# The ghostwriting thread



## midphase (Nov 22, 2007)

The way that I deal with it is that I don't ghostwrite...period. I think it's a crappy practice which is perpetuated by insecure composers.

Having said that....if you have made the decision to ghostwrite for someone...you're kind of their "bitch" when it comes to dealing with the notes and changes they ask for. It should get better I would think as you learn about what is it that your boss expects of you and what his tastes are. I also think that in many cases, the composer and the ghostee can be a decisive mismatch. If the main composer has a certain style and taste which the hired gun can't really write in....then it's bound to create nothing but frustration on both sides. I think the best matches are when both composers have essentially a similar compositional style.

My only advice aside from getting out of the arrangement as soon as humanly possible is to try and communicate better with the guy in the interest of efficiency and sanity.


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Nov 22, 2007)

I have done a ton of ghost writing. I avoid it now like the plague unless the bread is great or the person who is asking is someone I have dealt with in the past, and I am very comfortable with their way of working. Even then the bread has to be well worth not being the the real composer.

As Midphase said, you are their bitch but there can be goods things which come out of it. Experience and money. Also while it is too bad you don't deal with the director you also don't have to worry about anything else except doing the music. You have no other responsibilities.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 22, 2007)

Many of yesterdays ghostwriters have become todays major film composers. I would venture to say that in todays market it's probably the only way to make it.

Not all ghost writing gigs are equal. There are professional ghost. These guys I'm afraid are in a pretty bad position. They don't get credit for what they write and they're usually not even allowed to talk about gigs. These are the kind of guys that work for insecure composers. Then there's the "assistant/apprentice" ghost. 

It sounds like you have more of an apprentice type position and instead of complaining about it I'd embrace it. You can always get your own gigs. The changes and the "creative" differences are opportunities to learn.

After 15 years of swearing off ghosting I myself am beginning and hoping to develop further as an apprentice. I've found that in the last three months of doing this I've progressed farther than I have in the last 15 years.

It was explained best by the composer I'm working hard to get in with. He said that it doesn't matter how talented you are, there are specific things to know about film music and film music production. From that I surmised that unless I learned it from somebody who is already hugely successful, chances are that I will never really figure it out on my own. I think he's pretty right about it. The only way to really learn is trial and error and if you have somebody who's already very well establish saying "yeah or nae" to your music you start to evaluate fast what works and what doesn't.

My experience working for another successful composer has completely changed the way I think about music professionally. I'm no longer dreaming about what I think might work and really looking at what does work.


----------



## wonshu (Nov 22, 2007)

Jose,

you nailed it...

I am in a pretty good position.

My name is even going to be included in the credits.

However: I have to fight with my boss about every little thing, but when the actual clients and broadcasting company get here, my cues and ideas are always spot on with what they want whereas we always end up changing what he included/took out...

But you're right, I am in a very fortunate position that can save me years and years of hustling!

Thanks for reminding me.

Best
Hans


----------



## aeneas (Nov 22, 2007)

I do not want to hurt anybody's feelings, but, as I find this practice highly questionable, I would have a few questions about it:

First, what can justify such a huge lie? What prevents the hirer to give credits for additional music?

Second, considering that 
1) 'music that works' means 'music that works for the filmmaker' and
2) the ghostwriter doesn't work with the filmmaker,
then -
What can the ghostwriter learn about 'music that works'? Also, what kind of experience he achieves? Writing film music is writing for the filmmaker, not for another composer. Take the filmmaker out from the equation and everything important about writing filmmusic goes away, IMO.

Third, a couple of moral and legal questions: 
What sort of a composer is someone who signs music composed by another person? And, more important, what sort of a composer is someone who accepts his productions to be signed by a different person?
Besides, from the copyright law pdv, how can that be legal?

Edit:
Wonshu, I have just read your last post: if you receive credits, then why do you call it 'ghostwriting'? What is the 'ghost' part in it?


----------



## wonshu (Nov 22, 2007)

The ghost part is, that I'm not communicating with the person that cuts the check. So to them, I was just the guy at the meeting taking the notes.


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Nov 22, 2007)

aeneas @ Thu Nov 22 said:


> I do not want to hurt anybody's feelings, but, as I find this practice highly questionable, I would have a few questions about it:
> 
> First, what can justify such a huge lie? What prevents the hirer to give credits for additional music?
> 
> ...



There are instances where a composer has been told he needs to do all the work but for what ever reason knows there is too much work to be done in the time frame allowed. He cannot tell the producer he cannot handle the load for risk of losing the job. this is but one instance but there are many others. I am not advocating this behavior btw, just explaining it. sometimes a producer may also request unreasonable time frames for turn-around but wants to be assured the chosen composer is doing the work. The composer of course does not wish to lose the job and hires a ghost anyway.

On the subject of not dealing with a director but learning what works in the movie, the main composer will often send the ghost notes from the the director of what is wrong with a cue. The ghost is then getting it from the horses mouth w/o any actual contact.

I personally will not enter in either one of these deals as composer or ghost. If I do ghost there still has to be writing credit as a bare minimum.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 22, 2007)

I would happily ghost write for a composer I respected if it paid well.

Craig?


----------



## midphase (Nov 22, 2007)

"I would venture to say that in todays market it's probably the only way to make it. "


There you go Jose with the universal statements 

I think there are plenty of successful composers who have never had to ghostwrite once in their life. For example, everything that I heard about how Michael Giacchino got his break does not involve ghosting for someone else.

If Wonshu is getting credit (both on screen and on the cue sheet) then technically it's not ghosting as much as he's being outsourced some of the cues and he's working under the direction of the composer. This arrangement to me would seem a bit better.

Wonshu...the reality of the matter is you can't be too attached to your "creations" as they are a function of:

1. What works for the film
2. What the director wants
3. What the composer wants

Honestly, when you work for yourself you're cutting 3 out, but you still have to deal with 1 and 2. If you're stressing out about the composer asking you to rewrite cues or sending you in wrong directions only to ask you to correct them later, you're not going to be any less stressed when those same directions come from the Director, Producers, or whoever else is allowed to pitch in.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 22, 2007)

midphase @ Thu Nov 22 said:


> "I would venture to say that in todays market it's probably the only way to make it. "
> 
> 
> There you go Jose with the universal statements



And there you go trying to find an exception rather than looking at the broad picture.

I said these days. Not 5 years ago.

Here goes the list of composers who did ghost:

John Williams
John Debney
Jerry Goldsmith
James Newton Howard
Hans Zimmer
Elliot Goldenthal
Harry Gregson-Williams
Rupert Gregson-Williams
Steve Jablonsky
Henry Mancini
Alfred Newman
Chris Young
ect...

The list is too long to worry about naming everybody.

They outweigh the ones who didn't ghost by about 99 to 1. It's all a big chance we take, but I'll roll the die with the "99" category.

The reason why I say it's probably the only way to go these days is because film scoring is much more technical and a lot harder than it was 5 years ago. 5 years ago you might of possibly have gotten away with just traditional music skills. I just don't think that's gonna fly these days or anytime in the near future.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 22, 2007)

HELLOOOOO.... 

this is not ghostwriting as such if he gets screen credit. This is simply being a sub-contracted composer. If he gets cue sheet credit it is DEFINITELY nothing like ghostwriting -- when you are writing with no credit and no cue sheet, that is ghostwriting. 

If his are the ideas that the clients like and the guy for whom he's working is good at getting jobs but not as good at writing, that's more of a business quandary.

The most important skill of any commercially viable composer is getting work. Even though I've written a lot of material and plenty under my own name, I am horrible at seeking out new jobs as are many people.

I just finished writing a theme for a new TV show that another composer is submitting as co-writing and I have no idea how it's going to work out, but that's my problem and, besides, I've worked with him before and he's given me a good cut. If I want to become famous I either have to keep working for other guys and somehow let people know what I'm doing or get more aggressive / better at getting my own gigs. It's not his problem that I had no clue or access on this job without him -- it's mine.

But back to you! It sounds like you are getting, actually, a pretty good deal if you are indeed getting screen credit and especially if you are getting cue sheet credit (though you never said whether or not you are, so that is still an interesting question).


----------



## drasticmeasures (Nov 22, 2007)

FWIW - I'd say Jose is generally correct - ghostwriting isn't the ONLY way to become a successful film composer, but it's definitely the easiest. Not only do you have the obvious benefits (credits that are not yours), but you instantly have the resources that the credited composer has spent time building (the facilities, the players, mixers, master houses, etc).

This is especially true in the current climate, most Prods./Dirs. (indie ones too...) are what we call "credit whores" - it's better to have fetched coffee on The Simpsons Movie, than to have personally written, orchestrated, and conducted a beautiful score for some lowbudg thing no one's heard of.

Most guys coming up and at the top today got their "in" from ghosting...this goes ALOT deeper than the infamous suspects (zimmer, Mike Post, etc).


I personally have not yet used any ghost writers, but I have NO problem using them if I have to - it's not cause I'm not a capable writer, it's because I don't want to find out if I can write 200 minutes of full orchestal score in 3 weeks and not be dead and/or divorced at the end of it.


IMO, to ask for screen credit is a bit much. However, I think it's wrong to sign an NDA that would keep you from putting an additional music credit on your resume.

Just my 2 cents (and that's USD, so it's not worth much).


----------



## wonshu (Nov 22, 2007)

Just to clarify:

I'm getting both screen and cue sheet credit, so yes, I know I'm doing pretty well and moved up rather quickly after 5 years of gettin zilch...

But what I find interesting is, that the composer I'm working for doesn't trust my instincts at all even though they've proven to be well received by the producers. But I guess that's just the bitter I have to take with the sweet. 

And no, the guy isn't even an ass it's quite good to work for him, just sometimes a little tiring fighting for the ideas.

Example: we did a cue using a singer and it was a heavy guitar track that needed a real real delicate female voice on top to give a great contrast and add depth to the scene, he asks me to come up with some lyrics and says: "just do something with love or baby or some shit" and I said: if we're doing that we may as well use different music because the effect will be so watered down by a cliche that it's not even worth going with the kind of track that the producers already agreed on.

Granted, I came up with lyrics that he didn't understand (remember, I'm in Germany and not everyone here is as fluent as me in the English language) but that's no reason to throw it out.

The same fight happened with the melody we were working on.

The thing is: in some of the other styles he has got really excellent instincts...

And I think what happened to myself was that I'm starting to doubt my ideas and he's not getting what he could be getting from me because I'm becoming insecure and that's the real issue why I started the thread. Because like with anything, if you're insecure you'll come up with stuff that's there but doesn't really do anything.

Oh well... sticktoitiveness is what will keep me in business I guess... like it has for the past couple of years.


----------



## aeneas (Nov 23, 2007)

One fundamental question has been silently skipped: WHAT is the thing that would prevent the composer to give credits for the cues he did not compose? What is the thing that would obligate him to sign on cues that he did not compose? What is the thing that would force him into fraud? Also, what problem can rise from NOT cheating? Because I can see plenty of problems that can rise from cheating.

Alright, I can understand that impossible deadlines can make a composer ask for help. But that is besides the point. Impossible deadlines do not justify fraud. The things can simply be done in 'bona fide': the composer simply signs for his cues in the cue sheets, while his helper(s) will sign for their part. I know that this scenario sometimes does occur. Why doesn't it become the rule, rather than the exception?

There is another thing that bothers me quite a lot, and please don't take personal offense on it: How can you all accept, without a blink, an obvious and gross perversion of the very heart of your own profession, which is WRITING MUSIC, isn't it? Authenticity is essential to composing music, or maybe it isn't? IMO, if music is not authentic, if it is composed by Jimmy Worker and signed by Billy Hoax, then something profound becomes corrupted. This is cheating in the lowest sense of the word. What if in twenty years from now, your future ex-wife tells you that you are not the father of any of her four children? If you don't care about your music passing by as written by others, and if you don't mind taking credit for music you have not composed, then how can you call yourself a composer? (NB, there is no particular 'you' that I am addressing.) I refuse to believe that film composers are a band of smugglers. And I really don't care whether or not some big names supposedly did it. A rat is a rat, even when some 'big name' rats happen to precede him. The problem with the rat race is that, even if you win, you are still a rat. Also, the existence of theft does not justify stealing.

Seriously guys, it is simple, and basic: don't take credit for what is not yours, and don't let sharks, cheaters, and frauds, to take credit for your own work.

I hope no one will take personal offense, for I did not meant to offend anyone personally, but just to bash what I see as an extremely degrading practice.

