks / Disney.

Many Oscar voters already joke about the “taiko drum” scores, and if it becomes unfashionable in the eyes of their cultural bible (VF), if it is _rumored_ that he didn’t even do _that_ himself, and given an alternative that serves the global/emerging market aspirations of The Mouse (first female POC to win an Oscar) with whom everyone wants to be ingratiated, it makes it all the more palatable to vote for an inferior score.


----------



## Gingerbread

Tralen said:


> Sorry, I don't mean Zimmer in particular, I should have made that clear (will edit that post).
> 
> I mean, why is there this culture in the soundtrack business that everything should be done by one person? Why can't the music be credited to a studio?
> 
> I was watching some film animations and the credits said "Animation by Blur Studio". It didn't say "Animation by Tim Miller".


Which would be disgraceful. Animators should always be personally credited for their incredibly skilled work.


----------



## carterburwell

I do think the article is unfair to Hans. It relies on old cliches about Media Ventures.


----------



## jononotbono

Carter Burwell is on VI-C? That's amazing! Composer of so many great films. In Bruges. Masterpiece.


----------



## rgames

Here's some insight from the US Chamber of Commerce:

"Typically, employers are entitled to all intellectual property created at/for their business, unless there exists a contract stating otherwise."









Can an Employee Own Intellectual Property?


Intellectual property comes in many forms, but for business owners, it’s important to understand your rights as an employer compared to your employees’ rights when it comes to intellectual property.




www.uschamber.com





In other words, ghostwriting is absolutely a standard business practice, and not just in music. It's standard across pretty much every type of business. There's nothing immoral about it. The employer takes a risk on you. You get paid. The employer is paying you for your IP. That's the deal. Take it or leave it. You want to own the IP? Then you start the business.

Outside the music world IP comes in the form of patents rather than notes on a page. But it's the same thing: a conveyance of some idea. And if you work for an employer, that employer almost always owns your ideas and does with them as they see fit. Sure, you can get your name on a patent (I have several) but the patent, itself, doesn't indicate who owns the IP. If you work for a corporation the patent usually comes with a plaque and a few thousand dollars and some resume fodder. Yippee. Once the money starts flowing in, you have *zero* claim to it. That's the deal. And it's a good deal for a lot of people.

It's always interesting to see this topic discussed on this forum. The conversation veers very far from reality.

rgames

EDIT: Here's another interesting point that's come into the news recently: players on the PGA tour don't even own any kind of rights to recordings of their own golf shots. The PGA tour owns all media associated with all PGA tour players.


----------



## South Thames

> I do think the article is unfair to Hans. It relies on old cliches about Media Ventures. I don't think the interviewer asked me about ghostwriting at all - the questions were all about streamers doing buyouts - but perhaps the VF editors pushed for something with more pizzazz. And the timing of the article coming out for Oscar voting means, yes, there could be publicity departments pushing their agendas. Nothing gets printed without a reason.


That's interesting. It does feel to me like the article can't really decide what it's about. The 'injustice' of ghost-writing or the changes being foisted upon composers by streaming; these are two rather separate and distinct problems.

Also, it's clearly not true to imply John Williams is the only person left who does all his own writing. Desplat and Thomas Newman come to mind. They may not be purists in the Williams sense (they work with computers, may have studio assistants etc), but the idea what Williams is the only person not working in a Remote Control-like production line set-up seems spurious to me and betrays I think the fairly superficial knowledge on which the article is based.


----------



## dcoscina

Perhaps it would have been better for the author to focus on the *why* not the *who/what* in this case. With shrinking deadlines, the need to have every cue approved (ie mock-ups), and constant edits right to the last minute, I think we all can understand why there are more players involved in modern scoring.

While I philosophically don't love the idea of composers taking so much each year for the need to hire droves of assistants, I do get the motivation- if Mega Composer X only agrees to do 1 or 2 features a year, I could see them being concerned with turning away too many opportunities that might hurt them in the future... So, they set up a franchise to ensure their brand (ie name) remains in the minds of the studio heads.

Articles like this aren't bad- they reveal to many outside this industry SOME of the issues that are endemic to it. But it does paint with broad strokes and generalizes a system that is much more complicated than what it espouses.

I know I sound like I'm waffling on this topic, but I can understand the other side of the equation here.


----------



## South Thames

> While I philosophically don't love the idea of composers taking so much each year for the need to hire droves of assistants, I do get the motivation- if Mega Composer X only agrees to do 1 or 2 features a year, I could see them being concerned with turning away too many opportunities that might hurt them in the future... So, they set up a franchise to ensure their brand (ie name) remains in the minds of the studio heads.



Well, that certainly a trend we can say Zimmer started. Nobody before him had this approach, which has since proliferated since it's so obviously been effective for him. 

But if Jerry Goldsmith wanted to do 8 pictures a year then he'd.. you know, write that much music.


----------



## Mister Grady

Articles like this can help remind everyone to wisely avoid the *Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect*, when reading whatever, wherever.






The Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect







theportal.wiki


----------



## AudioLoco

Trash Panda said:


> @AudioLoco is famous!


Well for my Vanity Fair quote I would have preferred my other famous ones such as:
“Cogito ergo sum”, “the love you make is equal to the love you take”, or “We are the knights who say ni.” 

My dad has been a journalist of 40 years. 
For reliable, quality journalism you need to make phone calls, meet people, speak in person, directly, first hand with your sources. 
Quoting (partially) an anonymous poster (although clearly amazing and handsome as AudioLoco) on an online forum (although clearly as respectable and sexy as Vi-Control) isn’t a great choice in my opinion. 

Also - kind of important, as the article is about movie making - my partially quoted comment was clearly regarding a non-film situation (TV commercials).
Specifically, a composer I worked for put my compositions, very prominently on his reel, when he could have chosen to use tracks he has actually written and produced to showcase his own skill set. 
So, to be clear, my issue from the original comment was not him using the tracks I did for an agreed fee and completing his *job*, but parading those tracks later as his own in a prominent position in his reel on his site.

Also, because if the article does have an agenda, such as sowing doubt about the work of respectable people in our industry, well, then it has to rely on stronger basis before putting out this stuff in such a tragic “the ugly truth about ” frame.

For those with an even minimal experience with the job (I’m just a very, very small fish myself, although making a living, surely no Hollywood for me!) it is clear that, when it comes to very high budget movies or shows, with the stupidly limited time, never ending cuts and last minute changes and edits etc, one person alone could never actually get the job done (especially while also not losing sanity and being able to do the next job). 
One part not mentioned of my quoted comment was: ….“in a busy schedule it is probably the only way, so I won't argue with reality”…
So, in these cases, even if I do instinctively consider it to be morally wrong (it would be unacceptable for me for example in an album scenario), if the ghostwriting position is clear from the beginning, and the money is fair, I honestly don’t see any other options - although within a certain type and size of actual creative contribution to the product. (If one has written 70% of the entire score or the main theme and still no credits that’s certainly not OK) 
In a previous comment of mine on the same thread I was defining being an assistant as “priceless”. 
I believe the parallel with famous painters from the 1500-700 and their disciples works.

I do think there is a real issue with the $0.00000000000000003 per stream streaming services, and I would add that if an “Ugly truth” has to be presented to the non specialised public of Vanity Fair, then that could be one for sure.

Anyhow… imagine my poor brain cells when I was reading an article and, out of the blue, started to realise I was reading my own words. Very funny situation…
There were surely many, many more interesting and relevant comments from more relevant posters then I am they could have chosen from that thread, I guess mine was the most “colourful” to use in such an article.


----------



## chillbot

AudioLoco said:


> My dad has been a journalist of 40 years.
> For reliable, quality journalism you need to make phone calls, meet people, speak in person, directly, first hand with your sources.
> Quoting (partially) an anonymous poster (although clearly amazing and handsome as AudioLoco) on an online forum (although clearly as respectable and sexy as Vi-Control) isn’t a great choice in my opinion.


Honestly the article reads to me like a 13-year-old kid wrote it for a school project. Not sure how this vanity fair online biz works or how it managed to get published.


----------



## merlinhimself

Thoughts on composers with 5-6 shows that only really touch maybe 1-2 of them and take the majority of the other 6 shows income? To me when composers kind of "horde" a lot of shows it really lessens the available work or chance for other composers to breakout.


----------



## marclawsonmusic

merlinhimself said:


> Thoughts on composers with 5-6 shows that only really touch maybe 1-2 of them and take the majority of the other 6 shows income? To me when composers kind of "horde" a lot of shows it really lessens the available work or chance for other composers to breakout.


I think this gets back to the industry as a whole. These movies are multi-million dollar investments, so it makes a lot more sense for producers to choose an established name rather than take a risk on someone new.


----------



## labyrinths

I think it's possible that both things can be true: this was a relatively poorly written and researched article, _and _ghostwriting is a shameful and often exploitative practice that sometimes takes place in this (and many other!) industries, including popular music. Diplo reportedly has artists make tracks that he slaps his name on. That's a lot different than someone writing a cue based on a suite composed by Hans Zimmer in what is a collaborative venture under impossibly short deadlines.

If anyone takes someone else's work entirely and passes it off as their own though, happily accepting praise for something they didn't do, it might be perfectly legal and covered by whatever NDAs and other working agreements you've signed, but it's still morally, ethically, and artistically bankrupt. I'd hope that's not the norm for most people, composers or otherwise, because that would be bleak.


----------



## rgames

labyrinths said:


> I'd hope that's not the norm for most people


If you are a salaried employee or subcontractor it most definitely is the norm.

See the link to the US Chamber of Commerce page above.


----------



## rgames

Let’s do some math to see how common ghostwriting really is.

The most recent data from census.gov show about 6M firms with a workforce of about 133M people.

Since the “firm” is the legal entity that owns the IP, that means there are about 133M - 6M = 127M workers who do *not* have any claim to the IP they generate. IP can be patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc.

127/133 = 95% of workers are their industry equivalent of ghostwriters.

Ghostwriting is the rule, not the exception. And it works really well - the US economy is robust and those ghostwriters have among the highest standard of living in the world.

It works because it balances risk. If you want to own all the IP then you’re more than welcome to do so. Start your own business, work for yourself and do great things. Doing so is risky - there’s no guarantee of income, no established infrastructure and supply chain, no established client base, etc.

Another option is to go work for someone else who has already done that work and created that infrastructure. Your risk goes way down because they’ll guarantee you access to regular income (salary), or an established supply chain (studios, musicians, etc.), or a contract fee, or some combination of all the resources they’ve already taken the risk on. You have less risk, your employer has more. Therefore you have to give something up for that deal. That “something” is usually your IP.

As the math above shows, almost everybody chooses the lower risk approach. And it works out pretty well for almost everyone.

But here’s the part that’s even better: you have an option. Nobody is forcing anybody to give up his IP. Don’t like the employee deal? Don’t take it. Go do it yourself. About 5% of the workforce makes exactly that decision.

rgames


----------



## labyrinths

rgames said:


> If you are a salaried employee or subcontractor it most definitely is the norm.
> 
> See the link to the US Chamber of Commerce page above.


Yeah, that’s not really what I’m talking about. My employer owns my work, but I’m still allowed to point at something I worked on and say, “I worked on that!” And my employer doesn’t look anyone in the eye and tell them they’re actually the authors of the work that I’ve produced.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh

labyrinths said:


> That's a lot different than someone writing a cue based on a suite composed by Hans Zimmer in what is a collaborative venture under impossibly short deadlines.


Well, I think that the criticism/speculation is that the "Zimlings" are doing much more than rearranging ideas presented in suites written solely by Zimmer.

Obviously there are a number of composers who have launched solo careers out of Remote Control. However, there are a number that left due to disputes -- collaborators, directors, etc., in addition to employees. Some of those disputes, it has been said, stem from credit issues. Some of those disputes were political. Some of those disputes were because Hans had enough bullshit from a collaborator or crabby director. One of the most infamous of these ended with "f**k you Hans, I'm buying a Ferrari!" (This person did in fact get one after leaving, and has a bowling alley in their home... lol)

For all the flak _Vanity Fair_ (the lobbying proxy of _Encanto_) has received in this thread, they are cleverly capitalizing on a very important sentiment that has plagued Hollywood since its inception: authenticity.

I remember mentioning to a friend who worshiped Led Zeppelin that the whole of Zeppelin 1 is covers -- that they really didn't write shit on that album. Watching the idealism wither in real time was something to behold, but the lesson here is that _such_ _emotional attachment to musical heroes is a real thing._

So when people learn that the famous "braaam" might not have been invented by Zimmer himself, it is a completely natural, understandable reaction if they become cynical or discouraged.

Of course, articles like this one could have been avoided had there not been the realities of success that invited such scrutiny in the first place, which have been covered here _ad nauseam. _But not the least of those realities is brand building_. _Hollywood is not a place that rewards based purely on merit. Brands on the level of Hans Zimmer take decades to curate, and when someone wants to take a shot at the title, any compromises made with one's authenticity will be laid bare for the world to judge.

Please, do not take all this as a criticism of Zimmer, because it is not. Someone may judge brand building around a single name to be disingenuous, or they may see it as a reality of the business. Regardless, just like Danny Elfman suffered years ago, a narrative has been established... and with exception of a couple tweets, there has been no coherent response. For those of us in the up-and-coming generation of film composers, it certainly gives us a lot to think about.


----------



## rgames

labyrinths said:


> my employer doesn’t look anyone in the eye and tell them they’re actually the authors of the work that I’ve produced.


In the business world, nobody cares. All that matters is who owns the rights to the things that generate cash flows. That’s the whole point of business…!

It’s like the patent example I gave above: nobody cares who created the patent. People only care about who can legally monetize it.

Name credit is for the art world. If your goal is to make a living, you’re not in the art world.

The music business is not the art world. It is …. a business!

rgames


----------



## jbuhler

The thing you have to understand about libertarians is that they are without exception sociopaths. 



rgames said:


> It’s like the patent example I gave above: nobody cares who created the patent. People only care about who can legally monetize it.


Oh, yes, please do explain to us how patents work and how no one cares about who is listed on them.


----------



## Bear Market

rgames said:


> It’s like the patent example I gave above: nobody cares who created the patent. People only care about who can legally monetize it.


Really? Nobody cares? Smart money would go after the source of the patent because chances are that a brilliant mind will generate more inventions worthy of patenting in the future.


----------



## rgames

jbuhler said:


> Oh, yes, please do explain to us how patents work and how no one cares about who is listed on them.


Ok.

I deal with probably a few dozen data rights claims a year, mostly patents. I’ve done that for several decades in the US Federal government, large corporations and small business. I usually receive those claims as part of a subcontract agreement.

I check with the lawyers to make sure the firm submitting the claim has the legal right to make it then I check the patent to make sure it matches what they’re claiming.

I can’t think of when I have ever seen the names of who wrote the patent.

Because it doesn’t matter. It only matters who has the right to monetize it.

A good way to make money in engineering is to create an IP portfolio then sell it off to someone like Apple. Apple then owns the rights to the IP even though their name appears nowhere on the patent. Whoever is listed on the patent doesn’t matter: Apple owns the right to monetize and that’s all that matters from a business standpoint. Likewise when Apple pays a license fee to Samsung for their IP Apple doesn’t care whose name is on the patent. They only care that Samsung has the right to monetize it because the person was a Samsung employee or Samsung bought the IP from someone else.

Ideas have value and can, therefore, be sold. That’s exactly what ghostwriting is. And whether it’s a patent or a copyright nobody in the business world cares who created it, if it matches what they want they only care who has the legal right to it.


----------



## Allen Constantine

Daniel James said:


> Was there anyone ever who assumed that he made them all by himself? that's closer to the issue I think.
> 
> Also if bigger composers didn't (as the article claims) take 9 projects at a time and instead only worked on as many as they could handle working on themselves....not only would there be no need for ghostwriters, there would be more good work for more people. Some people have all the resources to corner all the work, that's how our culture works unfortunately. Obviously, time will change this at some point, but it will be a difficult thing to change any time soon unless production companies and PRO's start to put their foot down on it all a bit more.


Well said, Daniel! So true!


----------



## KEM

Has everyone worked at RCP but me?!


----------



## Trash Panda

jbuhler said:


> The thing you have to understand about libertarians is that they are without exception sociopaths.


Can’t argue with that. 

Source: son of a pair of libertarians. 

Boggles the mind watching someone try to defend the worst behaviors of any industry.


----------



## rgames

Trash Panda said:


> Can’t argue with that.
> 
> Source: son of a pair of libertarians.
> 
> Boggles the mind watching someone try to defend the worst behaviors of any industry.


The great irony here is that the libertarians offer the solution to the dilemma you face: don’t like their system? Create your own! In a free-market society you are completely free to do so!

Cheers


----------



## jbuhler

rgames said:


> Ok.
> 
> I deal with probably a few dozen data rights claims a year, mostly patents. I’ve done that for several decades in the US Federal government, large corporations and small business. I usually receive those claims as part of a subcontract agreement.
> 
> I check with the lawyers to make sure the firm submitting the claim has the legal right to make it then I check the patent to make sure it matches what they’re claiming.
> 
> I can’t think of when I have ever seen the names of who wrote the patent.
> 
> Because it doesn’t matter. It only matters who has the right to monetize it.
> 
> A good way to make money in engineering is to create an IP portfolio then sell it off to someone like Apple. Apple then owns the rights to the IP even though their name appears nowhere on the patent. Whoever is listed on the patent doesn’t matter: Apple owns the right to monetize and that’s all that matters from a business standpoint. Likewise when Apple pays a license fee to Samsung for their IP Apple doesn’t care whose name is on the patent. They only care that Samsung has the right to monetize it because the person was a Samsung employee or Samsung bought the IP from someone else.
> 
> Ideas have value and can, therefore, be sold. That’s exactly what ghostwriting is. And whether it’s a patent or a copyright nobody in the business world cares who created it, if it matches what they want they only care who has the legal right to it.


Yeah, sure, and that's why no one in companies cares at all if they are listed on patents.


----------



## jbuhler

rgames said:


> The great irony here is that the libertarians offer the solution to the dilemma you face: don’t like their system? Create your own! In a free-market society you are completely free to do so!
> 
> Cheers


The sociopath has spoken: it's your fault that you don't have the resources to create your own world.


----------



## rgames

jbuhler said:


> The sociopath has spoken


Examples with a strong dose of logic are a better way to respond.


----------



## GtrString

If n00bs create the scores anyway, shouldn’t the cost go wayy down? I would ask that from the perspective of a production company. How is this falsely branded music better than what editors could draw from Artlist, Epidemic or even an AI plugin, themselves?

Why would composers be apologetic to this? This practice is framed as an employer-employee relationship, which may be convenient to apply a protestanthic work ethic, but modern composers are more like their own companies, so it should rather be framed as a B2B (business to business) partnership.

A business partner would not under normal circumstances just give away their ownership rights, their branding, nor their back-end for peanuts or “learning opportunities”. Composing is not rocket science, these ghost writers can write. Period. Kids learn more on YouTube now, than they were allowed to learn back in the old studios.

This culture is a horrible leftover from the industrial age, based on factory Ford’ism, disrespectful to young generations, devaluing art, undermining the law, and a convenient power and money grab from selfentitled executives.

I can’t see this can be defended in any sensible way. Our minds should rather be put to work on how to make the neccesary changes, than on apologizing status quo. First step has to be an indignation and deappreciation of the responsible institutions, participants, and culture this is a part of. Tell it in the comments, how this is not logic..

Fortunately this does not go down everywhere.


----------



## South Thames

> The most recent data from census.gov show about 6M firms with a workforce of about 133M people.
> 
> Since the “firm” is the legal entity that owns the IP, that means there are about 133M - 6M = 127M workers who do *not* have any claim to the IP they generate. IP can be patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc.
> 
> 127/133 = 95% of workers are their industry equivalent of ghostwriters.



This might be the stupidest bunch of assumptions anyone has ever made in so few words. But you're quite amusing in your relentlessness I must say.


----------



## jbuhler

South Thames said:


> This might be the stupidest bunch of assumptions anyone has ever made in so few words. But you're quite amusing in your relentlessness I must say.


Yes, and he claims to be the rational one among us! Hilarious! Absolutely hilarious!


----------



## arafaratanran

Interesting topic! Well, I guess this is pretty common in all parts of the world, but - depending on both profession and region - very different in its scope. The principle is called wage slavery and it allows certain people with power to use the work force of others to enrich themselves and further cement their status of power - an endless cycle. Empirical prove for that thesis is, that the divide between poor and rich world wide has been ever growing since the end of the second world war.

What is kind of special with music and composition is that fact that in this case people take special pride in getting recognition as the author. In some parts of the world, there are even special rules about who can claim authorship about a piece of music. In the US it is to my knowledge pretty straight forward that with a buyout a person can just pay a (sometimes even ridiculously low) amount of money to claim authorship of the piece of music. In many parts of world, however, that is against the law, although it is unfortunately circumvented in many cases! 

I have written music "with" other composers with the premise that they would keep some percentage of the pledge and I was fine with that, as all the communication is work, so -- why not! But what they did not tell me was that none of them would even write a single note on that whole film! And what they also didn't make clear in the beginning was that they would also claim the same provision percentage with the PRO payments. And that last part is illegal in my country!

So, could I have sued them? Yes, I could! However, weighing the amount of money I could gain in such a trial vs the risks and the potential damage to my reputation as "being difficult", I would rather not do it. Well, ultimately the system mostly works for those in power ...

I suppose, many people can relate to such stories. Others seem to embrace that principle of wage slavery that rather manifests the inequality of men. While they call it libertarian, it is in fact working against true liberal thoughts, as it does not give everyone the same chances to rise. It rather strengthens the power of the people on the top to stay there. I clearly favor any legal and political approach to counter that tendency, which is immanent to any market system anyway! Being content - and in some cases even proud - of making a fair share with wage slavery is the equivalant of being proud of getting certain privilege as a slave. It doesn't change the fact, you are still a slave. Well, unfortunately you can teach the monkey to love his cage ...


----------



## cedricm

Whatever its faults, the Vanity Fair article puts the spotlight on an unfair and bad situation.
And let's not forget it's Vanity Fair, not The Hollywood Composer Gazette. Its readership is broader.









Your Music, Your Future: A Community of Composers and Creators


Your Music, Your Future is dedicated to educating composers and creators about their options when it comes to compensation. Sign up here: yourmusicyourfuture.com #yourmusicyourfuture



yourmusicyourfuture.com


----------



## Daryl

rgames said:


> The great irony here is that the libertarians offer the solution to the dilemma you face: don’t like their system? Create your own! In a free-market society you are completely free to do so!
> 
> Cheers


As we've seen over the last couple of years, the free market economy doesn't work.


----------



## charlieclouser

Speaking as a complete outsider to the RCP scene, some points In defense of that scenario:

• There is real value for minions to be able to work on a project *without* having their name attached - if the movie is a turd, or the producers wind up firing the composer, their name isn't (as) attached and therefore can remain relatively un-tarnished. 

• Sure, the lead composer may chew them out / fire them / try to blame the failure on them, but they're less in the spotlight than the leader. (and maybe their IMDB page will remain clean!). 

• Plus, if there's enough minions on the team, if one can't hack it then another will fill the gap. So, they get the opportunity to learn with less of the responsibility to deliver.

• If they really are delivering, then they may get cue sheet participation, so there's some mailbox money.

• If they really are delivering, then they may get an "additional music by" credit, so there's some IMBD action as well.

I had a collaborator on a couple tv series, an expert musician and programmer who I've known for 35 years, and he's been on Thomas Newman scores, Jon Hassell records, Seal tours, etc. For $1k per day he'd come up and do a couple of guitar overdubs, help re-purpose old cues into this week's episode, etc. He never wrote anything for me from scratch, never took a sketch to the finish line - basically "session work". 