End of rant.


----------



## wonshu (Nov 23, 2007)

aeneas @ Fri Nov 23 said:


> What if in twenty years from now, your future ex-wife tells you that you are not the father of any of her four children? If you don't care about your music passing by as written by others, and if you don't mind taking credit for music you have not composed, then how can you call yourself a composer?



I'm sorry aeneas (...  ) but this is utter nonsense.

My music (or any music for that matter, while being very enjoyable and deeply touching) is not as important to me as a another human being. Period. So comparing a "work" that will not have any profound consequence on the world as a whole to a human being is well... just stupid.

As for the reason for working this way: you're always stronger and can take on a higher workload if you're not alone. So I think it's more than smart to work in teams it has become essential.

Kudos to anyone who is going the road alone and all the way: make sure you're well connected. For me personally this is the best way to advance faster than I could while being alone. Plus I'm still doing my independent work as well so I'm basically building 2 careers. That can never be wrong. But to each their own.

This thread was supposed to be more about the technicalities and the specific challenges that come up while working for another composer and wasn't supposed to turn into a political discussion about whether doing so is "right" or "wrong" in respect to whatever categories one might think in.


----------



## aeneas (Nov 23, 2007)

Wonshu, instead of calling me stupid, you could answer that basic question: what is the thing that would prevent a composer to sign ONLY on his part of work and NOT to sign on the cues he did not compose? I never said one word against teams, in fact I strongly believe that this is the way things should be done in this field. Film is a collaborative work, right? Each one receives credits, even the truck drivers, so why not the additional composers too?


----------



## wonshu (Nov 23, 2007)

I stand by my statement that comparing a musical work to a human being is stupid. I'm not calling you stupid, but that argument is.

As for the question, I don't know and it doesn't apply to my case. I don't think I would have taken on the work had I not worked out an agreement with the composer that I'm going to be included in everything as a full composer.

Why would someone who agrees to the terms you brought into play agree to them? I don't know. Money? Motivation to work in the industry of his/her dreams? It's not my (our your!) call to judge that.

If you're talking on a more global scale then I think the issue that will have to come up and that will take this thread even further from what it was supposed to be is that composers will have to really stick together, start a union and demand different work conditions. A union could have both positive and negative effects.

Eventually it comes down to this: what pays the next month, what's the best long term decision and do I like what I'm doing. But everyone has to answer these questions for themselves.

My friend who used to be an assistant at the on-this-forum-oh-so-hated big music production complex is doing quite well and I wish I had gone down the same path after college as he did. I don't regret my path either, I could just be in a much better position today and could have saved a lot of trial-and-error. Do I fully regret? Not at all because I had a much easier life in other respects and I live in a much better city than LA. Anyway, I'm getting sidetracked... sorry....


----------



## Daryl (Nov 23, 2007)

There are many issues involved with so-called ghost writing, an the lines are not as clear cut as some here would like to think. One of the biggest misunderstandings is about orchestrators. There are many composers, some very familiar names, who use orchestrators as ghost writers and don't even consider them as such. There would certainly be no screen credit as a writer, and they would be very unlikely to get a mention on a cue sheet. Often there will be blanks to fill in. I remember being given a section with one note tied for 12 bars, with the instruction "make it big, dear boy". Is this writing? Of course it is. However, this was when I was working myself into the profession. I used my clients to get experience, and yes, they did sign themselves as writers of some cues that I either had a big hand in, or wrote myself, but I gained experience without having to share the risks with the composer.

These days I will work as a ghost writer, providing that I get onto the cue sheet. I don't care about screen credits. However, even that is a stumbling block for many composers. There is always an excuse. I don't care. I've paid my dues, so I can afford to stick my neck out.

Of course this means that I do hardly any ghost writing. In fact I was asked to work on a German TV series only last month, and the composer was very keen. That is until my agent told him that I would have to be on the cue sheet. It then went very quiet. :lol: 

D


----------



## Markus S (Nov 23, 2007)

wonshu @ Fri Nov 23 said:


> aeneas @ Fri Nov 23 said:
> 
> 
> > This thread was supposed to be more about the technicalities and the specific challenges that come up while working for another composer and wasn't supposed to turn into a political discussion about whether doing so is "right" or "wrong" in respect to whatever categories one might think in.



Hi Wonshu,

Congratulations -- glad to read you are doing fine in your career!

I will try to answer the technical questions from my personal point of view :

As you are working in the first place for the composer and not for the producer/filmmaker, I truely think you should simply do as you are told. *Your* client is not the producer, it is the composer. So I don't think it is a good idea to try to get "around" the composers to reach the client directly with your own ideas. Even, if the client would like your ideas better. It is unfortunatly not the time and the place to show your own creativity and personality, but your ability to fusion into the style and the working habits of another composer.

Just try to really understand what he is looking for. Maybe ask him a few more questions. When something doesn't seem coherent, you should explain as clearly as possible, why you are confused, why you don't understand.

You could also show him the film with temptracks you have choosen by your own (not necessarily music of yours). This goes a long way, and may be better than explaining things in words.

Listen to his work on this film and others and try to really get inside of it. Then try to imitate him, in a way you simply couldn't tell anymore who wrote what cue (this is probably impossible, but it is the general direction to take).

You should also know (I am not sure how experienced you are, so sorry if this is obvious), that these problems are not specifically related to your composer, but will also often be encountered, by dealing directly with clients. And they have to be resolved in the same way.

With all this said, I feel you and I perfectly understand how frustrating it can be. I think it is really great you are working on an independant career also, where you can find more artistic satisfaction.


Hope this helps a bit dealing with the situation!

Good luck,
Markus.


----------



## wonshu (Nov 23, 2007)

Markus S @ Fri Nov 23 said:


> You could also show him the film with temptracks you have choosen by your own (not necessarily music of yours). This goes a long way, and may be better than explaining things in words.



Here I think you touched the essence of what we're talking about! And this is a very good point. The next episodes or films I'm just going to temp with music myself and then show him that. I mean he tries to temp as well, but it's always very chaotic and there are no decisions being made only options... and I hate options. 

Thanks for the input Markus and great portfolio btw!


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Nov 23, 2007)

aeneas @ Fri Nov 23 said:


> Wonshu, instead of calling me stupid, you could answer that basic question: what is the thing that would prevent a composer to sign ONLY on his part of work and NOT to sign on the cues he did not compose? I never said one word against teams, in fact I strongly believe that this is the way things should be done in this field. Film is a collaborative work, right? Each one receives credits, even the truck drivers, so why not the additional composers too?



I will try to answer this. On all the shows i have done I have offerd to do the cue sheets because I want them to be done correctly. Because the company has to have someone in position to hand these sheets to the bigger company the sheets have to be filed and looked at by an offical assistant. Once the assistant sees another name on the cue sheets the hired composer could get screwed.

Let me propose a scenerio.
A young composer with a young family is having trouble meeting his bills. He has 2 choices, get a day job paying 7 dollars an hour and possible commissions or tips or he can make $750-1000 a day ghost writing on a TV show. It would be difficult to go to his wife and say I just turned down something that was going to pay us 5K this week. 

Again I am not advocating working for someone who gives no credit. I did it once and have never worked for that person again, but life circumstances can provide different perspectives of what is important.


----------



## lux (Nov 23, 2007)

I would love to ghost, no matter how. Hard perhaps to believe for others, but thats it.


----------



## drasticmeasures (Nov 23, 2007)

BTW, I'd like to ad that a ghoster should NEVER give up 100% of the writers credit on the cue sheets.
Whether it's 50% (very commmon), or 100% is a matter of what your comfortable excepting. BUT NEVER give up 100% of the cue sheet credit.

Getting SCREEN credit is what will almost never happen. period.

Also, Wanshu,

I have to agree 100% with Marcus on this one.....your not writing for you, your writing for the composer. I know it can be frustrating (been there) but that's the reality. 

When people write for Elfman, Zimmer, etc - they have to write in the style that's appropriate for the composer.

When you get your own film/gig, etc, you'll call the shots.


----------



## Mike Greene (Nov 23, 2007)

aeneas @ Fri Nov 23 said:


> . . .
> Seriously guys, it is simple, and basic: don't take credit for what is not yours, and don't let sharks, cheaters, and frauds, to take credit for your own work.
> 
> I hope no one will take personal offense, for I did not meant to offend anyone personally, but just to bash what I see as an extremely degrading practice.


If we were talking regular music (records, concert, etc) I would agree with you. But TV and film composing is really more of a business than an art. 

Everybody would like to believe Bruce Springsteen really wrote all his songs. That's art. But nobody, outside of our tiny little world, cares who wrote what cue in some film.

I hire ghost writers on a pretty regular basis. And I rarely give cue sheet credit, partly for the reasons Craig gave.

But also because cue sheet credit is another way of getting paid off these gigs. Which is cool for the ghostwriter and fine with me . . . but if I know he's getting a bunch of money on the back end, I'm going to pay less on the front end. It's basic Business 101. But most ghostwriters don't have piles of money in the bank, so they want more money up front.

Another complication is that I pay by the hour, no matter whether a cue gets used or not, or whether a cue is even destined for something that might have a cue sheet at all. And I reject (but still pay for) over half the cues ghostwriters do for me. I just consider it a cost of doing business (I can't emphasize enough that what I do is a business, not art.)

So to keep life simple, I don't give cue sheet credit. Anyone who works for me knows the deal going in. There's no arm twisting. It's a simple business decision on both sides.

With that said, I will add that I (and I believe most composers) do indeed write all the _main_ themes myself. That's an ego thing, because someone may actually remember some main theme and I want to honestly be able to say I wrote it.

And don't worry, I take no personal offense at opinions that ghostwriting is unethical. I'd much rather you spoke your opinions than keep quiet for fear of stepping on toesò‰   gž¹


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 24, 2007)

Like most things in life ghostwriting falls in a grey moral area. It sustains people financially and gives them on the job training and helps busy c

I frankly dislike Mike's whore pimp/ language because those words have moral implications in our society. Also, the "it is a business" line, while certainly very true disregards the fact that we compose music because we love doing that, which is why we do it as most of us could probably make more money doing something else with a similar amount of effort. In my mind, you are only a whore if you do not like doing it and yet do it for the money. Whores do not enjoy the paid for sex.

I think it is more analogous to the Edison lab. Thomas Edison is famous as the "inventor" of many things that he held the patent on that were largely invented by people he hired at his lab. So was he immoral, illegal, or indecent?, One thing is certain, it is unlikely those things would have come into being when they did had it not been for Edison's business acumen and managerial skills.

Ghostwriters provide a service to composers who need them and until there is a Composer's Union, which I frankly do not think is likely, it will always be about receiving what you can negotiate for, as is true for 85% of the jobs in the real world.

The film/TV business is a commercial world and is primarily about commerce, not art, and anyone who does not understand and accept that fact should not be in it. The fact that we can be good craftsman and occasionally at our best turn out music that not only is functional for the film but is artistic in the eyes of many is a plus.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 24, 2007)

"But please, don't advocate it to newcomers who want to build an untainted career in the noble profession of writing music"

I'm not advocating it to anyone, aeneas, but I'm available anytime to do it for one reason: I like it and I like working. Okay, that's two reasons.

If your composing career is beyond that, by all means turn it down. But for me and a lot of other people it's a good thing. I've never felt taken advantage of, because the music that gets farmed out is rarely music that you could use for anything else anyway. (That's not always true, but it has been in my experience.)

Actually, I can think of one exception, but the composer of record let me keep the cue for myself anyway. He played over what I gave him, so my version is essentially a different piece.

The only time I object to ghostwriting is when you get a hummer who's only a salesman and doesn't write anything himself.


----------



## jeffc (Nov 24, 2007)

I figured I'd chime in as well. I'm kind of shocked at the negative opinions of ghostwriting. I wonder if some of the people with 'pie in the sky utopian' view of writing music actually do it for a living, or if it's just an opinion that's easy to make when you have $$ coming in from another job.

I've ghosted for people and never got screen credit (come on, they'd laugh you out the door) or cue sheet on some. That's what ghost writing is. In return, I got to work on projects that I'd never get to work on on my own. I also got paid decent $. For me it was a win-win. Look, the day you decide to seriously be a composer for living - I mean give up the day job and throw caution to the wind - you need to find a way to pay the rent. And in that scenario, I'd rather make money writing music (even if it's only for money) than work a crap day job because I feel that ghost writing is exploiting me. 

This idea that people use ghost writers because they are insecure is just ridiculous. Bottom line is it's just a time issue. If there were no deadlines, there'd be no ghostwriting. But the reality is there are deadlines, and the amount of work involved on a film or tv show is daunting. Especially if there are live players involved. To prepare 35 cues for players, I'm talking just the time of opening a cue printing out the part, is hours upon hours. And there are usually only so many hours physically available before the deadline. 

Bottom line for me was, any experience I got on 'real' films and tv shows was invaluable experience PLUS you get paid for it. How is that bad, in the big picture? It's a win win. Going to scoring sessions, writing little cues, making mistakes on someone else's name is real life experience that just can't be gained by taking the moral high road and writing nice music in your room. Seeing how the business really works on someone else's watch gets you ready so if you happen to catch a break, you're ready for it.

Look at resident doctors in hospitals. They work their ass off for not nearly the $$ they should get. But it's all just a step in the journey, and if they look at the bigger picture, it makes sense.

If you want to ghostwrite forever, then I agree with all the naysayers, but if you want to learn, get experience, and get paid for it, how is it that it's bad agian?


----------



## vlado hudec (Nov 24, 2007)

jeffc @ Sat Nov 24 said:


> I'd rather make money writing music (even if it's only for money) than work a crap day job...



my words..writing music is better like anything else for me. If you are a novice in this field every paid gig is good. If you will have a lot of credits and contacts,you can pick and choose.


----------



## bryla (Nov 24, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Nov 24 said:


> The only time I object to ghostwriting is when you get a hummer who's only a salesman and doesn't write anything himself.



So you'ld turn down Alf Clausen?


----------



## aeneas (Nov 24, 2007)

jeffc @ Sat 24 Nov said:


> This idea that people use ghost writers because they are insecure is just ridiculous. Bottom line is it's just a time issue. If there were no deadlines, there'd be no ghostwriting. But the reality is there are deadlines, and the amount of work involved on a film or tv show is daunting.


I really can't see how ghostwriting can be a 'time' issue. But if that is your opinion, then please tell me IN WHICH WAY the deadlines and the amount of work would PREVENT the hirer composer to SPLIT the credits and the money FAIRLY, in the same way he splits the work. HOW deadlines can prevent him to sign ONLY on his own part?

I have no problem whatsoever with team work, with (say) 20 composers working on a film in order to deliver an 80 minutes score in 4 days. My problem comes into being when 1 of them receives credits and royalties for music he DID NOT compose, while the other 19 do not receive credit and royalties for music they DID compose. That is precisely what I call indecent, immoral, and illegal. So, IMO, what would be truly ridiculous (if it wasn't utterly scary) is that almost everybody here seem to support a degrading, indecent, immoral, and illegal practice, only for the sake of dirty money. This is the exact type of 'practical' mentality that would support the degrading, indecent, immoral, and illegal practice of prostitution. Midphase was right about that analogy.

Also, I think midphase has nailed pretty well yet another important aspect - what PREVENTS a composer to give due credits to his helpers is primarily: a feeling of professional insecurity, and a visceral desire to cheat, to project the illusion that he is better than he actually is. Plus vanity, plus greed, plus lack of morality, I would add. 

So, FWIW, here is where I stand: I am always up for team work, but I won't support a degrading practice, and I won't let anyone (and least of all an insecure, vain, and greedy cheater) to take credit for my music. There are ways of making GOOD DECENT money in this business, you really don't need to degrade yourself, unless, of course, you chose to. 

It always surprises me to see new ways in which the incentive of gaining undeserved money blinds otherwise good intelligent people. (did I really say that? o )


----------



## wonshu (Nov 24, 2007)

bryla @ Sat Nov 24 said:


> So you'ld turn down Alf Clausen?



Oh no... don't ruin him for me...


----------



## wonshu (Nov 24, 2007)

aeneas @ Sat Nov 24 said:


> Also, I think midphase has nailed pretty well yet another important aspect - what PREVENTS a composer to give due credits to his helpers is primarily: a feeling of professional insecurity, and a visceral desire to cheat, to project the illusion that he is better than he actually is. Plus vanity, plus greed, plus lack of morality, I would add.



Mike's story from 10 years ago comes to mind...


----------



## aeneas (Nov 24, 2007)

wonshu @ Sat 24 Nov said:


> aeneas @ Sat Nov 24 said:
> 
> 
> > Also, I think midphase has nailed pretty well yet another important aspect - what PREVENTS a composer to give due credits to his helpers is primarily: a feeling of professional insecurity, and a visceral desire to cheat, to project the illusion that he is better than he actually is. Plus vanity, plus greed, plus lack of morality, I would add.
> ...


AFAICS, Mike did not lose the second job. One cannot lose something that one never had. If the director thought that Mike was the right composer for the second job, then I think nothing would have prevented him/her to hire MIKE. So I am pretty sure that that second job was not for Mike. Mike cannot be the right composer for ANY project. Nobody is. Consequently, Mike is not suppose to get ALL the projects, right?  

Point is: Mike's honesty was the normal behavior. It is always best to be open and helpful. It helped me a lot in my life. Even if Mike was dishonest, that would have not assured that second job for him. There is no reason to believe that the director wouldn't have hired someone else anyway. 

It is always better to treat people fairly rather than to screw them. You can never go wrong with the former. As for the latter, it's up to you... What you might gain by screwing people may turn to be a bitter 'gain', in the end... Screwing people is ultimately screwing oneself. 

Which brings me back to the topic:
The essence of ghostwriting is: *refusing to give due credits*. It is to deprive people of their legal and moral rights. Which is precisely to screw people. It really is low and gross.

It's simple: give the credits that are due. Period. It is not only simple, it is also easy. And normal.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 24, 2007)

[quote:736444f9a8="bryla @ Sat Nov 24, 2007 12:43 pm"][quote:736444f9a8="Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:30 pm"]
The onlyòã   g·ã   g·ã   g·ã   g·ã   g·ã   g·ã   g·ã   g·	ã   g·
ã   g·ã   g·ã   g· ã   g·ã   g·ã   g·ã   g·ã   g·ã   g·ã   g·ã   g·ã   g·ã   g·ã   g·ã   g·ã   g·ã   g·ã   g·ã   g·ã   g·ã   g·ã   g· ã   g·!ã   g·"ã   g·#ã   g·$ã   g·%ã   g·&ã   g·


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 24, 2007)

bryla @ Sat Nov 24 said:


> Is it Danny Elfman then?
> 
> I spoke to a composer about one of these Simpsons composer, who she said she knew well, and that he was a hummer



I would say that Danny started out as a talented hummer but by now is much more knowledgeable.


----------



## midphase (Nov 24, 2007)

"Also, there is the royalty issue. Isn't it illegal in America to receive writer shares for something one did not write? Also, isn't it illegal to convince someone (with money and/or other incentives) to give up his legal rights? That must have a nasty name in juridical terms, I believe. And I think it can easily lead to some very uncomfortable legal consequences."

It's not illegal here in the USA and it goes by the nasty name of "buy-out"


"I'd rather be a moderately paid and trustworthy composer, rather than being a richer composer who got richer by receiving other people's money (as undeserved royalties and otherwise). I can have but contempt for such a 'rich' individual, and if it's true that there's plenty of individuals like that in Tinseltown (as some seem to suggest), well, in no way that can be a reason for me to break the law for the sake of some more (dirty) money, or for the sake of a fake 'uniqueness'. I very much prefer clean money and my true uniqueness, I don't want to feel like a drug dealer."


I respect your point of view and the basis of your personal beliefs are something that I share. Nonetheless...this is a business and the guys who are the best at playing the game are usually the ones driving the Lambos. Out profession is unfortunately unregulated and non-unionized which means anyone can submit themselves to whatever unfair treatment they want to submit to. And for the record....I don't think there are many ghost writers who are pulling $700-1000/day unless they're amazingly fast at what they do. $700-1000/week is probably more like it.

I don't want to ghost and I discourage others from doing it...however everyone here must make decisions for themselves based on their own personal beliefs and financial status. I'm at a place in my life where (thankfully) it's not really about the money as much as it's about moving my career forward, so for me if I don't get credit and the client doesn't know who I am, it's moot. But others are in different places in their lives and they might be after fast money and experience which ghosting would give them.


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Nov 24, 2007)

just for info purposes

250-350 a minute

3-4 minutes a day for TV. Some cable shows ghosting will pay less (sometimes less for main composer), some more.
Network or syndication will generally pay more.


----------



## lux (Nov 24, 2007)

While in info-mode, how one gets into ghosting? of course just generally speaking


----------



## wonshu (Nov 24, 2007)

lux @ Sun Nov 25 said:


> While in info-mode, how one gets into ghosting? of course just generally speaking



I was hustling and hustling until finally I found somebody who was giving me a shot at it.

Call people, have your chops together (which you have judging from your demo), be prepared, be willing to work 24/7 anytime, don't complain to your boss... you know.. the usual.

That's why I was ranting a little bit here, although it turned out to become a different discussion altogether.


----------



## aeneas (Nov 24, 2007)

lux @ Sat 24 Nov said:


> Ok got a few question for you, of course you can reply only if you like
> 
> 1) did u ever work as a business individual for at least 1 year in your life, whatever business. Did u conduct an own activity, invest your own money?
> 2) whats your real age?
> ...


Nice try! :wink: Unfortunately, diverting the discussion from theoretical topics to personal questions is not advisable on forums. Thanks for you interest in my personal life though!  

Besides, none of the answers that I could provide would shed any light on the topic we are discussing here. Also, the value of truth of what is written should never be influenced by the reader's personal opinion about the writer. It is better to try to judge things impartially, as objectively as possible. For some unknown purposes (hmmm...) you are trying to become more subjective about my humble person. This is not a good way to judge what you read. A valid statement is a valid statement, regardless the person who happens to write it. If you think that my points are incorrect, then some personal info on me won't turn them into correct ones, right?

For example, my main point: 
*It is not correct/moral to present as your own a musical piece that was composed by another person.*
Now, tell me, in which way ANY of the answers to your personal questions would change anything regarding the value of truth of that statement? I'd say: in absolutely no way. So, what is the point of asking personal questions, if they won't change anything to the perceived value of truth of my points?



> Personally i would just consider the chance of being a bit more cautious when shooting out words like "dirty money" and such.


Right, prudence is the mother of all virtues, and Zappa is the mother of inventions. (or was it: Necessity?... :roll: ) 
Seriously, that was a good advice, I appreciate it. I have exaggerated with some adjectives, that's true.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 24, 2007)

"Now, tell me, in which way ANY of the answers to your personal questions would change anything regarding the value of truth of that statement?"

Sure it would! Don't you think the opinion of an experienced professional carries more weight than the opinion of some punk flapping his lips?


----------



## wonshu (Nov 24, 2007)

wow.... this thread is going further and faster downhill than I could have ever expected.

Hmm... human nature I guess.


----------



## aeneas (Nov 24, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat 24 Nov said:


> "Now, tell me, in which way ANY of the answers to your personal questions would change anything regarding the value of truth of that statement?"
> 
> Sure it would! Don't you think the opinion of an experienced professional carries more weight than the opinion of some punk flapping his lips?


No, it would make no difference to me whether Hamlet and King Lear have been written by a guy named Shakespeare or by an anonymous with the same name.  

Now seriously, I truly believe that the value of truth of a statement has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the person who said it. For example, someone (unknown) says: "Cheating people is bad." Without knowing who said it, you will agree, or not, with the statement itself. What difference would make to you if that was said by the last bum or by the first lady? Would you embrace it in the latter case, and reject it in the former?


----------



## Mike Greene (Nov 24, 2007)

But you're not making statements of "truth." You're giving "opinions," which is something where people do indeed want to know the credentials of the person putting himself in the position of moral authority.

In fact, one statement of "fact" you gave was that ghosting is illegal in the U.S. It is not. Your only "fact" is wrong.

The other statements you make have to do with "opinion." It is your "opinion" that ghostwriters are being cheated. It is your "opinion" that it is immoral.

Those are fine opinions to have. But they're not "truth" in that everyone's opinions will be taken with equal seriousness.


----------



## aeneas (Nov 24, 2007)

Mike Greene @ Sat 24 Nov said:


> But you're not making statements of "truth." You're giving "opinions," which is something where people do indeed want to know the credentials of the person putting himself in the position of moral authority.
> 
> In fact, one staement of "fact" you gave was that ghosting is illegal in the U.S. It is not.
> 
> The other statements you make have to do with morality, which is "opinion." Not "truth" as you put it.