After we'd done this for a few months, I said to him, "Ya know dude, I could show you how to get into the driver's seat on this kind of gig, you've totally got the chops." 

And he demurred! Didn't want to. The way he put it was, "I prefer to sit in the passenger seat, so I can put my feet up on the dash, fiddle with the stereo, and look out the window. I don't want to get behind the wheel and have to start worrying about checking the oil and using turn signals and not crashing into a tree. That shit is your problem and I like it that way!"

So there is a personality type who actually prefers being a minion - or at least, not standing on the bridge taking responsibility for hitting an iceberg.

I've been in the boiler room, just shoveling coal, while someone else decides where the ship is going, and at a certain point in one's life / growth curve, or for certain personality types, it's a perfect fit.

Except I was stupid enough to want to be the one avoiding the icebergs. So now that's what I do, even though I'm only the captain of a dinghy and not the Titanic!


----------



## fourier

charlieclouser said:


> Speaking as a complete outsider to the RCP scene, some points In defense of that scenario:
> 
> • There is real value for minions to be able to work on a project *without* having their name attached - if the movie is a turd, or the producers wind up firing the composer, their name isn't (as) attached and therefore can remain relatively un-tarnished.
> 
> • Sure, the lead composer may chew them out / fire them / try to blame the failure on them, but they're less in the spotlight than the leader. (and maybe their IMDB page will remain clean!).
> 
> • Plus, if there's enough minions on the team, if one can't hack it then another will fill the gap. So, they get the opportunity to learn with less of the responsibility to deliver.
> 
> • If they really are delivering, then they may get cue sheet participation, so there's some mailbox money.
> 
> • If they really are delivering, then they may get an "additional music by" credit, so there's some IMBD action as well.
> 
> I had a collaborator on a couple tv series, an expert musician and programmer who I've known for 35 years, and he's been on Thomas Newman scores, Jon Hassell records, Seal tours, etc. For $1k per day he'd come up and do a couple of guitar overdubs, help re-purpose old cues into this week's episode, etc. He never wrote anything for me from scratch, never took a sketch to the finish line - basically "session work".
> 
> After we'd done this for a few months, I said to him, "Ya know dude, I could show you how to get into the driver's seat on this kind of gig, you've totally got the chops."
> 
> And he demurred! Didn't want to. The way he put it was, "I prefer to sit in the passenger seat, so I can put my feet up on the dash, fiddle with the stereo, and look out the window. I don't want to get behind the wheel and have to start worrying about checking the oil and using turn signals and not crashing into a tree. That shit is your problem and I like it that way!"
> 
> So there is a personality type who actually prefers being a minion - or at least, not standing on the bridge taking responsibility for hitting an iceberg.
> 
> I've been in the boiler room, just shoveling coal, while someone else decides where the ship is going, and at a certain point in one's life / growth curve, or for certain personality types, it's a perfect fit.
> 
> Except I was stupid enough to want to be the one avoiding the icebergs. So now that's what I do, even though I'm only the captain of a dinghy and not the Titanic!


As a hobbyist there's not much I can add but I draw comparisons to my life in team sports and my working field. An example that sits with me is the coaching staff at clubs, where you can see very skilled coaches working "behind the scenes" of the manager getting to be the caretaker coach as the manager is fired, but with no desire or wish to actually fill that role permanently - the pressure, the risk, the responsibility are the common denominators. It might not be a perfect analogy, but some of those I've met (even some in a large English soccer club) are very representative of this type of personality of your collaborator here.


----------



## KEM

charlieclouser said:


> Speaking as a complete outsider to the RCP scene, some points In defense of that scenario:
> 
> • There is real value for minions to be able to work on a project *without* having their name attached - if the movie is a turd, or the producers wind up firing the composer, their name isn't (as) attached and therefore can remain relatively un-tarnished.
> 
> • Sure, the lead composer may chew them out / fire them / try to blame the failure on them, but they're less in the spotlight than the leader. (and maybe their IMDB page will remain clean!).
> 
> • Plus, if there's enough minions on the team, if one can't hack it then another will fill the gap. So, they get the opportunity to learn with less of the responsibility to deliver.
> 
> • If they really are delivering, then they may get cue sheet participation, so there's some mailbox money.
> 
> • If they really are delivering, then they may get an "additional music by" credit, so there's some IMBD action as well.
> 
> I had a collaborator on a couple tv series, an expert musician and programmer who I've known for 35 years, and he's been on Thomas Newman scores, Jon Hassell records, Seal tours, etc. For $1k per day he'd come up and do a couple of guitar overdubs, help re-purpose old cues into this week's episode, etc. He never wrote anything for me from scratch, never took a sketch to the finish line - basically "session work".
> 
> After we'd done this for a few months, I said to him, "Ya know dude, I could show you how to get into the driver's seat on this kind of gig, you've totally got the chops."
> 
> And he demurred! Didn't want to. The way he put it was, "I prefer to sit in the passenger seat, so I can put my feet up on the dash, fiddle with the stereo, and look out the window. I don't want to get behind the wheel and have to start worrying about checking the oil and using turn signals and not crashing into a tree. That shit is your problem and I like it that way!"
> 
> So there is a personality type who actually prefers being a minion - or at least, not standing on the bridge taking responsibility for hitting an iceberg.
> 
> I've been in the boiler room, just shoveling coal, while someone else decides where the ship is going, and at a certain point in one's life / growth curve, or for certain personality types, it's a perfect fit.
> 
> Except I was stupid enough to want to be the one avoiding the icebergs. So now that's what I do, even though I'm only the captain of a dinghy and not the Titanic!



Really good points here


----------



## dcoscina

charlieclouser said:


> Speaking as a complete outsider to the RCP scene, some points In defense of that scenario:
> 
> • There is real value for minions to be able to work on a project *without* having their name attached - if the movie is a turd, or the producers wind up firing the composer, their name isn't (as) attached and therefore can remain relatively un-tarnished.
> 
> • Sure, the lead composer may chew them out / fire them / try to blame the failure on them, but they're less in the spotlight than the leader. (and maybe their IMDB page will remain clean!).
> 
> • Plus, if there's enough minions on the team, if one can't hack it then another will fill the gap. So, they get the opportunity to learn with less of the responsibility to deliver.
> 
> • If they really are delivering, then they may get cue sheet participation, so there's some mailbox money.
> 
> • If they really are delivering, then they may get an "additional music by" credit, so there's some IMBD action as well.
> 
> I had a collaborator on a couple tv series, an expert musician and programmer who I've known for 35 years, and he's been on Thomas Newman scores, Jon Hassell records, Seal tours, etc. For $1k per day he'd come up and do a couple of guitar overdubs, help re-purpose old cues into this week's episode, etc. He never wrote anything for me from scratch, never took a sketch to the finish line - basically "session work".
> 
> After we'd done this for a few months, I said to him, "Ya know dude, I could show you how to get into the driver's seat on this kind of gig, you've totally got the chops."
> 
> And he demurred! Didn't want to. The way he put it was, "I prefer to sit in the passenger seat, so I can put my feet up on the dash, fiddle with the stereo, and look out the window. I don't want to get behind the wheel and have to start worrying about checking the oil and using turn signals and not crashing into a tree. That shit is your problem and I like it that way!"
> 
> So there is a personality type who actually prefers being a minion - or at least, not standing on the bridge taking responsibility for hitting an iceberg.
> 
> I've been in the boiler room, just shoveling coal, while someone else decides where the ship is going, and at a certain point in one's life / growth curve, or for certain personality types, it's a perfect fit.
> 
> Except I was stupid enough to want to be the one avoiding the icebergs. So now that's what I do, even though I'm only the captain of a dinghy and not the Titanic!


Great post Charlie. I think you touched on a really good point here too- some folks would rather just do the gig and not deal with all of the other things that are wrapped up when providing music for film.


----------



## AR

Ok, here are my 2 cents about this Vanity Fair post. First, I love that they wrote about this situation in a column. That's good for them. Second, I credited all my "minions" for each project. Go to IMDb and see for yourself. And sorry for saying this, but I introduce musicians to the film business world as a lead composer on projects (I wish someone would have done that for me)..... I remember one particular moment very good. A musician (more or less Cubase-trained), I gave him a small studio and let him work out a very climactic New York skyline scene with the director himself for 2 days. In all this time he could form a good relationship with the director if it was in his interest. It wasn't that did not wanna to work on that scene too, I just wanned to see if they could sort this out without me and if my assistant can handle the pressure. Another recent story: I just got a call from a producer of Fox and he wanned me to score a swedish horror thriller. So the next day I threw a jam session with friends and invited 2 twenty something guys of whom I heard they could fit for an assistant job. I did not tell them that I was searching for an "cast". Unfortunately they did not have the potential. I wish someone would have done that for me 20 years ago. I'm sorry for all the ghosts out there. All I can tell you is what I've been told: "Be better as the rest." ...if you're better than 95% you're voice will be heard sooner or later. But you have to be better than the rest. And with this burden comes a lot.


----------



## blaggins

rgames said:


> Let’s do some math to see how common ghostwriting really is.
> 
> The most recent data from census.gov show about 6M firms with a workforce of about 133M people.
> 
> Since the “firm” is the legal entity that owns the IP, that means there are about 133M - 6M = 127M workers who do *not* have any claim to the IP they generate. IP can be patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc.
> 
> 127/133 = 95% of workers are their industry equivalent of ghostwriters.


It sounds like you are suggesting that all work is equal (work is work is work is work?). You are trying really hard to make one size fit all, but that's rarely how the world works. Most people in most jobs do not do any kind of creative work (and I mean creative in the purest sense, in that you are creating something that (1) didn't exist before and (2) has value). It's disingenuous to lump all work together like this. No one is arguing that a mechanic, or a bus driver, or a police officer, a dentist, a nurse, a surgeon, a waiter, a clerk, a general in the U.S. army (the list is nearly infinite) is by default doing creative work. Those are all important jobs (I shouldn't even have to say this, of course they are, but just to be clear...), but if any IP, as defined and protected by law, is created in the pursuit of those jobs... well that is the exception not the rule. I think the percentage of workers that are predominantly doing creative work (designers, writers, architects, etc.) is a tiny fraction of your 133M people. The line gets blurry in some areas and in some jobs (a doctor can invent, and so can a janitor), but just because the line is blurry, doesn't mean have to get rid of the line entirely.

Almost by definition, ghostwriting is creative work. I have not heard anyone in here argue that if you are hired to do purely technical work for a composer (like hardware setup, mockup programming, etc.) that you are entitled to a writer's credit. 

Let's also pause a sec to define "credit". I don't mean money necessarily, or publishing/distribution rights, I just mean that everyone who bothers to find out "where did this come from?" will find out that it came from you. 

In my experience, when someone is hired to do creative work, it is much more typical across all industries that the publishing/distribution/monetization rights belong to the employer, but the credit belongs to the employee. You say you review a lot of patents... have you seen many that list no human beings as authors, just entities like companies or professional groups? I'd be pretty surprised if that was the norm, then again I am not a patent reviewer nor a patent attorney (though I do have a patent in a technical area... and my name is on it even though I have no rights to it). But let's not go too far down the patent rabbit hole. Patents aren't even a good example anyway b/c the whole patent industry has been subverted by corporations angling for leverage on each other. Most patents are indefensible bullshit intended as a defensive play. Maybe even mine, no one will know unless it becomes a part of litigation in the future.


----------



## aeliron

merlinhimself said:


> Thoughts on composers with 5-6 shows that only really touch maybe 1-2 of them and take the majority of the other 6 shows income? To me when composers kind of "horde" a lot of shows it really lessens the available work or chance for other composers to breakout.


No matter what, in the end, a producer will want to deal with just one person who makes sure everything is done the way the producers and composer discussed and agreed, rather than having to manage a dozen cats who all have their own ideas about how things should be done. So even with farming out more writers, they'll still need a "ghost herder". And the job of managing so very many opinionated cats - as creatives tend to be - is ... hard.