Right, I should have said 'perceived truth'. So, to me, the perceived truth of an opinion has nothing to do with the moral authority of the person who emits it. That is a better way to put it.

Indeed, if for example I hear on the radio a statement that I find (or not) convincing, it would make no difference to me whether the interviewed was the last bum or the Dalai Lama. I would agree (or disagree) with it regardless.


----------



## Mike Greene (Nov 24, 2007)

aeneas @ Sat Nov 24 said:


> Right, I should have said 'perceived truth'. So, to me, the perceived truth of an opinion has nothing to do with the moral authority of the person who emits it. That is a better way to put it.


No, "perceived truth" is wrong too. That's way off.

"Opinion" is the correct word.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 24, 2007)

"wow.... this thread is going further and faster downhill than I could have ever expected"

Gee thanks Wonshu. I didn't think I was dragging it downhill.


----------



## aeneas (Nov 24, 2007)

Mike Greene @ Sat 24 Nov said:


> aeneas @ Sat Nov 24 said:
> 
> 
> > Right, I should have said 'perceived truth'. So, to me, the perceived truth of an opinion has nothing to do with the moral authority of the person who emits it. That is a better way to put it.
> ...


Well, that is only an opinion too. Not the truth.  

But I agree, in principle. What I meant is that we do assign various values of truth to the opinions we hear/read - that is the 'perceived truth' I was talking about. My point was that the value of truth that I perceive (subjectively) about what I read/hear has nothing to do the person who happens to write/say it at some moment. The credibility of the person is irrelevant for the value of true that I assign to a statement. I only judge the statement itself, regardless the person.

But let us leave semantics and come back to the topic: What do you mean by saying that ghostwriting is legal in the US? Are you saying that in the US of A it is possible to pay someone to compose a piece on the explicit purpose that it will be you the one who will sign it? And then to make some sort of an legal act that will say that the one who composed it is in fact you, and not him? Or something similar? I would be very much interested to see something like that in a written form, can you provide a link to such a legal text?


----------



## Scott Rogers (Nov 24, 2007)

..........


----------



## Brian Ralston (Nov 24, 2007)

Midphase and I are pretty much on the same page in regards to Ghostwriting. So...I don't want to retread the thoughts he posted. But, there are some things In have learned in the last few years and one thing that was told to me by a highly respected composer that initially influenced me greatly. Most of this is more of an opinion on breaking in as a composer and not specifically on ghostwriting, BUT, all of it has lead me to my opinion on ghosting...so...

1) Basil Poledouris once told me you have to break into the "business of tomorrow" and not the "business of today." Today's working directors and producers already have established composer relationships that they go back to over and over. You have to find the up-n-coming directors and producers of tomorrow and work with them now before they make it in Hollywood. When they eventually get their first studio gig...they will usually go back to the people they know and trust when they were struggling themselves.

2) Everyone's path is different. So...don't think you should do what the guy next to you is doing and will get the same result. 

3) Music Composer (as on-screen credited on a film or show) is a department head job. The only way you will get bigger and better department head jobs (on multi-million dollar films) is to have a proven track record AS A DEPARTMENT HEAD on previous successful films. Being the assistant, ghost writer, orchestrator, musician on studio films do not count as DEPARTMENT HEAD and will not help a studio see you as less of a risk in the composer job. I have learned this from about 4 different studio level producers. Maybe this is a new thing...but that is all I have been hearing for the last 4-5 years and still hear it from them. 

4) If you are not the On-Screen credited guy...it really will not count to a producer hiring you. 

5) A word of mouth recommendation is a more powerful influence to getting a gig than anything else. If you get a strong recommendation from someone they respect...they will hire you 9/10 times. 

6) It is a business of relationships and those relationships take years to establish. Trust takes a long time to build and a short time to fall.

7) Be a good listener. Be a good communicator. 

8 ) It helps a lot to be "production friendly". Meaning...don't be myopic to the music dept. issues only. Learn about every other step of the process in making a film. Heck...produce your own film sometime and learn and live about all the other issues in shooting and budgeting for a film. It will help you better communicate with a director as the composer and will make you a better composer in the long run. You will understand where everyone has just come from on a shoot and why things are the way they are in post (which is usually the only thing composers care about). 

9) A successful composer in Hollywood is not just there because they are good at composing music. Most all of them are great business people as well. They know how to market themselves. They know how to work a room at a meeting or at a social event. And...they know how to make a director feel like their film is the best film of the year. I know plenty of great composers...the ones who do not make it usually fail due to issues completely unrelated to being a composer. The ones who have made it to various degrees were not always the best composers...but were great at the other things. 

10) Refer back to #1. 

Learning these things over the last few years while working and following my own path...it has lead me to conclude that ghosting for someone else is not the way for me. Maybe it is for someone else. It can be good money and you at least are making $ while writing music. But, I woud much rather spend all of my time on building my own reputation as a composer, rather than someone elses reputation and music cue history.


----------



## midphase (Nov 24, 2007)

"What do you mean by saying that ghostwriting is legal in the US? Are you saying that in the US of A it is possible to pay someone to compose a piece on the explicit purpose that it will be you the one who will sign it? And then to make some sort of an legal act that will say that the one who composed it is in fact you, and not him? Or something similar? I would be very much interested to see something like that in a written form, can you provide a link to such a legal text?"

Just do a Google search for buyout and you'll find something.

In essence what USA Copyright law allows regarding buy-out is that the composer is to all intents and purposes an employee of the production company and any creative contributions automatically become the property of the production company. As such, the Copyright is files under the name of the production company as the author and not the composer.

I swear it's 100% legal and it's done all the time. The very project I'm working on right now is a buy-out for Warner Bros. I still get credit and my writer's share, but as far as copyright is concerned, the author is WB.


----------



## wonshu (Nov 25, 2007)

Scott and Brian,

thanks those are good points!

And Scott: you're right, this has been the second episode of a long running crime show I've been doing for the composer but it looks like he wants to use me again next year so I can't have done everything wrong.

@Nick: I wasn't really talking about you taking it further away, you've been helpful but I guess (hope!) you know that!

Best
Hans


----------



## Daryl (Nov 25, 2007)

midphase @ Sun Nov 25 said:


> I swear it's 100% legal and it's done all the time. The very project I'm working on right now is a buy-out for Warner Bros. I still get credit and my writer's share, but as far as copyright is concerned, the author is WB.


But isn't that the whole point? You get your Writer's share. AFAIK a ghost doesn't get a Writer's share.

D


----------



## lux (Nov 25, 2007)

aeneas @ Sat Nov 24 said:


> Nice try! :wink: Unfortunately, diverting the discussion from theoretical topics to personal questions is not advisable on forums. Thanks for you interest in my personal life though!



Despite the fact you will barely believe it my questions werent intended at some opinion killing based on personal facts. It is just that hearing your overall tone you looked to me like someone who never approached a professional work, as it is intended today. Thats not necessarely a fault, but it can condition some opinions and make you see things from a perspective that perhaps does not have enough confirmations into reality. No offense intended.

About the topic, probably all matters about having a common view of what actually show business is (probably same that has been in the past). I have a personal vision, not based on a lot of facts but on what i observed here and there.

Today, on screen working, most of times a composer is at the same time an artist and a music company ceo. This is due to several factors, and probably the most important one is that in the show business in the very recent times lot of "managers" replaced figures that were more related to music understandement in the same positions. It means that actually most of the "wow" effect related to artistical reasons when approaching some media companies is dead. Most of times managers are "time based" then have a pretty short term view, they're afraid of their career, not indulged at all to risk and look for a simple word: affordability. You need to be affordable, point. All artistical matters are basically secundary.

Thats why lot of composer joined together and start up some "studios" or such. For the simple reason that showing out a business scheme gives more trust to potential customers, expecially if they attain to the business world. Another reason is of course having more hands and brains able to work at the same time on complex things.

Now, with this scheme in mind, i think all the discussion of "whats mine" and "whats credited" and such looses a bit of sense. Because most of times youre giving out what someone else wants, to keep him safe. So i cant see a real reason for call the police if you dont get credited. Anothe reason is that with the new business scheme having a full team and having a single output face is pretty common. It happens everyday in an huge lot of jobs. I doubt you'll never have notice of who programmed a certain website or a certain software, if he belongs to some company. You'll just know the company logo.

Now, of course you have a sort out. You can be yourself and try approaching to the media world with your only strenght. But i think not many ears are out there to listen your efforts. And more time it passes the less ears.

I really hope that something in the future will break this actual scheme, but not sure. Somehow i feel the nostalgy of some approximation, to those weird guys called "producers" and "artistic producers", of their great successes and of their big and funny mistakes. Probably there was just more colour out there.

Just thoughts, of course, and i'm very likely to be wrong. Usually.

Luca


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 25, 2007)

The bottom line is this:

1. There are more talented people who want to make a living composing music for films than there are jobs they can get on their own.

2. The composers in demand for this have frequently more work than they can handle

3. Being very good business people is part of how they got to that place so they are going to strike the best deal they can. And since it is a buyer's market that means the ghostwriter is not likely to strike a very advantageous deal.

A perfect example is Mike Post. A lot of composers got a start ghostwriting for him without screen credit. He is a VERY tough businessman and I guarantee you he did not spend nights awake pondering over the morality of what he was doing. However, eventually if he was too busy he would suggest to the producers he worked with that they give one of his ghostwriters like Danny Lux a shot to do the score (he would still write the theme) and because it was Mike guaranteeing that the guy could do it, they did. While their relationship did not end on a happy note, Danny is doing really well.

So once again this is IMHO a morally gray area and everyone makes their own choices.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Nov 25, 2007)

Agreed Jay, on all points.

To me, its about getting work and staying busy. I can elect to take a job or not take it depending on the circumstances I find myself in at that moment. If I'm working elsewhere and am getting paid, fine, I'll pass. Otherwise I'd rather work as a ghost and get paid than not working - simple survival instinct really but that's just me.

Working as an orchestrator is probably a bit more rewarding but in the end, you're still not the composer, even if you've written 80% of the cue. Also, in a way, writing for production music libraries is a bit like ghosting - if the music gets placed, your name isn't on there - but - you still got paid for it.

It more fun to get the credit and glory for your own work. Nothing wrong with that. But its also comforting that you were able to keep the lights on for another month or get that piece of gear you've been wanting - whether it be from working on a credited project, ghosting or orchestrating, really its about getting the work and staying in the game. But again, that's just me.


----------



## wonshu (Nov 25, 2007)

Frederick Russ @ Sun Nov 25 said:


> But again, that's just me.



I'm sorry, but it seems you're having a split personality because that is certainly me!!!!

.... and my wife is also Brian!


----------



## midphase (Nov 25, 2007)

"But isn't that the whole point? You get your Writer's share. AFAIK a ghost doesn't get a Writer's share."

But I'm not ghosting. He was asking if it was legal, and I was explaining that it is.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 25, 2007)

Speaking of Mike Post back in the day when he did have a lot of guys working for him I was told by one of his "ghost" that he (the ghost) always got the writer's share for any cue he wrote. That was part of the standard Mike Post deal. This provided such good opportunities that even I got some good gigs in a round about way through one of his ghost who became a big tv composer.

I think anybody not seriously looking at working for other composers as a means to stay busy, learn and move forward in this business are being quite naive.

Jay has many excellent points. As far as I can tell there's a bit of a weeding out processes. I've spoken to many, many people about this and most of them have said that usually at the end of the day it's "the last man standing" that makes it. After a few years of grueling hours and on call service what ever ghost are left get thrown a bone.

For me I just feel that in todays market nobody trust the newbie. You're a newbie until you get a hit or at least somebody who is a hit recommends you for something.

I'm speaking from experience of not considering ghosting for "artistic" reasons and not really considering the business of it all. Then seeing people who have ghosted and apprentice move into huge careers in TV and film.

But I have seen the opposite too. And I've isolated the ghost who never gets known. These are the guys that either "a" never get credit or "b" get frustrated and leave town.

There's also what Daryl mentions the orchestrator who ghost. About the best tune in the movie Incredibles was the ending big band arrangement of the theme. I was told by a composer who worked with Giacchino during that time that the arrangement was done by the orchestrator Jack Hayes. I looked up Jack and he's had a long illustrious career doing arranging and orchestrating for tons of hit films. He's not a name on the marquis but he's well know to people that really matter.

There are so many ways to be creative in this business that it's a shame that we all don't explore every option. Not all of us are going to be a "name" composer. But I bet all of us could make a decent living supporting "name" composers. Then maybe someday we get our shot and move into gigs of our own. Or some may just be happy behind the scenes.

To look down on any available income and opportunity to do music and consider that it's "immoral" is ridiculous imo. I guess we could always hold on to our morals and get day jobs. But I'd rather be busy working for somebody else striving to improve my career and skills. It certainly isn't going to stop me from hustling my own gigs.

I don't think the issue is as black and white as some would like to believe. There's a whole lot of gray. I don't even think a "buyout" is that bad if it puts food on the table and gets the rent paid. Then one day maybe you're too busy and you just say no to it. I think we have to think a lot more analytically then just yeah or nea on this issue. There's many shades and you can't over look that as you're getting started (by that I mean that you haven't had a hit yet) getting any opportunity to do any kind of music in any manner and to make any money at it is all good.

Heck, I even know a few guys with hit TV shows that have "made it" for real that still ghost for composers that are bigger than they are. Credited and uncredited.

Jose


----------



## jc5 (Nov 25, 2007)

Craig Sharmat @ Fri Nov 23 said:


> A young composer with a young family is having trouble meeting his bills. He has 2 choices, get a day job paying 7 dollars an hour and possible commissions or tips or he can make $750-1000 a day ghost writing on a TV show. It would be difficult to go to his wife and say I just turned down something that was going to pay us 5K this week.



I would like to be pointed in the direction of the $1000 a day work. I think this form of degredation could make me very happy for some time.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 25, 2007)

And to add to what Craig says, what has he gained by turning the work down? Everything Brian says makes sense, except for that missing point. Ghostwriting has never hurt anyone; it's not like you get pigeonholed as a ghost and can never move on.

Another point: what working composer has never ghostwritten?

Okay, he's the exception. Who else?


----------



## Brian Ralston (Nov 25, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Nov 25 said:


> And to add to what Craig says, what has he gained by turning the work down? Everything Brian says makes sense, except for that missing point. Ghostwriting has never hurt anyone; it's not like you get pigeonholed as a ghost and can never move on.



Not that it happens to everyone...but I know two composers specifically who...despite their hard work to get out of ghosting...have not been able to get anyone to hire them as anything other than a ghost writer. One is even a ghost writer for the ghost writer. It makes my head hurt. Is that problem solely because they have been a ghost writer? No. obviously not. There are a lot of factors involved I am sure. 

But...they have a lot of industry "experience" and yet no big on screen credits to show for it. And my argument to them would be that if they had spent the same amount of time and effort into building their own career as a credited "composer" instead of someone elses...they would be out of the ghosting world by now and would be on to bigger and better scoring projects as THE composer. They probably would have had a lot less money over the years...but their time would have been more of an investment in their own career reputation and on-screen credit list than someone elses. 

But...to each their own. Like I said...everyone's path is different. There is no quick answer on how to become a successful film composer. It is a life long pursuit and committment and even at that...the persistence and patience does not always pay off for everyone. If someone wants to do it...they better be in for the long haul, because if they think it is going to happen within a few years of moving to L.A., or even within a decade they are kidding themselves. Heck...John Williams was not even a name film composer till he was in his 40s. So...to all the 20-somethings moving to L.A., give it a couple decades.

o-[][]-o


----------



## aeneas (Nov 25, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun 25 Nov said:


> Another point: what working composer has never ghostwritten?


As I can gather, SOME people find the following justifications for doing it:
- it is better than NOTHING
- it is PAID
- it is paid MUSIC work
- one gains experience of WRITING music (albeit writing _someone else's_ music)
- cash is ALWAYS welcome
- EVERYBODY does it (or has done it)
- doing it never HURT anybody
[EDIT:] 
- knowing-that-you-are-helping-other-composers is a reason to let them SIGN your music
...

FWIW, here are some of MY reasons for refusing to do it:
- it IS cheating
- the gain-of-money hardly can justify EVERY activity
- if something doesn't hurt, that is not ENOUGH reason for me to do it 
- if everybody does something, that is not ENOUGH reason for me to do it 
- it is a practice that conceals the filmmaker, so I can gain no REAL WORK experience
- I get no contact with the filmmakers, so it does NOT advance me in the business
- even knowing who the filmmaker is, I really can't contact him and say: "hey, guess what? - I am the GHOST behind your filmscore"
- I get no credits, so it does NOT advance me in the business
- I get no credits, so NO royalties
- I am simply unable to let SOMEONE ELSE sign my musical pieces
- it denies the basic principle that one should ALWAYS take responsibility for his own doings (compositions in this case)
- it denies the basic principle that one should NEVER take credit for someone else's doings
- there are MANY other things to do in this profession, which won't conceal future possible jobs (scoring jobs)
[EDIT:] 
- if truck drivers get screen credit, I can see no reason why additional composers shouldn't
...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 25, 2007)

Sorry Aeneas, but you just don't get it. Or else you're overly committed to your own belief system. 

It's not just people working in music factories. Composers help each other out all the time. That's how it works.


----------



## aeneas (Nov 25, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun 25 Nov said:


> Sorry Aeneas, but you just don't get it. Or else you're overly committed to your own belief system.
> 
> It's not just people working in music factories. Composers help each other out all the time. That's how it works.


I thought that my first list of reasons for DOING IT proves that I am at least TRYING to understand other people's reasons. Are YOU trying the same?

Thanks for your feedback, now I can add to my first list:
- knowing-that-you-are-helping-other-composers is a reason to let them SIGN your music


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 25, 2007)

By the way:

"it IS cheating"

That's what makes me say that you just don't get it. What are you supposed to do if you have more music to write than time it takes to write it?

Answer: you get help. Besides, usually the first thing to get farmed out is source music. Does it really matter who writes that?


----------



## aeneas (Nov 25, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun 25 Nov said:


> By the way:
> 
> "it IS cheating"
> 
> That's what makes me say that you just don't get it.


On the contrary, I think I understand very well. And it IS cheating, there is no doubt about it.



> What are you supposed to do if you have more music to write than time it takes to write it?
> Answer: you get help.


I find your answer correct, but incomplete. I would add: help should never include cheating, i.e. one signs on someone else's music. Just give due credits, that's all I ask.



> Besides, usually the first thing to get farmed out is source music. Does it really matter who writes that?


It does matter to NOT sign on something that you did NOT compose, and to not let someone else sign on what you have composed. Again, just give due credits and everything will be alright *for everybody*. 

Edit:
Also, again, if truck drivers get screen credit, I can see no reason why additional composers shouldn't.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 25, 2007)

Oy veh.

aeneas, it's time to give this a rest. This has turned into one of the silliest arguments in the history of silliness.


----------



## aeneas (Nov 25, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun 25 Nov said:


> Oy veh.
> 
> aeneas, it's time to give this a rest. This has turned into one of the silliest arguments in the history of silliness.


Very thoughtful, also thanks for your appreciation! :roll: 

To my own real shame, here they are, AGAIN, "the silliest arguments in the history of silliness":

As I can gather, SOME people find the following justifications for doing it:
- it is better than NOTHING
- it is PAID
- it is paid MUSIC work
- one gains experience of WRITING music (albeit writing _someone else's_ music)
- cash is ALWAYS welcome
- EVERYBODY does it (or has done it)
- doing it never HURT anybody
- knowing-that-you-are-helping-other-composers is a reason to let them SIGN your music
...

FWIW, here are some of MY reasons for refusing to do it:
- it IS cheating
- the gain-of-money hardly can justify EVERY activity
- if something doesn't hurt, that is not ENOUGH reason for me to do it
- if everybody does something, that is not ENOUGH reason for me to do it
- it is a practice that conceals the filmmaker, so I can gain no REAL WORK experience
- I get no contact with the filmmakers, so it does NOT advance me in the business
- even knowing who the filmmaker is, I really can't contact him and say: "hey, guess what? - I am the GHOST behind your filmscore"
- I get no credits, so it does NOT advance me in the business
- I get no credits, so NO royalties
- I am simply unable to let SOMEONE ELSE sign my musical pieces
- it denies the basic principle that one should ALWAYS take responsibility for his own doings (compositions in this case)
- it denies the basic principle that one should NEVER take credit for someone else's doings
- there are MANY other things to do in this profession, which won't conceal future possible jobs (scoring jobs)
- if truck drivers get screen credit, I can see no reason why additional composers shouldn't
...


----------



## midphase (Nov 25, 2007)

"That's what makes me say that you just don't get it. What are you supposed to do if you have more music to write than time it takes to write it? "

Nick, although Aeneas has a narrow way of looking at ghost writing...you run the risk of coming close to having the same problem and I'd like to see if I can bring you both a bit more towards the center.

In a perfect world, there is absolutely no reason why if when a composer assists another composer by doing some of the cues (source or underscore....doesn't really matter) he shouldn't get screen credit in some way shape or form. To answer your rethorical question....what you are supposed to do is explain to the producer that if they want you to meet the deadline you will have to hire additional composers to help you out and that they should be credited as well (even though you will get main credit since you'd be also supervising their work to ensure continuity in the score).

From the point of view of trying to create an environment where artists are treated with fairness and respect, I lean heavily towards Aeneas' point of view.

However...we dont live in a perfect world, I am as paranoid about losing work to the next guy as, well...the next guy! So if given a choice, I'd prefer that the client doesn't know too much about what happens behind the curtain. Guys like Zimmer don't make too big of a secret about it...mostly because they understand that the reasons why they get work goes well beyond the quality of the music. Other guys however might be more shaky about their job security and prefer not to disclose if they get help.

It is a career choice, and it must be based on many factors including financial, ethical and so on. Nick is right in defending the right for composers to make that choice...however wrong it might seem.


----------



## midphase (Nov 25, 2007)

"aeneas, it's time to give this a rest. This has turned into one of the silliest arguments in the history of silliness."

At the risk of not practicing what I preach....let's try to keep this forum as free as possible of condescending statements. I think you both should be free to argue back and forth ad nauseum if you so desire.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 25, 2007)

No.


----------



## aeneas (Nov 26, 2007)

midphase @ Mon 26 Nov said:


> I think you both should be free to argue back and forth ad nauseum if you so desire.


I disagree. It's only ME who should be free to do that, because I am RIGHT, and everyone who thinks otherwise is WRONG, therefore should be BANNED. /\~O


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Nov 26, 2007)

I can ban someone...


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Nov 26, 2007)

Brian's 10 tips are really, really great. Must reading for all who want to be working composers, IMHO. 8)


----------



## aeneas (Nov 26, 2007)

Craig Sharmat @ Mon 26 Nov said:


> I can ban someone...


There is always one or two who can. Usually there are a lot more who would want to.  

Actually, I really hope to be banned for fighting for the cause "Give due credits to composers!" - and that, on a composers' board. That would be REALLY something.

110% agree about Brian's 10 Commandments! A profound and practical wisdom in a short effective form. Extremely helpful! Bookmarked! Thanks! =o


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Nov 26, 2007)

You have to do something pretty bad like be really insulting or promise a product to someone and not deliver it to be banned here. Better luck next time. We do give out warnings on occasion to those who really don't deserve it but wanted a badge of honor (Check out Mike Greene and Choco, TJ may have one also). People started requesting them so we had to stop at some point...


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 26, 2007)

_And it IS cheating, there is no doubt about it_.


Your repeated assertion of this does not make it so. There is obviously considerable doubt about it on this forum.


----------



## aeneas (Nov 26, 2007)

Ashermusic @ Mon 26 Nov said:


> Once again, Thomas Edison is credited as "inventing" many things that others working for him actually invented but he held the patents. They knew that whatever they invented would e credited to him. Was that not cheating by your definitions?


It is not definitions that I care of, but integrity. 

By not giving credit, i.e. by not mentioning the name of the individual inventors, or at least as a group, as a team, and by letting the public opinion believe that he is the actual and the sole inventor of those things, yes, that is cheating to me. However, by not having an employer above him to cheat on, that is not double cheating. Just simple cheating.  

Now, in turn, please you address the situation I have described first: lying, taking credit on what one did not do, misinforming one's employer, tell me how all that is NOT cheating.


----------



## re-peat (Nov 26, 2007)

Aeneas,

Excuse me for the following, but it is only considered cheating by mediocre talents who believe every single note they write is deserving of a credit. People of true talent know what they're worth and don't need to see it confirmed time and again with a silly, meaningless credit.