----------



## jononotbono

It almost troubles me when I think about all of disturbing things I would do to work at RCP. 😂 
The education of working there would be insane.


----------



## Roger Newton

South Thames said:


> This might be the stupidest bunch of assumptions anyone has ever made in so few words. But you're quite amusing in your relentlessness I must say.


It's actually even more than that.

I forget the name of the rule now, but it's the Rule of (Whatever) that states, correctly through a lot of studies, that roughly between 15% to 20% of ANY worforce actually do any real work. So those stats don't stack up in any way.


----------



## Daryl

As usual, this thread has become a ground for those people who are so jealous of those able to make a living as a composer, that they seek to tear the whole system down.

No it's not like writing software.

No it's not like your boss taking out a patent.

Composers have a different system. You can say that it shouldn't be, but until we decided otherwise, then it's what we say it is.

I have no problem with teams writing music. I do have a problem with someone trying to pretend that they wrote something that they didn't. Sure, the line between composing and arranging can get blurred at times, but that's what co-writes are for.

I would also say that any composer who seeks to cheat their co-writers out of a share of the Royalties has no right to complain when a large company like Netflix tries to do the same to them. We either all protect the system, or it gets destroyed, and only the rich survive.


----------



## merlinhimself

One thing I miss is AB5. I know it wasnt popular for good logistical reasons, but as an assistant and additional working full time for one person 12 mo a year, I was finally treated as an employee and did not get screwed with contractor bs, paying SE taxes and so on.


----------



## goalie composer

charlieclouser said:


> Speaking as a complete outsider to the RCP scene, some points In defense of that scenario:
> 
> • There is real value for minions to be able to work on a project *without* having their name attached - if the movie is a turd, or the producers wind up firing the composer, their name isn't (as) attached and therefore can remain relatively un-tarnished.
> 
> • Sure, the lead composer may chew them out / fire them / try to blame the failure on them, but they're less in the spotlight than the leader. (and maybe their IMDB page will remain clean!).
> 
> • Plus, if there's enough minions on the team, if one can't hack it then another will fill the gap. So, they get the opportunity to learn with less of the responsibility to deliver.
> 
> • If they really are delivering, then they may get cue sheet participation, so there's some mailbox money.
> 
> • If they really are delivering, then they may get an "additional music by" credit, so there's some IMBD action as well.
> 
> I had a collaborator on a couple tv series, an expert musician and programmer who I've known for 35 years, and he's been on Thomas Newman scores, Jon Hassell records, Seal tours, etc. For $1k per day he'd come up and do a couple of guitar overdubs, help re-purpose old cues into this week's episode, etc. He never wrote anything for me from scratch, never took a sketch to the finish line - basically "session work".
> 
> After we'd done this for a few months, I said to him, "Ya know dude, I could show you how to get into the driver's seat on this kind of gig, you've totally got the chops."
> 
> And he demurred! Didn't want to. The way he put it was, "I prefer to sit in the passenger seat, so I can put my feet up on the dash, fiddle with the stereo, and look out the window. I don't want to get behind the wheel and have to start worrying about checking the oil and using turn signals and not crashing into a tree. That shit is your problem and I like it that way!"
> 
> So there is a personality type who actually prefers being a minion - or at least, not standing on the bridge taking responsibility for hitting an iceberg.
> 
> I've been in the boiler room, just shoveling coal, while someone else decides where the ship is going, and at a certain point in one's life / growth curve, or for certain personality types, it's a perfect fit.
> 
> Except I was stupid enough to want to be the one avoiding the icebergs. So now that's what I do, even though I'm only the captain of a dinghy and not the Titanic!


Thanks for your insight Charlie! It's great to have your continued presence on this website


----------



## lux

I somehow feel the article missed one point tho. How difficult has this market become in regards to establish a connection between end users and music content providers, even the most established ones.

I think one reason why there's more minioning than other markets may be that once you had a few intermediate professionals between you as an artist and the industry, which made relationing more fluid for all. People who also did scouting activities, finding artists and translating their work as "understandable" to those ready at throwing in money into it. Those are now completely gone, so basically you have to deal today in a business-to-business fashion which often excludes any artistic consideration. You mostly speak marketing words. Sometimes unavoidable as you happen to deal with people that had soaps or hoovers or lawyer related issues as their main jobs just a few months before and sometimes little or no experience in dealing with artists. A direct company to company dialogue.

So the lead project manager translates all artistic details into strictly business-spoken details. And that's really hard. Hard to connect, hard to establish a durable relationship and hard to convince non-music-speaking people that you're not gonna kill their movie/tv show with your music content. It takes years and years of experience. It has intrinsic value. Its a new job in a new scenario.

So to me an interesting question is: why there's so much distance today between artists and the industry? even why so much distance between composers and directors/producers? with the latter appearing increasingly biased towards the business side.

Maybe I'll be promptly proven wrong but I feel quite a few established composers would happily trade their business coats for their dear old, sometimes even uncomfortable, artist clothes.


----------



## Thundercat

rgames said:


> The equivalent of ghost writing happens everywhere. You think Steve Jobs created Apple products? Of course not. You think Joe Biden wrote legislation while he was a legislator? Of course not. Both had teams of people doing the actual work for them. It happens all the time.
> 
> That doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Leading is not the same as doing. Organizations are generally much more efficient when there is some amount of leadership focused on integrating the work of others and ensuring the overall success of the organization. That's a good thing - society is better served. We make better cell phones, provide better healthcare, put people on the moon, etc.
> 
> However, the most effective leaders are the ones who have actually done the work at some point in their career. There has been a shift in the past couple decades where there are a lot of leaders who haven't checked that box. It's always been that way in government but that approach is appearing much more frequently in private industry these days.
> 
> At least we haven't seen that yet in the music world. Zimmer definitely worked in the trenches for a while, as did a number of the other composers mentioned in the article. So if he shifts into a leadership role later in his career then that's fine. That happens in every other profession - why not composing?
> 
> And besides, nobody is forcing the ghost writers to ghost write. Let consenting adults do what they want without persecution.
> 
> rgames


I was with you until that bit about we went to the moon...


----------



## Mike Greene

I'm reluctant to chime in on this thread, because there are some things I'm not necessarily proud of, but here goes.

I have pretty much always had assistants, which may sound odd for someone with credits as underwhelming as mine, but it's been a necessity, because when you're doing multiple shows, even low budget crap like what I work on, it's tough to keep up. Mostly these guys would do arranging work. I'd write the basics, then they'd flesh out the track, which can obviously be time-consuming.

I remember the first time I asked one to ghost write for me was when I was doing a Barbie commercial. I always gave Mattel three demos for commercials, because it showed that I really cared about the project and was putting in extra effort. (Okay, the _real_ reason for three choices is because it's easier to get client sign-off when they're presented with a "pick one" situation.)

For this particular spot, I wrote a jingle that I knew nailed it. (I've never suffered from lack of confidence.) Sometimes that happens, where you know _"this is the one,"_ so I didn't want to waste time writing alternates ... but I needed them. You know, because I care! So I asked my assistant to take a shot at writing a couple alternate jingles. I was actually a little worried they would choose one of his pieces, since I'm not sure how I would have handled that, but luckily, the client chose mine.

I never did that again with commercials, because my ego is such that I hated the idea that someone else might write a jingle that's supposed to be mine. Mind you, the ethics didn't bother me, it was my ego that hated the idea. I've written some things I'm really proud of, and sometimes I'll listen to some of my old stuff and it's a big deal to me to know *I* wrote that. So the big stuff - always me.

But then ... I got a couple shows where I had to supply a LOT of underscore library tracks. I've always been a theme song guy, and honestly, underscore never really interested me. (It did in later years, but not back then.) Theme songs pay a higher ASCAP rate and they air every episode, plus it's kinda cool when people chant _"Bill! Bill! Bill Bill!"_ when they know your work. Underscore pays a lower rate and airs probably just one episode. Yawn. I would do it, because that's part of the gig, but damn, even with assistants fleshing out the arrangements, it ate up a lot of time.

One assistant started writing his own "melodies" for the tracks, largely because it was easier than being tied to mine, plus it was more fun for him. I told him that's fine with me, but I couldn't put him on the cue sheets if he did that. It has to be my name on there. (I'll get to that one in a minute.) He was cool with that. Bear in mind, I paid well and the gig here is reasonably "fun." Half of what I did was TV, but the other half was records, so you get to meet Cypress, Ice Cube, David Bowie, etc. Assistants I hired back then weren't "composers," they were here to work in records.

Now, I know anyone reading this is struck by the sentence, _"It has to be my name on there."_ Let me explain that. I won't deny that part of the reason for that is that I'm a greedy mofo and I want _all_ the royalties. But it's important to understand that underscore royalties for the kinds of shows I do is peanuts, far below what I'm paying these guys upfront.

More important than that, though, clients (at least the clients I've worked for) do NOT want to hear about additional composers. They hired _me_, so they want to believe they're getting _me_ for the entire project, not that I think so little of their project that I'm passing off the boring parts to the B-Team. Clients want to believe they've got the A-Team.

Clients are also very nervous about getting sued. They know I'm a veteran writer with real credits, so I'm very unlikely to accidentally write an illegal track. Plus if something goes wrong, it's my name on the indemnity clause in the contract, so they're covered.

Are those obstacles insurmountable? No. But do I really want to have that conversation with the client, knowing I need to not only set their minds at ease, but their legal department as well? Hell no. Especially since one of the things clients like about me is that no matter what, my mantra is always, _"No problem."_ I'm the guy you hire when you want no stress, worries, or excuses from your composer.

So ... yes, I've hired ghostwriters and not credited them. Full disclosure, as I kept getting more and more shows, I would do it more than I would have liked. In fact, in a couple cases, where the workloads were overwhelming, I straight up "bought" tracks from other composers. I'm not proud of that, although in my defense, I was upfront about it and paid accordingly.

In a lot of these cases, the ghostwriters ultimately made more than I did. (You never know how well a show will do, and the majority get yanked very early.) In other cases, I came out ahead. In a couple cases, I came out _way_ ahead. It's all a gamble, and honestly, my biggest royalty show (Maximum Exposure) was a show I would have *never* guessed would be such a money maker. (I almost turned it down.)

Themes and feature songs (and all commercials I've ever done) have always been written 100% by me, because ... ego. But for better or worse, I've always thought of background tracks as being more transactional. Nobody cares about the piano playing while Oprah interviews a woman about her abusive husband.

Granted, I'm not doing feature films, and if it's a legit film where I wrote a sad piano piece that plays under a woman telling her therapist about her abusive husband, then I _would_ care. But these daytime talk shows I'd get are money gigs, not art gigs.

Anyway, I don't claim anything I've done was right or wrong, and I sometimes wonder if maybe I should have done some things differently. But I hope my experience illustrates that the topic of crediting ghostwriters is more challenging in the real trenches than it may appear.