Besides, history is littered with examples of great artists who either ghostwrote for other people - Mozart used to, for instance - or artists (in every field) who had assembled a studio of apprentices & students the work of which frequently - and without anyone minding - got presented as their own. Name any pre-20th century great painter and you'll have examples aplenty. Or just think about the 'The Mighty Five' (the circle of Russian composers around Balakirew): many works of those composers included a fair number of anonymous but often significant contributions from colleagues & friends.

And there's something else: talking about 'integrity', I find it somewhat puzzling - incomprehensible even - that in one thread you advocate 'cheap solutions' and 'rather selling cheeseburgers & pizzas than creating highbrow stuff which doesn't sell', while in this thread you're acting all lofty and talking about the immorality of ghostwriting. I must say, I find the latter practice - provided it happens in an agreement based on decency & respect - a MUCH nobler, commendable and more integer activity than selling yourself out because you're too lazy or incompetent to come up with something good.

_


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Nov 26, 2007)

As long as it's between two consening adults... or umm.. something


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 26, 2007)

re-peat makes a good point, but aeneas, your last post is exactly why I say you don't get it and that the argument is beyond silly. I don't mean you don't understand the simple concepts you're arguing, I mean that you've constructed a situation that has little to do with what goes on in the real world every day.

Why would you assume it's lying or that your employer is necessarily being misinformed? In fact most producers know exactly how the team process works and have no problem whatsoever with it. Sometimes the composer doesn't even control the budget, i.e. he or she isn't the one who pays "assistants" or whatever they're called...which is another point: the distinctions between composer and arranger or orchestrator or programer or music producer or percussion programmer or whatever become totally blurred these days.

And yet another point: I still get ASCAP checks for cues I ghostwrote in the '80s. So ghostwriting doesn't always mean you don't get the writer's share.


----------



## kid-surf (Nov 26, 2007)

I see so many problems in the composing world. Maybe I'll articulate some of them later... but for now.


1) I've ghosted too. I see/saw it as both a positive and negative. Even though my contracts where 100% buy outs. But I can't blame the composer for having a ghost when that's the way the industry is "set up". But at the same time it is our (the collective composers) fault for not having a Union which would give us a minimum fee and benefits. No one seems to care at this point so expect plenty more ghost writing for years to come. For as much as some composers distrust Unions and don't want to be in one I can guarantee you that the screenwriters and such would be in the same boat w/o one. And as we can see, their minimum fee is WAY higher (even thought THAT isn't fair -- but shit, it's way more than you can make as a composer. And is far less work, dollar for dollar if you know what you're doing)


The reason I wanted to post, getting to it:


2) Why has no one mentioned "first writer in"? The screenwriting term. It's a term that means the first writer hired for the gig will get credit unless the WGA decides the "new" writer (who is uncredited) has done enough work on it to EARN a co-written by credit... (which is harder to gain that you might think) or in the very rare case enough work to gain full credit. Consider it a formal "ghosting" for screenwriters.

So even if there were a composer's UNION the way credit works would most likely be very similar to what a screenwriter needs to establish (w/the WGA) in order to gain credit. In the case of a composer, well, if you are ghosting you are not "first writer in". So even with a Union you'd probably have a hard time gaining credit. The composer would say "the cues written will be based on my work"... more specifically a few page "contract" to the effect of "legally" explaining that he is the "first writer in." You know, drawn up by his lawyer that you can sign or not. And regulated by a Union.

Although, there are plenty of films where the 2nd, 3rd, or 10th writer in doesn't WANT credit. In fact their agent does the deal in a way where they are not credited AND no one around town knows they worked on it. WHY? Simple, the writer knows the film is a HUNK OF SHITT, and therefore doesn't represent what "they" do. Why have your name on, say, Underdog when you're known as the guy who does ____? I wouldn't want my name on Underdog as a screenwriter. Many of those crap films have a few passes by other writers you never would know worked on them. Yet, the minimum pay for that is $75,000 a week. I've heard as much as $350,000 a week for the top dudes. Yeah... to write on a film you don't want your name on. (hey... some people are good at structure and concept but suck at dialog. Dialog is king.)



Yet... I feel so many newer composers are missing the point... way too myopic in their approach... have lost a great deal of perspective... and are thinking squarely inside the box. Your odds of becoming THE MAN that way are very slim.


That's the part that would derail this thread even more. I have plenty of thoughts as to why we generally shoot ourselves in the foot... but I digress.


KID


----------



## kid-surf (Nov 26, 2007)

*"1) Basil Poledouris once told me you have to break into the "business of tomorrow" and not the "business of today."*


I want to borrow Brian's quote just to point out that:

That's exactly what I'm talking about. But in my opinion the "business of tomorrow" involves a lot more than "just" music. It's astonishing to me that more composers don't aim for more control over their EVENTUALITY considering the films we witness being made. The films we are hired to compose on. Maybe I'm an anomaly (or just a freak), but I see some of this stuff and know I can do my own films if that is the bar. What is the diff between THAT guy and ME? 


I'll tell you what. My very first script got me a few meetings at big production companies (haven't happened yet due to the strike - as well that script isn't officially "out for submissions") But...

1) How could I have gotten these meetings as a composer other than if I had studio credits? And we're talking a very abstract script that is dark and hard for some people to understand. It's definitely not a hit.

2) Only "one" of the people I've worked with has something going at a studio. In all these years of struggling just to find jobs, just ONE guy? How bout you all, how many of the people you've worked with has something going at a studio? Anyone? That's not very appealing to me.


Why do we all sit here WAITING for the industry to COME TO US. Sure, some will say I'm crazy, that they are busting ass to make it all happen. But are you? Are you really? Or are you simply making lateral headway?

I hate to give away my "secrets" but I care about people here getting to the point they wish to be at. Not saying I've got all the answers but how bout BRINGING THE INDUSTRY TO YOU? Ever thought about what that means? It sure as hell doesn't mean music (generally music has little value). Ask yourself who has the most value, WHAT has the most value. A SCRIPT has the most value and only costs you $250 + $20 to register. Compared to what? $100,000 worth of composing gear.

Well, I would tend to suggest NOT writing a very dark, odd, and complicated script the first time outta the gate. BUT! The side-effect of that is that it's WAY easier to write something that looks like it can make money on the page next time. AND! Now you can write it in 2-3 WEEKS because you've trained your brain to be ridiculously thorough to the point that some people don't even understand your first script in part due to complexities (but not many understood Memento til it was made either, so who cares. Right?). This way your new script aimed at Hollywood isn't that lame script anyone could have written and utterly cliche. Which will leave you w/o a sale.


What does that do for a "composer"...?


Dude, you're the friggn boss now. So who really cares what those other guys write. You don't NEED them anymore. Maybe you still compose for a few of them on the side but it's not your main gig.

Sure you may have to sell a script and walk away. But if the script is cheap enough to make, looks like it can make money, and gets MADE. Well, your agent can leverage that into a film you write FOR YOURSELF to direct and score. If you crack the shit outta your script this can happen in as fast as ONE YEAR from the time you type THE END.

At that point do you really care about scoring for someone else? 


Meanwhile you write films for studios as your main bread and butter for a minimum of $125,000 a pop. If your film got green lit your minimum fee could be $200,000 your first year. How many will you write a year? 2-3? Each time your fee going up. All the while you are working on scripts you plan to direct as well.


So now you are making decent money and know you can write a film where your music will matter to you. Because it's YOUR movie.


Sure, I'm crazy... this will never happen for me, it's all way harder than I know. Yet meanwhile I have 2 scripts ready to go out with when this strike ends and the blessing from a few industry people that say they're good. So now I'm finishing up my 3rd.


And here's the funny part... most people I've worked with only have the ONE script, and they've worked on it for YEARS, and never got a meeting with a studio about them. It's a friggn joke. I'm outta there. I'm doing my own shit regardless of what people assume I can or can not do. And you all could do the same. But it really helps to take an extended break from composing to analyze (extremely surgically) just how you can position yourself in this industry that is NOT fair and never will be. Because at that point you begin to realize just how little chance you have 'only' being a composer. I know we aren't stupid. We can do much more than we are given credit for. Too much work? It's all work... same hours in the day regardless of how you spend your time.

I really hope we all make it to that level we know we're capable of. All we gotta do is do it.

Back to topic:



KID


----------



## José Herring (Nov 26, 2007)

I'm with you Kid. After working on so many ridiculously bad films I'm starting to realize that I know more about the process than half of the people who hire me.

I'm lucky in that I have worked with a few people that really do know what they're doing and some of them are even asking me to produce projects with them.

But in an age when anybody with a camcorder can call themselves "filmmaker" it's not ridiculous to assume that you can do a better job than 95% of the competition. Especially after having scored more movies than most filmmakers will ever make in their lifetime. These days some film makers are coming to me for advice on how to fix their films. It's bizarre. 

The only thing to be careful of is to assume that you can do it all yourself. 50% of the film making processes is technical so a good DP and a good Editor and a good Line Producer are essential imo.

Best of luck. I might be right behind you. I have a few ideas of my own.

Jose


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 26, 2007)

aeneas @ Mon Nov 26 said:


> Ashermusic @ Mon 26 Nov said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, Thomas Edison is credited as "inventing" many things that others working for him actually invented but he held the patents. They knew that whatever they invented would e credited to him. Was that not cheating by your definitions?
> ...



It is IMHO not cheating but a contract between two consenting parties. It is not illegal or unprecedented as I pointed out with Edison. 

You have two choices: 
1. You can either live in the world as it really is. 
2. You can live in it as you think it should be.

You clearly are choosing #2 and I respect that but it is a hard way to live.

What I do not respect is your implied evaluation that anyone choosing #1 lacks integrity.

I now suggest you write the authors of every text book and history book that say "Thomas Alva Edison invented the light bulb." and tell them that Edison was a cheater.

At least that will keep you very busy and will stop you annoying us.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Nov 26, 2007)

Jay,

IMO, you do not speak for 'us'.

On topic: I borrow, you borrow, we all borrow. Call it cheating if you will. I like to think of it as building on something that already existed. See Picasso, Robert Johnson, Bernard Hermann, John Williams, etc, etc, etc.


----------



## Jaap (Nov 26, 2007)

I don't know what I would do if I was under heavy stress and and a very tight deadline. Of course I am against it, but I honestly think it is easier to make this judgement my side when I am not in this market I guess. I can imagine composers hand out some stuff since it in the way I see it, the film industry is a very dynamic market and you "have" to peak now maybe as composer to make some nice budgets.

I am curious to be honest in the ghostwriting part as composer. I think it can be a good exeperience (whether you dont like it or not) to see how "honest and real" the industry is. Most industries are "dirty" and this can give you a quick and honest insight maybe.

I think I would take the job as ghostwriter in the stage I am in now to see how and what. Not only to learn about the industry, but maybe see it also as a sort of lesson in composing. You dont have a choise and you have to do what the other composer orders you to do. If it is completely not your cup of tea you can learn how to adept to it and I think that is always a good thing to learn.

I am just wondering how you find jobs as ghostwriter. Do composers lookout for other composers or are there agencies? I googled a bit and for text writers there are complete agencies.
Since I dont live in LA (far far away ) I just dont have a clue about this world.

I was also wondering if this is starting to happen in the game industry btw.


----------



## kid-surf (Nov 26, 2007)

josejherring @ Mon Nov 26 said:


> I'm with you Kid. After working on so many ridiculously bad films I'm starting to realize that I know more about the process than half of the people who hire me.
> 
> I'm lucky in that I have worked with a few people that really do know what they're doing and some of them are even asking me to produce projects with them.
> 
> ...





Jose,

We are totally on the same page. Yeah it's bazar when you are sitting there giving a director editing advice.

100% where my head is, you take on the responsibilities you know you can do well, then surround yourself with talented people. And a producer who's got the type of last-name who'll get the thing financed.

And yet, be willing to NOT compose on the one you wrote specifically to sell (as opposed to "put together"). Because chances are you'll have to sell it and walk away. But if you make sure you've sold it to people who'll make it, and make it well, you are raising your stock. That can be leveraged into a scoring gig for you next time on a GOOD film. You know it's good because you wrote it. And now they trust you if it did well. Now they are possibly willing to even take a chance on you directing so long as you, again, have a producer with a name (and yet again the team you surround yourself with is critical -- which definitely includes a line-producer who knows what they're doing since the name-producer is just the name who got people to believe it's gonna be a hit)

The other thing is to not get too caught up in the purchase price. I'd rather sell it for less as an indie to "taste makers" who've got that track record of making what they buy (and well) than to a Studio who's got a track record of camping out on what they buy and never making it, or if they did would fuck it up and dumb it down -- even if the upfront money is better. Not to say all studios are that way, nor all indies are that way. But it pays to analyze what they all are "about".