----------



## jononotbono

Mike Greene said:


> I'm reluctant to chime in on this thread, because there are some things I'm not necessarily proud of, but here goes.
> 
> I have pretty much always had assistants, which may sound odd for someone with credits as underwhelming as mine, but it's been a necessity, because when you're doing multiple shows, even low budget crap like what I work on, it's tough to keep up. Mostly these guys would do arranging work. I'd write the basics, then they'd flesh out the track, which can obviously be time-consuming.
> 
> I remember the first time I asked one to ghost write for me was when I was doing a Barbie commercial. I always gave Mattel three demos for commercials, because it showed that I really cared about the project and was putting in extra effort. (Okay, the _real_ reason is because it's easier to get client sign-off when they're presented with a "pick one" situation.)
> 
> For this particular spot, I wrote a jingle that I knew nailed it. (I've never suffered from lack of confidence.) Sometimes that happens, where you know _"this is the one,"_ so I didn't want to waste time writing alternates ... but I needed them. You know, because I care! So I asked my assistant to take a shot at writing a couple alternate jingles. I was actually a little worried they would choose one of his pieces, since I'm not sure how I would have handled that, but luckily, the client chose my piece and I got full credit for giving them three choices.
> 
> I never did that again with commercials, because my ego is such that I hated the idea that someone else might write a jingle that's supposed to be mine. Mind you, the ethics didn't bother me, it was my ego that hated the idea. I've written some things I'm really proud of, and sometimes I'll listen to some of my old stuff and it's a big deal to me to know *I* wrote that.
> 
> But then ... I got a couple shows where I had to supply a LOT of underscore library tracks. I've always been a theme song guy, and honestly, underscore never really interested me. (It did in later years, but not back then.) Theme songs pay a higher ASCAP rate and they air every episode. Yes, please! Underscore pays a lower rate and airs probably just one episode. I would do it, because that's part of the gig, but damn, even with assistants fleshing out the arrangements, it ate up a lot of time.
> 
> One assistant started writing his own "melodies" for the tracks, largely because because it was easier and more fun for him. I told him that's fine with me, but I couldn't put him on the cue sheets if he did that. It has to be my name on there. He was cool with that. (I paid well and the gig here is reasonably "fun." Half of what I did was TV, but the other half was records, so you get to meet Cypress, Ice Cube, David Bowie, etc. Assistants I hired back then were here to work in records - they weren't "composers.")
> 
> Now, I know anyone reading this is struck by the sentence, _"It has to be my name on there."_ Let me explain that. I won't deny that part of the reason for that is that I'm a greedy mofo and I want _all_ the royalties. But it's important to understand that underscore royalties for the kinds of shows I do is peanuts, far below what I'm paying them upfront.
> 
> More important than that, though, clients (at least the clients I've worked for) do NOT want to hear about additional composers. They hired _me_, so they want to believe they're getting _me_ for the entire project, not that I'm passing off the boring parts to the B-Team. Clients are also very nervous about getting sued. They know that I'm very unlikely to accidentally write an illegal track. And that if something goes wrong, it's my name on the indemnity clause in the contract.
> 
> Are those obstacles insurmountable? No. But do I really want to have that conversation with the client, knowing I need to not only set their minds at ease, but their legal department as well. Hell no. Especially since one of the things clients like about me is everything about me is _"No problem."_ I'm the guy you hire when you want no stress, worries, or excuses from your composer.
> 
> So ... yes, I've hired ghostwriters and not credited them. Full disclosure, as I kept getting more and more shows (bad shows), I would do it more than I would have liked. In my defense, though, I was upfront about it and paid accordingly. In fact, in a couple cases, where the workloads were overwhelming, I "bought" tracks from other composers.
> 
> Themes and feature songs (and all commercials I've ever done) have always been mine, because ... ego. But for better or worse, I've always thought of background tracks as being more transactional. Nobody cares about the piano playing while Oprah interviews a woman about her abusive husband
> 
> Granted, I'm not doing feature films, and if I wrote a sad piano piece that plays in a legit film furing a scene where a woman tells her therapist about her abusive husband, I would care.
> 
> Anyway, I don't claim anything I did was right or wrong, and I sometimes wonder if maybe I should have done some things differently. But I hope my experience illustrates that the topic of crediting ghostwriters is more challenging in the real trenches than it may appear.


You're disgusting.


----------



## Tralen

Gingerbread said:


> Which would be disgraceful. Animators should always be personally credited for their incredibly skilled work.



That is not what I meant at all, I clarified in a following post. I was suggesting the style of credits used by animators be used for musicians, not the other way around. The studio is credited and then every animator is credited.


----------



## Daryl

Sorry Mike, but I don't buy the "clients do NOT want to hear about additional composers" excuse. If they hired you, you should write the music. If you can't, for what ever reason, you should turn the gig down. Or fess up. Either is fine. By enabling the fiction that you can do all the work yourself, you are just screwing future composers, and setting the expectation that everyone has to do that. One of the reasons that writing for film and TV is such a terrible gig, is that composers have allowed themselves to be pushed into the scenario where they have no time for any outside life, and have to resort to shady deals in order to get the job done. I totally understand it. Creative people want to create, and if it's a fight between a creative being "allowed" to do what hey do, and a bean counter, the bean counter wins every time. However, at some point successful people have to say no. It's not possible for those lower down the totem pole (and this might have been you in the early days), because they can't afford to lose the gig, however those people higher up can certainly show a bit of moral backbone. As I said earlier, we're all in it together, and when we screw over the "minions", we can't complain when the bean counters srcew us over, can we.


----------



## cqd

Maybe this is where I'm going wrong..I need minions..


----------



## aeliron

GtrString said:


> Composing is not rocket science, these ghost writers can write. Period. Kids learn more on YouTube now, than they were allowed to learn back in the old studios.


I think we're thinking of two completely different genres of "composing" ... John Williams vs. "sound design." One of them is closer to rocket science than the other. Not saying which 



GtrString said:


> This culture is a horrible leftover from the industrial age, based on factory Ford’ism, disrespectful to young generations, devaluing art, undermining the law, and a convenient power and money grab from selfentitled executives.



The "Industrial Age" is what allowed anyone here to even have a computer, let alone compose music on them. Without it, we'd be struggling to survive in an agrarian society, or worse.

The disrespect is usually earned, ironically by devaluing of old, valuable things such as art, replacing them with urinals and lumps of fat in a museum. As to who feels "entitled" ... that's an even longer conversation.


----------



## Daryl

BTW my previous post was not an attack on Mike. More a comment on the situation composers have allowed themselves to be sucked into.


----------



## charlieclouser

dcoscina said:


> ...some folks would rather just do the gig and not deal with all of the other things that are wrapped up when providing music for film.


Yes, and there's levels within the scope of being the named composer as well. How much of the non-music stuff one wants to have cluttering up their life will determine how big of a staff one wants to deal with, and how "big" of a gig one wants to aim for.

Besides the obvious expenses and hassle of setting up and maintaining multiple rooms with multiple rigs running multiple copies of every sample library, plugin, and software tool you want to use (which by itself is enough to need its own person or team to deal with), there's tons of other issues that creep in as your team and facility gets bigger:

There's day-to-day client services stuff, like laying out a tray of pastries and a bowl of Skittles every morning just in case a producer will be dropping by and be impressed by the spread, and then there's the bottomless pit of stuff related to running an actual client-facing facility. If you're really running the thing as "a business", all above-board and legal, having a studio where clients and employees can come over will probably involve some or all of the following: 

• Ample parking spaces including handicap-accessible spots, and in some areas you'll need to install X number of electric vehicle charging stations. (Nathan Barr built a fantastic studio and drives a Tesla, so he was going to put one in anyway, but the city / county / state required that he install more than just the one he personally needed.)

• Multiple ADA-compliant bathrooms.

• Sprinklers, smoke, and fire alarm systems that will be more elaborate than what you'd need for a studio at your residence.

• Physical access controls with tracking so you can see who entered which room at what time, in case a guitar (or rough picture cut!) winds up walking out the door.

• More elaborate phone and IT systems with advanced security protections.

• Multiple exits and compliant exit signage, lighting, and instructions.

• Fire-rated doors and construction that are more elaborate and expensive than what you'd typically have in a residential structure.

• Comprehensive liability insurance in case a director trips over a cable and breaks an ankle.

• Errors and omissions (E&O) insurance in case a minion rips off the Indiana Jones theme or whatever (although this may be a good idea no matter the size of your operation).

• Locating your facility in an area that has the correct business zoning so it's legal to have customers visit (so, not in the guest house behind your mansion).

• Staffing expenses. If there's no gig on for the next three months while you're mountain biking in Cambodia, are you going to keep paying everyone to come in and dust for cobwebs, or are you going to cut everyone loose and then have to re-staff when you get hired to score "Titanic 2 - Iceberg's Revenge"?

• HR issues. Are you going to outsource HR and payroll or hire someone on to do that stuff in-house. Who's going to arrange the mandatory company-wide all-hands sexual harassment and diversity sensitivity training sessions that your insurer will no doubt require as a condition of your coverage?

At one point I was involved in a medium sized built-out for a private studio that would never see outside clients or paying customers, but would have between 5 and 10 people showing up every day to diddle around trying to make a record for a few years. Even though it was a "private facility" (and located far away from California rules and regulations), all of the above had to be dealt with down to the last illuminated exit sign and battery-backed emergency light. This was required as there was an LLC formed to own and run the facility and to assume liability in case someone got electrocuted trying to fix the SSL console. (Otherwise any lawsuits would travel upstream and start sniffing around the main guy's assets.) And that LLC needed a broad spectrum of insurance policies, each of which required compliance to applicable regulations, and regular inspections to insure that compliance.

Even though we had a full-time salaried studio manager to deal with all of that stuff on-site, as well as legal, accounting, and payroll services handled outside the building.... it was *A LOT*. A lot of time, a lot of money... just a lot to deal with. And it took at least some attention and a tacit sign-off on the part of the "main guy" as it all went rolling along. This was all fine in the go-go nineties when the money flowed like wine, but we were in the one-percent of our industry for sure. Watching all of that go down made me want to never own a big facility, or even set foot in one again!

I still remember when I finally bailed from there and was dismantling my studio to haul it all back to L.A., and I was unplugging a row of very expensive custom wired 56-pin EDAC connectors on the back of my racks, and I'm looking at all the cabling from all the individual outputs on multiple Akai samplers, each with custom color-coded labels under clear heat-shrink tubing, and with half of the cables I unplugged I could look at it and say, "No audio signal has ever passed down this cable on its way to my bank account." So there's always the danger of going "too large" and gearing up (and staffing up) far beyond what is actually needed to deliver the goods. It's always going to be a balancing act.

As soon as there is a break in the action (or a dip in the earning) then the constant expense and hassle of keeping a large operation like that running smoothly starts to get unsustainable. It's fine if you're at the tippy-top level where ample cash reserves and multiple projects running simultaneously can let you glide over any bumps in the road, but only the few and the proud will have that kind of luxurious air suspension on their ride. 

Guys like Blake Neely or Nathan Barr (or HZ) have wonderful creative facilities with plenty of free parking, but all of the issues above come into the picture to some degree. Employees, insurance, HR, payroll, taxes, zoning.... hassle.

At the other end of the spectrum was the setup we used to score "The Equalizer" in the late 1980's. The composer had a fetish for organization and traveling light, and the entire rig needed to fit into two giant road cases - one 20-space rack and one giant trunk-style case. In fact, all of his personal possessions fit into two more giant cases (one trunk-style and one wardrobe style) so when the gig in NYC was over and it was time to relocate, one call to Rocket Cargo, one cab to the airport, and one plane ticket was all it took. All he left behind was half a bottle of Stoli in the freezer!

At one point a few years ago I was looking at a giant house that had about 1,600 square feet of all-concrete work space underneath - two 20' x 40' rooms with 16' ceilings and 800amps of electrical service, completely separated from the living spaces with separate entrances and parking. You could have built a medium sized dub stage and a rehearsal space in there! I had a well-known architect known for big studio built-outs come and look at the place, and he was rubbing his hands together in evil glee because we could have built a ridiculous composer studio in those rooms (at a cost of half a million or more), all without an elaborate permitting process because we wouldn't be changing the footprint so it would be basically an "interior remodel".... but then he asked me:

"But... why do you need this? *Do* *you* actually *need* this?"

Of course the answer was no - I didn't "need" but I did "want" (well, sort of, kind of like wanting a Ferrari just because you can). Even though he would have been the designer and contractor on the build-out, he managed to talk me out of buying this massive house because, as he put it: "The trend in workspaces recently has been steadily moving towards smaller, not bigger. Most of the facilities I build for composers like you are in the same amount of space you've already got." And, indeed, even the space he built (from the ground up) for the guy who used to own the big facility I talked about above, was roughly the same size as what I've had in the guest house behind my residence for the past 15 years.

An operation that's small can be more nimble, and although I might not be able to leap tall buildings with a single bound, I'm able to weather any change in circumstance without any drama. When your operating expenses are the same whether or not you're working or earning at the moment gives a certain level of internal calm. And with the recent uncertainties surrounding streaming income, buy-outs, etc., a little internal calm goes a long way.