A MADE film, that's good, is worth more than a sold script no matter what it sold for. Means you can probably direct next time, and your fee to write assignments just went up at least $50,000. Hopefully $75,000.... or if it's a hit $100,000 more per script.


Lots to think about but it beats trying to fool with making samples sound more real. That will never amount to what I'm after with all this.



KID


----------



## kid-surf (Nov 26, 2007)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Mon Nov 26 said:


> Jay,
> 
> IMO, you do not speak for 'us'.



Is that a request or a statement? Not following you Ned.

Who specifically is 'us'?

But no, I'm not attempting to speak on anyone's behalf but my own. These are merely my opinions and observations as someone generally in the same spot as everyone else.


Or... wait... were you referring to the other Jay? ~o) :mrgreen: 

KID


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 26, 2007)

He meant the other Jay, who is getting annoyed at aeneas. Ned isn't getting annoyed at aeneas, therefore Jay doesn't speak for everyone since Ned is part of everyone.

Kid, I'm not sure a union would do anything good - much as I like the idea of collective muscle against The Man. For one, composers are considered management (a quaint artifact from the days when we hired musicians, copyists, and orchestrators). Second, some unions I won't wink wink mention have a history of total incompetence and being way behind the times; who's to say a composer's union would be any better? Third, where's the leverage? Fourth, it's been tried for years to no avail. Fifth, there is no fifth I can think of off the top of my head.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 26, 2007)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Mon Nov 26 said:


> Jay,
> 
> IMO, you do not speak for 'us'.
> 
> .



Excuse me, some of us, Nick and I at the very least.


----------



## kid-surf (Nov 26, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Nov 26 said:


> He meant the other Jay, who is getting annoyed at aeneas. Ned isn't getting annoyed at aeneas, therefore Jay doesn't speak for everyone since Ned is part of everyone.
> 
> Kid, I'm not sure a union would do anything good - much as I like the idea of collective muscle against The Man. For one, composers are considered management (a quaint artifact from the days when we hired musicians, copyists, and orchestrators). Second, some unions I won't wink wink mention have a history of total incompetence and being way behind the times; who's to say a composer's union would be any better? Third, where's the leverage? Fourth, it's been tried for years to no avail. Fifth, there is no fifth I can think of off the top of my head.



Nick -- Yeah, I hear you. I'm being a bit idealistic what I say that. I generally feel it's far too late for a composer's union. So I guess it does no good for me to suggest it "could have" been different. That's all sort of obvious by now.

But I do feel it kinda sucks that composers seemingly have no way to ban together to fight THE MAN should they wish to. 

I respect music is all, and feel it's worth far more than THE MAN realizes. So I guess it pisses me off to know that Studio's feel the music is largely irrelevant. But I guess everyone complains about the director getting all the credit. I guess it's just best to be a director... unless the film sucks, then it's better to be the writer or composer. 

What was the topic again..?


KID


----------



## kid-surf (Nov 26, 2007)

Ned -- my bad. 0oD o-[][]-o 


KID


----------



## aeneas (Nov 26, 2007)

re-peat @ Mon 26 Nov said:


> it is only considered cheating by mediocre talents who believe every single note they write is deserving of a credit. People of true talent know what they're worth and don't need to see it confirmed time and again with a silly, meaningless credit.


A typical 'straw man fallacy': Since it is true that the mediocre think that way, if you think that way, then you are mediocre. Similarly: Since it is true that people of true talent consider credits as silly and meaningless, then you, by having a different view, you necessarily must be a mediocre talent.

I totally agree that, if what you say is true, then what you say is really true. 



> And there's something else: talking about 'integrity', I find it somewhat puzzling - incomprehensible even - that in one thread you advocate 'cheap solutions' and 'rather selling cheeseburgers & pizzas than creating highbrow stuff which doesn't sell', while in this thread you're acting all lofty and talking about the immorality of ghostwriting. I must say, I find the latter practice - provided it happens in an agreement based on decency & respect - a MUCH nobler, commendable and more integer activity than selling yourself out because you're too lazy or incompetent to come up with something good.


You are mixing things that are unrelated, IMO. One can do business in a clean way, or in a dirty way. For example: 

One can do a clean business with a pizza restaurant - by stating that his products are imported from Italy, and be honest about it. Or, one can do it in a dirty manner, using local products while charging the prices as if they were imported. 

Similarly, one can do a clean business as a composer - by stating he is the author of the entire score, and be honest about it. Or, one can do it in a dirty manner, cheating, lying about it, for he have only signed, and not also composed, half of the cues. Team work does not imply as a necessity to lie about who has been written what. It can be, and it IS sometimes done in a clean way. Royalties are important. Giving due credits is basic. Without credits, one cannot advance in his career.

Doing pizza business in clean way, charging the right price, does not mean selling oneself, but only selling pizza. Making commercial music in a clean way, taking credits only for your doings and giving due credits to your helpers - that is not selling oneself, but only selling commercial music.

Selling oneself is the exact opposite of that, IMO.

A kind suggestion: let's stay away from personal comments, such as what may define one's talent, about one's laziness and incompetence, or about who's annoying whom. Alright?  

Respect.

Oh, and I am sure that the discussion about what 'good' music is, will be a _fascinating_ one. At least as fascinating as the discussion about 'competence'. :D


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 26, 2007)

aeneas, please re-read my post above where I explained that there's nothing intrinsically secret about the whole thing. Your insistence that there is is really the straw man argument. Everyone understands that's how the business works; it isn't dirty, cheating, lying, and for it to be half the cues that got farmed out would be an exception that proves the rule.

Usually you're given very exact parameters for farmed cues, and often you start with a rough sketch to fill out. What you're objecting to is hummer salesmen (no, not the huge troop-moving car), and while they're out there, that doesn't mean the whole world is sleazy.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 26, 2007)

Now, it so happens that it is, but that's another subject...


----------



## jeffc (Nov 26, 2007)

Wow, so this is really getting off topic but interesting nonetheless.

Kid - I just wanted to comment on your posts a bit. You always have some interesting things to say, and obviously are very dialed in to how the Hollywood system works, at a level that I think is over the head of most people here. And I wish you well in your writing pursuits - hell if your plan works, you'll have the last laugh at all of us. That being said, and maybe I'm just speaking for myself, but the reason I got into this business is because I love writing music more than anything else in the world. I told this to someone the other day - "I really feel like I'm doing what I was put on Earth to do - being a composer". I really don't want to do anything else - even if it meant conquering the Holllywood system as a writer, producer, director,etc. I think about music 24/7 and get out of bed in the AM excited to see what the day will bring - some good, some bad, but all in the pursuit of music. And I've had some great highs and some lows - like anyone else in this business but still the joy of making music is what makes it worth it. Whether your on a studio film, a network tv show, a doc, reality, a piece of crap dv project, or even a ghosting gig, once the door to your studio shuts and you reach inside to 'create', then it all doesn't matter anymore. You still have to create and for me, that's the moment that I live for.

This goes back to why I don't feel that ghostwriting is a bad thing. I learned some things when I did that I would have never learned, if I had thought it was stealing, or morally corrupt. How do you work on a real film, see how the timecode works, how reels are deliverd,see how you take your sequence from a mac to printed parts for a real orchestra, how to mix and deliver in 5.1, etc. Things that you just don't get working on a computer by yourself. And to top it off, you get paid for that kind of education. How that is as bad as some people on this board are saying is kind of lost on me.

Anyway, I've really got to get back to the grind and off this stupid board. But good luck Kid.

And I am agreement with Nick and Jay - I just didn't want to get into a war of words with someone who doesn't use their real name and for all we know can be a 12 year old somewhere who's just pushing our buttons. Or maybe it's Hans.....


JC


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Nov 26, 2007)

jeffc @ 26/11/2007 said:


> his goes back to why I don't feel that ghostwriting is a bad thing. I learned some things when I did that I would have never learned, if I had thought it was stealing, or morally corrupt...



Excellent point!


----------



## aeneas (Nov 26, 2007)

jeffc @ Mon 26 Nov said:


> someone who doesn't use their real name and for all we know can be a 12 year old somewhere who's just pushing our buttons. Or maybe it's Hans.....


And what is the thing that each case would change? 

A statement is been made, like: "Taking credit for something you did not do, is cheating."

Now, your acceptance/unacceptance of that statement would depend on it being said by a 12 year old or by Hans?


----------



## Mike Greene (Nov 26, 2007)

kid-surf @ Mon Nov 26 said:


> . . . there are plenty of films where the 2nd, 3rd, or 10th writer in doesn't WANT credit. In fact their agent does the deal in a way where they are not credited AND no one around town knows they worked on it. WHY? Simple, the writer knows the film is a HUNK OF SHITT . . .


I think that's why ghostwriters that I hire for my projects never complain that they don't get credited.

Heck, I'd like to take MY name off half the projects I work on . . . (one such project airs tonight on PBS)


----------



## wonshu (Nov 26, 2007)

jeffc @ Mon Nov 26 said:


> And I am agreement with Nick and Jay - I just didn't want to get into a war of words with someone who doesn't use their real name and for all we know can be a 12 year old somewhere who's just pushing our buttons. Or maybe it's Hans.....



Hey..... I'm Hans....


and my wife is also Brian...



But Kid - I find it very inspiring to read your posts. Kudos to you, I wish I knew who you are so that when your film comes out at least I could sort of think I knew yee!


----------



## kid-surf (Nov 26, 2007)

Jeff --

First off, the end of your post cracked me up. The 12 year old button pusher comment. Funny... (Sorry aeneas, it was pretty funny)


Yeah, I totally hear you. I may come off as someone who "only" lives to concur this machine. I dunno? But the reality is I live to create too, and love that "zone" of creation where nothing else matters. 