So if I ever decide to go mountain biking in Cambodia for three months, it's all good. 

No matter how much you outsource to staff, even just the act of the outsourcing itself is a non-music activity, and how much of that do you have the bandwidth for? Do you want to be a composer or an employer? 

Bigger is not always better I guess?


----------



## dcoscina

charlieclouser said:


> • Staffing expenses. If there's no gig on for the next three months while you're mountain biking in Cambodia, are you going to keep paying everyone to come in and dust for cobwebs, or are you going to cut everyone loose and then have to re-staff when you get hired to score "Titanic 2 - Iceberg's Revenge"?


That is freaking hilarious. And so true too! 

Thanks for presenting all of the logistics behind "Oz". Most of us only see the wonder and spectacle and while we all probably have some idea of the mechanics behind operating this kind of industry, it's another thing to be given such a detailed list of factors that govern such a venture.


----------



## aeliron

Daryl said:


> Sorry Mike, but I don't buy the "clients do NOT want to hear about additional composers" excuse. If they hired you, you should write the music. If you can't, for what ever reason, you should turn the gig down. Or fess up. Either is fine. By enabling the fiction that you can do all the work yourself, you are just screwing future composers, and setting the expectation that everyone has to do that. One of the reasons that writing for film and TV is such a terrible gig, is that composers have allowed themselves to be pushed into the scenario where they have no time for any outside life, and have to resort to shady deals in order to get the job done. I totally understand it. Creative people want to create, and if it's a fight between a creative being "allowed" to do what hey do, and a bean counter, the bean counter wins every time. However, at some point successful people have to say no. It's not possible for those lower down the totem pole (and this might have been you in the early days), because they can't afford to lose the gig, however those people higher up can certainly show a bit of moral backbone. As I said earlier, we're all in it together, and when we screw over the "minions", we can't complain when the bean counters srcew us over, can we.


Not sure how you can just invalidate Mike's actual experience by just "not buying it" ... but,

It's easy to _imagine_ a Utopia where producers have unlimited time and money and job security and inclination to sort out quality product from a literal multitude of possible quality outcomes, and some of us are imagining we're the only ones who don't like things the way they are. But the problem is, in then real world, as Mike is explaining, whether you are a producer or a composer, over time _you will mostly likely end up in the same arrangement_, due to the realities of time and schedule and demand and need for security and pleasing consumers and so forth - and, yes, providing work and experience to budding composers. The only way this doesn't happen is in a framework where no one cares about deadlines, quality, etc. and no one can lose their job for hiring the wrong person.

It's been tried, and in those countries, chances are you wouldn't even have regular electricity, let alone a computer. You'd be struggling to get your next meal.

On the other end of the scale, you have someone who is paid $300/hr full-time to physically arrange chairs.

Here's another way to look at it. There's a misconception that some countries in Europe have hit upon some amazing secret to making socialism work, because of all the great benefits we hear about. But the truth is, the only way they can PROVIDE those benefits is because ... those countries have an even MORE open market than we do in the USA. The only way to provide those great welfare benefits is a freer form of capitalism than we see here. They did try reversing course and ... well, they reversed right back after a brief trial period. Because they wanted to keep being able to provide those benefits. TL;DR - you need a free market _system_ to provide socialist _goals_.

Same thing here. Now, again, in the great big free market of the world, maybe there really is a better way to do this. And it'd be great if we can hit on it right here, _without_ ending up with the probable outcome of the movie studios saying screw all this hassle, we are just gonna have all movies scored by choosing three out of five legally approved drones


----------



## Gingerbread

Tralen said:


> That is not what I meant at all, I clarified in a following post. I was suggesting the style of credits used by animators be used for musicians, not the other way around. The studio is credited and then every animator is credited.


Ah, well fair enough. I would agree with that standard. It makes sense that if a big-name composer is really a studio full of composers working as a team, that the score credit should be "John Smith Studios", with all names credited in end credits, with appropriate royalty divisions.


----------



## dcoscina

would it be fair to assume that to be a career composer in today's film and tv landscape, you need a team and co-writers?

I'm working on a friend's feature but it's a while off and I've worked with him before. He grew up on Williams, Goldsmith, Barry and Herrmann and he's financing this himself so it's a rarity to be able to work the old-fashioned way. this is the exception, not the norm. And it's early days... let's see how it goes as things develop.


----------



## MarkusS

charlieclouser said:


> when you get hired to score "Titanic 2 - Iceberg's Revenge"?


You mean the “Ship‘s Revenge“..


----------



## charlieclouser

MarkusS said:


> You mean the “Ship‘s Revenge“..


Yeah, maybe it should have been "Titanic 2 - Iced Out" or "Titanic 2 - The Re-Iceberg-ening" or....


----------



## ed buller

dcoscina said:


> I'm working on a friend's feature but it's a while off and I've worked with him before. He grew up on Williams, Goldsmith, Barry and Herrmann and he's financing this himself so it's a rarity to be able to work the old-fashioned way. this is the exception, not the norm. And it's early days... let's see how it goes as things develop.


"the Old Fashioned Way"

it needs saying. Goldsmith did 6 pictures a year because he could sit at the piano, plonk away, write it out, ( usually 12 staves ) hand it to an orchestrator and in six weeks rock up to Todd AO and start recording. Fixing things as he went. As did Bernard Herrmann, and many others. Whereas today's composers have 12 hour meetings twice a week when all the cues ready are played back to picture ( after being extensively mocked up ) comments made, cues altered thrown out etc.....then it all happens again for either 6 weeks, 3 months or in some cases 2 years !. THAT is why they need help. Not because they have no ideas. Yes some take the piss.........they always have. People like that grow on trees and they did back then !. They were called hummers. All I can tell you is i've written a couple of cues from scratch for Hans. Got well paid, got cue sheet, and the appreciation of the director, and an additional composer credit. This does seem like well timed trolling !

best

ed


----------



## dgburns

charlieclouser said:


> "No audio signal has ever passed down this cable on its way to my bank account."


Lol. So true.


----------



## dcoscina

ed buller said:


> "the Old Fashioned Way"
> 
> it needs saying. Goldsmith did 6 pictures a year because he could sit at the piano, plonk away, write it out, ( usually 12 staves ) hand it to an orchestrator and in six weeks rock up to Todd AO and start recording. Fixing things as he went. As did Bernard Herrmann, and many others. Whereas today's composers have 12 hour meetings twice a week when all the cues ready are played back to picture ( after being extensively mocked up ) comments made, cues altered thrown out etc.....then it all happens again for either 6 weeks, 3 months or in some cases 2 years !. THAT is why they need help. Not because they have no ideas. Yes some take the piss.........they always have. People like that grow on trees and they did back then !. They were called hummers. All I can tell you is i've written a couple of cues from scratch for Hans. Got well paid, got cue sheet, and the appreciation of the director, and an additional composer credit. This does seem like well timed trolling !
> 
> best
> 
> ed


No argument there Ed. I'm assuming you are talking about the article re: trolling though, right? My post wasn't a dig at anyone working in modern commercial film scoring.


----------



## ed buller

dcoscina said:


> No argument there Ed. I'm assuming you are talking about the article re: trolling though, right? My post wasn't a dig at anyone working in modern commercial film scoring.


Article definitely...No Not your post ! I might be overthinking this but it really seem like a deliberate pre-oscar dog whistle !

best

e


----------



## dcoscina

ed buller said:


> Article definitely...No Not your post ! I might be overthinking this but it really seem like a deliberate pre-oscar dog whistle !
> 
> best
> 
> e


I expect HZ to win for Dune this year. To be honest, I think he should have gotten it for Interstellar a long while back but that's a little OT I guess... I've been pretty vocal about my love for that score.


----------



## ed buller

dcoscina said:


> I expect HZ to win for Dune this year. To be honest, I think he should have gotten it for Interstellar a long while back but that's a little OT I guess... I've been pretty vocal about my love for that score.


fuck I hope so...Long overdue. Yes interstellar is probably my fav of his recents scores, magical and heart wrenching

best

ed


----------



## MauroPantin

charlieclouser said:


> "Titanic 2 - Iceberg's Revenge"?


This already exist. So maybe "Titanic 3: " or "Titanic vs The Black Pearl". You game?


----------



## rgames

The fervor with which (some) people attack ghostwriting on this forum is like the fervor that the religious right attacks gay marriage: "It's morally reprehensible. We need to stop those people."

Thank goodness for personal liberties.

rgames


----------



## blaggins

rgames said:


> The fervor with which people attack ghostwriting on this forum is like the fervor that the religious right attacks gay marriage: "It's morally reprehensible. We need to stop those people."
> 
> Thank goodness for personal liberties.
> 
> rgames


I think you and I are reading different threads. I've been seeing nuanced discussion from both sides pro vs. con. Several eye opening personal anecdotes from multiple angles. It feels like a healthy discussion to me....


----------



## rgames

tpoots said:


> I've been seeing nuanced discussion from both sides pro vs. con. Several eye opening personal anecdotes from multiple angles. It feels like a healthy discussion to me....


Yes I concur on those points. From the names I recognize I'd say the discussion is pretty good and consistent with the reality I've seen.

rgames

EDIT: Also, as someone who's been on this forum a long while, it's interesting that you'd never have seen the differing viewpoints 10 years ago. We still have a long way to go on the diversity front, but we're getting a better reflection of reality on this forum in recent years.


----------



## Mike Greene

Daryl said:


> Sorry Mike, but I don't buy the "clients do NOT want to hear about additional composers" excuse.





Daryl said:


> BTW my previous post was not an attack on Mike. More a comment on the situation composers have allowed themselves to be sucked into.


No worries at all, Daryl. I take zero offense here, and I fully expect a lot of people to disagree with me. The conversation is a healthy one, whether I'm on the right or wrong side of this, and FWIW, I'm not totally comfortable with all the choices I've made. I still don't know that I'd change anything, but I posted with full awareness that people, intelligent and thoughtful people, might take issue.



Daryl said:


> If they hired you, you should write the music. If you can't, for what ever reason, you should turn the gig down.


I wouldn't be able to buy very many forums if I stuck with that philosophy. 

Turning gigs down is a lot easier in theory than in practice. Bear in mind, Maximum Exposure, made me over a million in ASCAP royalties. It's pretty tough to turn something like that down.



Daryl said:


> By enabling the fiction that you can do all the work yourself, you are just screwing future composers, and setting the expectation that everyone has to do that. One of the reasons that writing for film and TV is such a terrible gig, is that composers have allowed themselves to be pushed into the scenario where they have no time for any outside life, and have to resort to shady deals in order to get the job done.


It would take a lot more than me and a handful of composers turning down gigs to make any difference in what studios expect, so I'm not willing to be the martyr in this battle. Mike Greene turning down Max Ex wouldn't have changed anything about the ethics of low budget TV. Even attempting to change the composer model would brand me as a PIA.

I disagree that writing music for film/tv is a terrible gig, by the way. Yes, the schedules can be challenging, and the bean counters are doing their bean counting thing, but ... we still win. After the dust settles and ASCAP checks are in the bank, I often get paid more than anyone else, including the producers. Granted, many shows stiff, but that's the nature of the music business anyway. It's a gamble and that's part of the fun.

More importantly, I'm making music all day. As bad as the hours and everything else associated with composing can be, almost anyone I know in other professions would change places with me/us in a heartbeat. Personally, I think this is a _great_ gig.

That's not to say there aren't hills I _am_ willing to die on. I won't give up any of my writer's share, for instance. I won't work for a rate that's less than what I believe I'm worth. And I won't participate in the unpaid pitchathons that seem to happen a lot with commercials nowadays. Those are actual abuses of composers' weak negotiating positions. But I'm fine with a few weeks of long hours and paying people under the table for help, and I believe the people I'm paying under the table are fine with it, too.


----------



## fakemaxwell

Mike Greene said:


> Bear in mind, I paid well and the gig here is reasonably "fun."


Isn't this the rub? Ghostwriting is fine...if adequately compensated for. That's how most jobs should work! But instead of being paid big fat day rates to toil away, a lot of people get sucked into the grind and the "paying your dues" and the "that's just the way it is" of it all. It's a lot easier to be miserable at work when you're making a lot of money. Being miserable and making no money with no guarantee of a future is terrible.

It's certainly not just composers, anything that involves business+art is going to have issues with this. Ask some new PAs on film sets how fun the Hollywood lifestyle can be.


----------



## MauroPantin

I think there is an important distinction that needs to be drawn here between two or three very different situations:

1- You get hired as a composer assistant, and at some point said composer offers you to ghostwrite a cue, or asks that you do so. You are compensated fairly based on the responsibility that was not originally part of the job description (what composers includes "ghostwriting" in the job description?), and you stay 2 nights up burning the midnight oil. You're not an expert yet and can use the experience, and are getting paid to do so. This is acceptable, at least in my view. 

2- Same situation as 1, but the composer also offers credit, cue sheets, additional music, something like that. Fantastic, ideal!

2- You get hired as a composer assistant. You're being paid like you do mockups or takedowns, but the responsibility of writing a cue lands on your lap and you spend 2 nights up doing it, with no additional payment or any other kind of compensation and no credit to show for it. This situation continues to occur time after time yet your efforts fail to be acknowledged or appreciated. This situation is not acceptable in my opinion.


----------



## samphony

Maybe this article can calm the sea?
Great one by Jon Burlingame








Note to Motion Picture Academy: Rethink Your Attitude About Music Scores


Just how important is music to movies? Not too important, according to the producers of the upcoming Academy Awards, who have decided to relegate the score Oscar — along with seven other categories…




t.co


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh

samphony said:


> Maybe this article can calm the sea?
> Great one by Jon Burlingame
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note to Motion Picture Academy: Rethink Your Attitude About Music Scores
> 
> 
> Just how important is music to movies? Not too important, according to the producers of the upcoming Academy Awards, who have decided to relegate the score Oscar — along with seven other categories…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t.co



Eh… it really is the case though that a minuscule number of Oscar viewers care about who wins best score. The Academy (I guess) believes this frees up time for some content that would attract more viewers… which is pretty hilarious if they think more musical numbers, skits, or longer speeches from the actors is a solution to their declining ratings and waning cultural relevancy.

They’ll turn it around when China starts forcing them to stream it exclusively on Tiktok 😂


----------



## Bighill

charlieclouser said:


> Yes, and there's levels within the scope of being the named composer as well. How much of the non-music stuff one wants to have cluttering up their life will determine how big of a staff one wants to deal with, and how "big" of a gig one wants to aim for.
> 
> Besides the obvious expenses and hassle of setting up and maintaining multiple rooms with multiple rigs running multiple copies of every sample library, plugin, and software tool you want to use (which by itself is enough to need its own person or team to deal with), there's tons of other issues that creep in as your team and facility gets bigger:
> 
> There's day-to-day client services stuff, like laying out a tray of pastries and a bowl of Skittles every morning just in case a producer will be dropping by and be impressed by the spread, and then there's the bottomless pit of stuff related to running an actual client-facing facility. If you're really running the thing as "a business", all above-board and legal, having a studio where clients and employees can come over will probably involve some or all of the following:
> 
> • Ample parking spaces including handicap-accessible spots, and in some areas you'll need to install X number of electric vehicle charging stations. (Nathan Barr built a fantastic studio and drives a Tesla, so he was going to put one in anyway, but the city / county / state required that he install more than just the one he personally needed.)
> 
> • Multiple ADA-compliant bathrooms.
> 
> • Sprinklers, smoke, and fire alarm systems that will be more elaborate than what you'd need for a studio at your residence.
> 
> • Physical access controls with tracking so you can see who entered which room at what time, in case a guitar (or rough picture cut!) winds up walking out the door.
> 
> • More elaborate phone and IT systems with advanced security protections.
> 
> • Multiple exits and compliant exit signage, lighting, and instructions.
> 
> • Fire-rated doors and construction that are more elaborate and expensive than what you'd typically have in a residential structure.
> 
> • Comprehensive liability insurance in case a director trips over a cable and breaks an ankle.
> 
> • Errors and omissions (E&O) insurance in case a minion rips off the Indiana Jones theme or whatever (although this may be a good idea no matter the size of your operation).
> 
> • Locating your facility in an area that has the correct business zoning so it's legal to have customers visit (so, not in the guest house behind your mansion).
> 
> • Staffing expenses. If there's no gig on for the next three months while you're mountain biking in Cambodia, are you going to keep paying everyone to come in and dust for cobwebs, or are you going to cut everyone loose and then have to re-staff when you get hired to score "Titanic 2 - Iceberg's Revenge"?
> 
> • HR issues. Are you going to outsource HR and payroll or hire someone on to do that stuff in-house. Who's going to arrange the mandatory company-wide all-hands sexual harassment and diversity sensitivity training sessions that your insurer will no doubt require as a condition of your coverage?
> 
> At one point I was involved in a medium sized built-out for a private studio that would never see outside clients or paying customers, but would have between 5 and 10 people showing up every day to diddle around trying to make a record for a few years. Even though it was a "private facility" (and located far away from California rules and regulations), all of the above had to be dealt with down to the last illuminated exit sign and battery-backed emergency light. This was required as there was an LLC formed to own and run the facility and to assume liability in case someone got electrocuted trying to fix the SSL console. (Otherwise any lawsuits would travel upstream and start sniffing around the main guy's assets.) And that LLC needed a broad spectrum of insurance policies, each of which required compliance to applicable regulations, and regular inspections to insure that compliance.
> 
> Even though we had a full-time salaried studio manager to deal with all of that stuff on-site, as well as legal, accounting, and payroll services handled outside the building.... it was *A LOT*. A lot of time, a lot of money... just a lot to deal with. And it took at least some attention and a tacit sign-off on the part of the "main guy" as it all went rolling along. This was all fine in the go-go nineties when the money flowed like wine, but we were in the one-percent of our industry for sure. Watching all of that go down made me want to never own a big facility, or even set foot in one again!
> 
> I still remember when I finally bailed from there and was dismantling my studio to haul it all back to L.A., and I was unplugging a row of very expensive custom wired 56-pin EDAC connectors on the back of my racks, and I'm looking at all the cabling from all the individual outputs on multiple Akai samplers, each with custom color-coded labels under clear heat-shrink tubing, and with half of the cables I unplugged I could look at it and say, "No audio signal has ever passed down this cable on its way to my bank account." So there's always the danger of going "too large" and gearing up (and staffing up) far beyond what is actually needed to deliver the goods. It's always going to be a balancing act.
> 
> As soon as there is a break in the action (or a dip in the earning) then the constant expense and hassle of keeping a large operation like that running smoothly starts to get unsustainable. It's fine if you're at the tippy-top level where ample cash reserves and multiple projects running simultaneously can let you glide over any bumps in the road, but only the few and the proud will have that kind of luxurious air suspension on their ride.
> 
> Guys like Blake Neely or Nathan Barr (or HZ) have wonderful creative facilities with plenty of free parking, but all of the issues above come into the picture to some degree. Employees, insurance, HR, payroll, taxes, zoning.... hassle.
> 
> At the other end of the spectrum was the setup we used to score "The Equalizer" in the late 1980's. The composer had a fetish for organization and traveling light, and the entire rig needed to fit into two giant road cases - one 20-space rack and one giant trunk-style case. In fact, all of his personal possessions fit into two more giant cases (one trunk-style and one wardrobe style) so when the gig in NYC was over and it was time to relocate, one call to Rocket Cargo, one cab to the airport, and one plane ticket was all it took. All he left behind was half a bottle of Stoli in the freezer!
> 
> At one point a few years ago I was looking at a giant house that had about 1,600 square feet of all-concrete work space underneath - two 20' x 40' rooms with 16' ceilings and 800amps of electrical service, completely separated from the living spaces with separate entrances and parking. You could have built a medium sized dub stage and a rehearsal space in there! I had a well-known architect known for big studio built-outs come and look at the place, and he was rubbing his hands together in evil glee because we could have built a ridiculous composer studio in those rooms (at a cost of half a million or more), all without an elaborate permitting process because we wouldn't be changing the footprint so it would be basically an "interior remodel".... but then he asked me:
> 
> "But... why do you need this? *Do* *you* actually *need* this?"
> 
> Of course the answer was no - I didn't "need" but I did "want" (well, sort of, kind of like wanting a Ferrari just because you can). Even though he would have been the designer and contractor on the build-out, he managed to talk me out of buying this massive house because, as he put it: "The trend in workspaces recently has been steadily moving towards smaller, not bigger. Most of the facilities I build for composers like you are in the same amount of space you've already got." And, indeed, even the space he built (from the ground up) for the guy who used to own the big facility I talked about above, was roughly the same size as what I've had in the guest house behind my residence for the past 15 years.
> 
> An operation that's small can be more nimble, and although I might not be able to leap tall buildings with a single bound, I'm able to weather any change in circumstance without any drama. When your operating expenses are the same whether or not you're working or earning at the moment gives a certain level of internal calm. And with the recent uncertainties surrounding streaming income, buy-outs, etc., a little internal calm goes a long way.
> 
> So if I ever decide to go mountain biking in Cambodia for three months, it's all good.
> 
> No matter how much you outsource to staff, even just the act of the outsourcing itself is a non-music activity, and how much of that do you have the bandwidth for? Do you want to be a composer or an employer?
> 
> Bigger is not always better I guess?


You´ll need the royalties from a lot of minions to afford that


----------



## charlieclouser

Bighill said:


> You´ll need the royalties from a lot of minions to afford that


Hence my desire to just skip all that jazz - the minions, AND the lighted exit signage and ADA-compliant bathrooms!


----------



## Bighill

charlieclouser said:


> Hence my desire to just skip all that jazz - the minions, AND the lighted exit signage and ADA-compliant bathrooms!


I share that philosophy, at the cost of having to turn down several high profile projects (Scandinavian) this year.


----------



## MarkusS

charlieclouser said:


> Yeah, maybe it should have been "Titanic 2 - Iced Out" or "Titanic 2 - The Re-Iceberg-ening" or....


Titanic’s revenge - Iceberg melting. 😬


----------



## charlieclouser

Bighill said:


> I share that philosophy, at the cost of having to turnn down several high profile projects (Scandinavian) projects this year.


It's all the non-music stuff that would make me feel like just another businessman, like the owner of some restaurant or machine shop. That feeling is a big part of why I left the band I was in - although touring is fun for a while, when you get right down to it you spend two hours a day making music, but you spend 22 hours a day NOT making music. So much time spent looking out the window of the tour bus at an endless landscape of KenTacoHuts, or in hotel rooms watching CNN and eating $35 room service cheeseburgers, or wandering around the bowels of the enormo-dome between sound check and gig time, half-heartedly watching the openers for the 100th time.... after a while its just a drag.

Same reasoning behind not having a giant staff to lighten my workload. I actually enjoy every facet of actually doing the music, even if I'm repurposing an old cue or writing some meaningless filler piece. So why would I want to let anyone else have all that fun? And you're telling me I'd have to PAY them as well? 

Inconceivable!


----------



## Mike Greene

charlieclouser said:


> It's all the non-music stuff that would make me feel like just another businessman, like the owner of some restaurant or machine shop.


At least half my day nowadays is "business" and I hate it. The studio always needs something done. (We just finished paving the parking lot, but they broke a gas line on Friday, and when I tested the drains last night, they don't drain, so they broke a line somewhere - maintenance is neverending, not to mention my studio insurance is $9k/year!) Then, I'm always answering emails, or filling out forms, or paying bills, or doing taxes. And even when I'm "working," I often feel more like a project manager than a composer (or now, coder.) I absolutely hate it.



charlieclouser said:


> I actually enjoy every facet of actually doing the music, even if I'm repurposing an old cue or writing some meaningless filler piece. So why would I want to let anyone else have all that fun?


Yep, that was a mistake I made. And what's worse, assistants (at least in my case) wouldn't have the skills to rattle off a dozen "sad piano" cues. I mean ... they _could_, but they wouldn't be as good as mine (forgive the immodesty), and there's no point to having mediocre tracks in the library. So that boring job fell to me, while they got the fun job of recording live guitar tracks, since the session player knows my tastes and always has great ideas, so any idiot can run those sessions without me.

That's what killed me, was that I was cranking out a lot of music (I'll even dare say _good_ music), but I didn't have the intimacy with it that I used to. Plus I hated being the manager.


----------



## gsilbers

Ill share my point of view ... from a studio/distribution angle since i worked in one. There like 20 of these threads going on specially in FB groups and everyone seems to already made up their minds soooooo..

There is a very real and existential threat to hiring random poeple to compose studio projects with downstream media and clients in the line.

Sure, connections work and we get the director/composer thing.. but studios will have a say on the composer or group or network. And they have the dredded catch 22 of you having to already scored a similar movie or better before being able to compose that level film.

The work around of course is being an assistant whos done music for those big projects the main composer already has done. And they also meet the director and know they sometimes do cues and make their own connections because its also convenient for the director or producer if they get a project that cannot pay AAA composer budgets or have a side project an assitant would be willing to do for free or low pay. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt.
some composers do this, others dont.
I have friends that have been able to land their own tv shows and be successful composers that are not part of the big AAA composers. They land steady shows.

Now.. about the threat. Im sure there are several composers in this forum far better than junkie xl and a few others that do ok job. But again... its a trust thing. Same as hans will sell you the storyline of the music for the movie and you trust him because he knows... they also sell the ability to know everything there is to know about the back end. Have the same lawyers who understand the contracts and how things work and that even if there is an earthquake in LA they will deliver and delivery on time with good sounding music.
They also have omisions insurance, they are also part if the payroll of the big studios and go through backgruond criminal checks etc.
So its the mpaa clearance, clerance for getting paid, clearance for insurance, clearance that the composer wont deliver something thats copyrighted to someone else. Or that they have a computer failure and say fuckit and call the sound stage saying that they wont deliver on time.
And other posibilties that might arise... which is all based on trust. which is based on history. Therefore being an assistant for a while will teach you all of that plus more regarding creative changes etc. And also no surprises like they sue the studio because the film was presented in a way or in a channel or whateevr that they dont like or whateevr nonsense might arise from newbies.

so i dont doubt that someone like daniel james and ashton gleckman could score something way better than junkie xl, brian tyler and a few others in that high AAA area... but in no way, if im the studio id let those kids do a medium to big film unless there is someone like hans zimmer or someone at a high level vouching for them and then knowing the ins and out of how things work in the back end of hollywood and have done decent level films indicating they know.
Btw... this is the same for other areas of post. Audio post, color correction, editing, video mastering houses, etc.

With all that said, it can still be a grey area. The composer doesnt want to show that he isnt doing everything, or indeed stealing the rights or whatever...
but ive seen the cue sheets from big movies I still have saw several composers listed in addition to the main AAA so either way, the way remote control is doing it is working, if not we would have heard more of it So. Maybe a few big composers or medium composers take more.. maybe less. Other composers might be just doing too many projects and are worry about competition... so it can still be shady, or not.

maybe the article is being seen from a different context. That somehow these big composers are slave drivers and stealing from talented young naive composers or the writers failed to see it from different angles or grabbed a few specific cases. Dunno..

what i do know its that LA has many little bubbles... and remote control is one. where they know each other etc. then there is a few satelite bubbles like brian tyler and others that theyve made their names outside remote control.
then video post bubbles and so on. having an article being done by someone outside a specific bubble makes me highly suspect of the intentions. maybe sell more ads.. or try to "expose" a "truth" and so on...
again.. it could be... there are no absolutes for me in this case.

But it sure makes for a good story though... it lands close to our artistic hearts. That somehow "they" are landing gigs and are good composers and therefore "ME" is not getting that gig.. when in fact its a little more complex than that.. plus there are sooooooooo many talented composers that theres not enough projects.
Similar to how the crowd in "Q" operate.. that they rather see some wierd conspiracy theory instead of boring complex web of how things work in LA. ITs more eye catching story for sure.


----------



## gsilbers

charlieclouser said:


> Yeah, maybe it should have been "Titanic 2 - Iced Out" or "Titanic 2 - The Re-Iceberg-ening" or....


Titanic with a cat


----------



## Ivan M.

rgames said:


> The equivalent of ghost writing happens everywhere. You think Steve Jobs created Apple products? Of course not. You think Joe Biden wrote legislation while he was a legislator? Of course not. Both had teams of people doing the actual work for them. It happens all the time.
> 
> That doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Leading is not the same as doing. Organizations are generally much more efficient when there is some amount of leadership focused on integrating the work of others and ensuring the overall success of the organization. That's a good thing - society is better served. We make better cell phones, provide better healthcare, put people on the moon, etc.
> 
> However, the most effective leaders are the ones who have actually done the work at some point in their career. There has been a shift in the past couple decades where there are a lot of leaders who haven't checked that box. It's always been that way in government but that approach is appearing much more frequently in private industry these days.
> 
> At least we haven't seen that yet in the music world. Zimmer definitely worked in the trenches for a while, as did a number of the other composers mentioned in the article. So if he shifts into a leadership role later in his career then that's fine. That happens in every other profession - why not composing?
> 
> And besides, nobody is forcing the ghost writers to ghost write. Let consenting adults do what they want without persecution.
> 
> rgames


A quick comment here (I'm yet to read the article):
There is a difference between copyright (publishing) and moral rights. A company owns a product (a composition/track) and signs/brands it with company name - not the owners name, the company 's name. It owns the publishing rights and, of course, uses it for economic gain. It might credit the original composer or not.
However, the owner of the company cannot claim he himself created the product. And a composer cannot sell the fact the he composed it. They can't, because it's a lie.


----------



## KEM

gsilbers said:


> so i dont doubt that someone like daniel james and ashton gleckman could score something way better than junkie xl, brian tyler and a few others in that high AAA area...



That’s some high praise right there…


----------



## Mike Greene

Ivan M. said:


> However, the owner of the company cannot claim he himself created the product. And a composer cannot sell the fact the he composed it. They can't, because it's a lie.


But it still happens. One of the more famous (and blatantly unethical) examples is the Power Rangers theme song, where Haim Saban (and possibly Shuki Levy, the other owner of the company) is credited by name as composer, yet it was actually written (and performed) by Ron Wasserman.


----------



## charlieclouser

MauroPantin said:


> I think there is an important distinction that needs to be drawn here between two or three very different situations:
> 
> 2- You get hired as a composer assistant. You're being paid like you do mockups or takedowns, but the responsibility of writing a cue lands on your lap and you spend 2 nights up doing it, with no additional payment or any other kind of compensation and no credit to show for it. This situation continues to occur time after time yet your efforts fail to be acknowledged or appreciated. This situation is not acceptable in my opinion.


aaaaannnndddd there it is. That last example you cited is the bad one, the one that happens far too often, the one that causes all the pearl-clutching articles in Vanity Fair and FB Groups. 

If the lead composer responds with, "Wow you really saved my ass on that one! If it happens again we'll def put you on the cue sheet. Do you want my spare pair of nice monitors / this guitar / a new iPhone?" then.... okayyyyy I guess.

But if it just somehow slips by, the lead doesn't notice or offer anything, and the junior doesn't say anything for fear of upsetting their gig.... then a few episodes later it might start to become the norm. And it will get much harder to claw back from that situation as time goes by.

I know some juniors on long-running series who were supposedly just going to be re-purposing cues from previous episodes, doing the old "Save As and modify" thing, but over time the gig morphed toward "write new filler cues using the template and sounds from the season premiere" and wound up at "I don't have time to deal, just handle the whole episode this week." 

Which might be fine if it included cue sheet, additional music credit, and healthy cash.... but in some cases it doesn't. And those are the situations that are not okay. But it's a slippery slope and all too easy for the junior to not put up a fuss and for the lead to assume it's all fine and good, and for the situation to keep repeating and getting worse.


----------



## gsilbers

KEM said:


> That’s some high praise right there…



 well.. all of them are great imo. 
but studios just dont want problems and they dont choose music stuff so having reliabl composers with a good track record is good enough if the director chooses those specific groups like remote control or established composers. 

At the end its all subjective of course. so theres a lot of grey areas between asrt and business and politics. 

I mean, marco beltrami is like a musical prodigy and he is almost never listed on many of the top movies like other aaa composers. so other things matter like feeling of the movie, prodcution chops, networking, connections, trust etc. its just like a business. 

The point of course is that no matter how good composers are, if they dont have a strong track record with big movies then they wont get the gig... which is common in hollywood and the catch 22... which therefore ghost writing could be a workaround.


----------



## mojave

if the powers that be are setting up Germaine Franco for the win, the Vanity Fair thing is the exact kind of hit piece they would call in


----------



## Guffy

Varishnipu said:


> Yes…I have many servants and interns to do heavy lifting of song writing…I only take half of publishing and let the others split the rest…too much works to write every note cause I am the boss of the men


How many interns and "servants" do you have?


----------



## Varishnipu

Guffy said:


> How many interns and "servants" do you have?


Several to help with the creation portion so I can build the relationship…most important to be the leader and to have the workers stay busy to benefit my business


----------



## MauroPantin

LOL, the nerve...


----------



## mscp

Ghostbusters... 
If there's somethin' strange in the neighborhood 
Who ya gonna call (ghostbusters) 
There's somethin' weird and it don't look good 
Who ya gonna call (ghostbusters) 

I ain't afraid a no ghost 
I ain't afraid a no ghost 

Who ya gonna call (ghostbusters) 
Who ya gonna call (ghostbusters)


----------



## doctoremmet

mscp said:


> Ghostbusters...
> If there's somethin' strange in the neighborhood
> Who ya gonna call (ghostbusters)
> There's somethin' weird and it don't look good
> Who ya gonna call (ghostbusters)
> 
> I ain't afraid a no ghost
> I ain't afraid a no ghost
> 
> Who ya gonna call (ghostbusters)
> Who ya gonna call (ghostbusters)


Ah yes. An excellent example of a totally original film theme song! 



.


----------



## CT

Varishnipu said:


> Several to help with the creation portion so I can build the relationship…most important to be the leader and to have the workers stay busy to benefit my business


Are you hiring?


----------



## Varishnipu

Michaelt said:


> Are you hiring?


You can compose for internship.


----------



## CT

Varishnipu said:


> You can compose for internship.


No. You didn't respond fast enough. Now I will fire you.


----------



## Loerpert

rgames said:


> The equivalent of ghost writing happens everywhere. You think Steve Jobs created Apple products? Of course not. You think Joe Biden wrote legislation while he was a legislator? Of course not. Both had teams of people doing the actual work for them. It happens all the time.
> 
> That doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Leading is not the same as doing. Organizations are generally much more efficient when there is some amount of leadership focused on integrating the work of others and ensuring the overall success of the organization. That's a good thing - society is better served. We make better cell phones, provide better healthcare, put people on the moon, etc.
> 
> However, the most effective leaders are the ones who have actually done the work at some point in their career. There has been a shift in the past couple decades where there are a lot of leaders who haven't checked that box. It's always been that way in government but that approach is appearing much more frequently in private industry these days.
> 
> At least we haven't seen that yet in the music world. Zimmer definitely worked in the trenches for a while, as did a number of the other composers mentioned in the article. So if he shifts into a leadership role later in his career then that's fine. That happens in every other profession - why not composing?
> 
> And besides, nobody is forcing the ghost writers to ghost write. Let consenting adults do what they want without persecution.
> 
> rgames


The difference here is that Apple created the iPhone, not Steve Jobs. Everyone knows that. 

If Hans Zimmer's name is on some soundtrack, but he didn't write it, then that's plain wrong if you ask me.


----------