But I wanted to put these ideas into peoples (composers) heads because for me I honestly ò´   góì´   góí´   góî´   góï´   góð´   góñ´   góò´   góó´   góô´   góõ´   góö´   gó÷´   góø´   góù´   góú´   góû´   góü´   góý´   góþ´   góÿ´   gô ´   gô´   gô´   gô´   gô´   gô´   gô´   gô´   gôµ   gô	µ   gô
µ   gôµ   gôµ   gô µ   gôµ   gôµ   gôµ   gôµ   gôµ   gôµ   gôµ   gôµ   gôµ   gôµ   gôµ   gôµ   gôµ   gôµ   gôµ   gôµ   gôµ   gôµ   gô µ   gô!µ   gô"µ   gô#µ   gô$µ   gô%µ   gô&µ   gô'µ   gô(µ   gô)µ   gô*µ   gô+µ   gô,µ   gô-µ   gô.µ   gô/µ   gô0µ   gô1µ   gô2µ   gô3µ   gô4µ   gô5µ   gô6µ   gô7µ   gô8µ   gô9µ   gô:¶   gô;¶   gô<¶   gô=¶   gô>¶   gô?¶   gô@¶   gôA¶   gôB·   gôC·   gôD·   gôE·   gôF·   gôG·   gôH·   gôI·   gôJ·   gôK·   gôL·   gôM·   gôN·   gôO·   gôP·   gôQ·   gôR·   gôS·   gôT·   gôU·   gôV·   gôW·   gôX·   gôY·   gôZ·   gô[              ò·   gô]·   gô^·   gô_·   gô`·   gôa·   gôb·   gôc·   gôd·   gôe·   gôf·   gôg·   gôh·   gôi·   gôj·   gôk·   gôl·   gôm·   gôn·   gôo·   gôp·   gôq·   gôr·   gôs·   gôt·   gôu·   gôv·   gôw·   gôx·   gôy·   gôz·   gô{·   gô|·   gô}·   gô~·   gô·   gô€·   gô·   gô‚·   gôƒ·   gô„·   gô…·   gô†·   gô‡·   gôˆ·   gô‰·   gôŠ·   gô‹·   gôŒ·   gô·   gôŽ·   gô·   gô·   gô‘·   gô’·   gô“·   gô”·   gô•·   gô–·   gô—·   gô˜·   gô™·   gôš·   gô›·   gôœ·   gô·   gôž·   gôŸ·   gô ·   gô¡·   gô¢·   gô£·   gô¤·   gô¥·   gô¦·   gô§·   gô¨·   gô©·   gôª¸   gô«¸   gô¬¸   gô­¸   gô®¸   gô¯¸   gô°¸   gô±¸   gô²¸   gô³¸   gô´¸   gôµ¸   gô¶¸   gô·¸   gô¸¸   gô¹¸   gôº¸   gô»¸   gô¼¸   gô½¸   gô¾¸   gô¿¸   gôÀ¸   gôÁ¸   gôÂ¸   gôÃ¸   gôÄ¸   gôÅ¸   gôÆ¸   gôÇ¸   gôÈ¸   gôÉ¸   gôÊ¸   gôË¸   gôÌ              ò¸   gôÎ¸   gôÏ¸   gôÐ¸   gôÑ¸   gôÒ¸   gôÓ¸   gôÔ¸   gôÕ¸   gôÖ¸   gô×¸   gôØ¸   gôÙ¸   gôÚ¸   gôÛ¸   gôÜ¸   gôÝ¸   gôÞ¸   gôß¸   gôà¹   gôá¹   gôâ¹   gôã¹   gôä¹   gôå¹   gôæ¹   gôç¹   gôè¹   gôé¹   gôê¹   gôë¹   gôì¹   gôí¹   gôî¹   gôï¹   gôð¹   gôñ¹   gôò¹   gôó¹   gôô¹   gôõ¹   gôö¹   gô÷¹   gôø¹   gôù¹   gôú¹   gôû¹   gôü¹   gôý¹   gôþ¹   gôÿ¹   gõ ¹   gõ¹   gõ¹   gõ¹   gõ¹   gõ¹   gõ¹   gõ¹   gõ¹   gõ	¹   gõ
¹   gõ¹   gõ¹   gõ ¹   gõ¹   gõ¹   gõº   gõº   gõº   gõº   gõº   gõº   gõº   gõº   gõº   gõº   gõº   gõº   gõº   gõº   gõº   gõº   gõ º   gõ!º   gõ"º   gõ#º   gõ$º   gõ%º   gõ&º   gõ'º   gõ(º   gõ)º   gõ*º   gõ+º   gõ,º   gõ-º   gõ.º   gõ/º   gõ0º   gõ1º   gõ2»   gõ3»   gõ4»   gõ5»   gõ6¼   gõ7¼   gõ8¼   gõ9¼   gõ:¼   gõ;¼   gõ<¼   gõ=              ò¼   gõ?¼   gõ@¼   gõA¼   gõB¼   gõC¼   gõD¼   gõE¼   gõF¼   gõG¼   gõH¼   gõI¼   gõJ¼   gõK¼   gõL¼   gõM¼   gõN¼   gõO¼   gõP¼   gõQ¼   gõR¼   gõS¼   gõT¼   gõU¼   gõV¼   gõW¼   gõX¼   gõY¼   gõZ¼   gõ[¼   gõ\¼   gõ]¼   gõ^¼   gõ_¼   gõ`¼   gõa¼   gõb¼   gõc¼   gõd¼   gõe¼   gõf¼   gõg¼   gõh¼   gõi¼   gõj¼   gõk¼   gõl¼   gõm¼   gõn¼   gõo¼   gõp¼   gõq¼   gõr¼   gõs¼   gõt½   gõu½   gõv½   gõw½   gõx½   gõy½   gõz½   gõ{½   gõ|½   gõ}½   gõ~½   gõ½   gõ€½   gõ½   gõ‚½   gõƒ½   gõ„½   gõ…½   gõ†½   gõ‡½   gõˆ½   gõ‰½   gõŠ½   gõ‹½   gõŒ½   gõ½   gõŽ½   gõ½   gõ½   gõ‘½   gõ’½   gõ“½   gõ”½   gõ•½   gõ–¾   gõ—¾   gõ˜¾   gõ™¾   gõš¾   gõ›¾   gõœ¾   gõ¾   gõž¾   gõŸ¾   gõ ¾   gõ¡¾   gõ¢¾   gõ£¾   gõ¤¾   gõ¥¾   gõ¦¾   gõ§¾   gõ¨¾   gõ©¾   gõª¾   gõ«¾   gõ¬¿   gõ­¿   gõ®              ise I'm with you on the ghosting thing. I try to learn whatever I can wherever I can. And ghosting is a great way to learn if you've got an exit plan.


Anyway... thanks man! Right back at cha'.



KID


----------



## kid-surf (Nov 26, 2007)

wonshu @ Mon Nov 26 said:


> jeffc @ Mon Nov 26 said:
> 
> 
> > And I am agreement with Nick and Jay - I just didn't want to get into a war of words with someone who doesn't use their real name and for all we know can be a 12 year old somewhere who's just pushing our buttons. Or maybe it's Hans.....
> ...




wonshu --


Really, I'm a nobody. I don't want to lead anyone to believe otherwise. I'm just a guy trying to express his "complete vision" (cheesy word, I know).

Many of the LA guys I've met and know me. I'll post info here about what goes down if something does... And get more specific.


Otherwise, thanks man and best of luck to you as well!


KID


----------



## kid-surf (Nov 26, 2007)

BTW -- Jeff.


I also want to say that --- My scenario is imply pointing out yet "another" way to get to the point where one is writing the "exact" music they wish to.

This isn't a goal everyone has but for me I've never really written what I wanted to. And somewhat bothered by that.

I simply believe that we should at least consider the option to incorporate other aspects of film into who we are, and what we do. Whether, like Brian said, we produce our own film. Like others have said, we create these Zimmer like companies. Or like I've said, aiming to write and direct our own films. I simply feel that these things better establish one's foothold in these uncertain times.


I simply suggesting one, step WAY back once and see if any of that appeals to them. If not, cool, keep on with it. But at least you know you've considered it.

Cheers,
KID


----------



## aeneas (Nov 26, 2007)

FWIW, the positive thing is that, more or less, now we all know where everybody stands on ghostwriting. 

Personally, I am happy to have been given one reasonable answer to the question that bothered me the most: What is the thing that would PREVENT the hirer composer to split the work, the credits, and the money, in the same way?
_"I think that ghostwriting is a practice which is generally kept hidden from Producers and Directors for the simple reason that composers are generally a very insecure bunch (just look at how low we're willing to work for) and they worry that if the Producer or Director will find out that not all the cues have been written by the composer...on the next job they will go straight to the "ghost"_ (midphase)

I am also happy that at least a couple people have acknowledged this idea:
_"Ghostwriting works for both parties, but there are some moral and ethical implications that most people (including myself) find objectionable no matter how the parties involved try to justify them."_ (midphase, again)

Also, there are Brian's 10 superb tips!

I am of course an outsider for all you proud Hollywood residents, and I know that my view is naive. Believe it or not, I have exaggerated my normal naivety, in order to get some answers. But I have accepted/understood that the non-unionized un-regulated nature of filmscoring prevents ghosting from being illegal. In 'bona fide', I have been open to people's justifications (both reasonable AND subjective), for this practice - I have even summarized them in a list. I think I have showed personal respect in my answers to people with total opposite views to mine. At the very best, I have received good info from some cool people. At the very worst, I have been called names (stupid, 12 years old, Hans, mediocre talent, etc.), I have been ridiculed ("you take the ghostwriting job because it's better than wanking with pliers", "do you have any source for money?", "the silliest arguments in the history of silliness", etc.) Not to mention all the logical fallacies...

On top of everything, what I thought to be a joke, has come true: I have received a ban vote, for fighting for the cause "Give due credits to composers!" - and that, on a composers' board. That, while making all the efforts to stay reasonable and logical, while avoiding all personal provocations, and while treating lightly all the insults. That says a lot about this forum as a whole.

As a personal conclusion, the only logical, objective reason that I could find for this practice of ghosting, is the mentioned insecurity feeling of the filmcomposers who, instead of really supporting each other as professionals, in dignity, prefer to focus on projecting an illusion of them being better than they actually are, by taking credit for other people's music.

You may call it naivety and all you want, something remains unchanged (yet): the importance of the credit. Continue to mess with the credit, and the profession of film composer will become more and more meaningless, especially for filmmakers. Think about it. IMO, if it wasn't for the credit, you all would have had other professions. Give away the credit, and film music situation will become even worse. It is only responsibility for one's own music (and respect for the other composers' music) that can create a healthy competition. So, again, try to stay reasonable: give and ask for the credits that are due. They are priceless for you. Take pride on your 20 seconds cues. They are building your career, brick by brick. Credit is one of the most important tools that work for you. For your own sake, don't mess with that.

And yes, I apologize for all trouble I might have caused to anyone.

Peace,
Aeneas

Edit:
One thing I want to remain clear: the issue was never about team work, which is the very essence of film work - as I said, 20 composers can work together and deliver an 80 minutes score in 4 days, which is totally great! The issue appears when 1 of them receives credits and royalties for music he did not compose, while the other 19 do not receive credit and royalties for music they did compose. IMO, that's only too bad for this forum that such an attitude doesn't seem to bother most people here.


----------



## Hannes_F (Nov 27, 2007)

aeneas,

your way of discussing here made me interested in your other contributions, so I reread the other thread. And there was no other person involved. I was not even aware that a moderator contacted you.

I am not going into a further argument about this here. Please note also that I have edited my first posting.

I will ask the forum moderators to delete the ban vote. Maybe you consider that there are ways of argueing (sp?) that help your arguments better or lesser.


----------



## aeneas (Nov 27, 2007)

Hannes, in all fairness, I really don't know whose scenario is more surrealistic, yours or mine. :lol: 

FWIW, fact is that you have, on purpose, and on some extremely weird circumstances that involve a lot of strange coincidences, you have send a ban vote specifically for my "rude activity" on that discussion. Now, letting the vote aside, I insist - would you please indicate precisely what did you consider as "rude activity" from my part during that particular discussion? -
http://vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.p ... sc&start=0


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Nov 27, 2007)

I did not receive a ban notice, and to be clear when i mentioned it earlier it was in fun and not in seriousness. One is allowed to debate back and forth and as long as no one one is behaving poorly. One can disagree with anothers view point in a civil manner (or close to civil anyway) and that was happenning here. Often what occurs in these threads is more information comes out as people take a certain side of a debate and the debate rages on. Many people sitting on the outside as well as the debaters have a treasure chest of information to draw from. My guess is many people watching this thread have learned a few things or questioned certain practices.

Carry on!


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Nov 27, 2007)

aeneas @ 27/11/2007 said:


> On top of everything, what I thought to be a joke, has come true: I have received a ban vote, for fighting for the cause "Give due credits to composers!" - and that, on a composers' board. That, while making all the efforts to stay reasonable and logical, while avoiding all personal provocations, and while treating lightly all the insults. That says a lot about this forum as a whole.



Let me get this straight: there are more than 2,000 members here; you get a ban vote from *one* member, and you think it, _says a lot about this forum as a whole_? Well... I'd say your post says a lot about you. Maybe you should wipe a few chips off your shoulders, and look up insecurity in the dictionary. :roll:


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 27, 2007)

aeneas, I was not aware of the ban vote and I would not have voted for it.

However, the reason I got annoyed, probably some others too (not Ned apparently, who I do not speak for  is that you posted over 20 times essentially making the same argument. It is late in my life to have had this revelation but I finally have started to understand that in an argument you convince nobody the 9th or 10th time you make your points that you did not on the first two or three so at some point it is wise to say, "OK, I have made my best argument. Hopefully some of you will reconsider based on what I have said." and simply let it go.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 27, 2007)

Especially when you were wrong the first time...


----------



## aeneas (Nov 27, 2007)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Tue 27 Nov said:


> aeneas @ 27/11/2007 said:
> 
> 
> > On top of everything, what I thought to be a joke, has come true: I have received a ban vote, for fighting for the cause "Give due credits to composers!" - and that, on a composers' board. That, while making all the efforts to stay reasonable and logical, while avoiding all personal provocations, and while treating lightly all the insults. That says a lot about this forum as a whole.
> ...


Acknowledged. I take back the reference to the forum as a whole - it was totally unfair. My only 'excuse' is that I was upset and I overreacted. Consider it as just another proof that generalizing is ALWAYS ( :wink: ) wrong.


----------



## bryla (Nov 27, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Nov 26 said:


> Another point: what working composer has never ghostwritten?



Ruth Mendelson


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 27, 2007)

Who?


----------



## bryla (Nov 27, 2007)

Google

Grammy-wining composer and sounddesigner


----------



## aeneas (Nov 27, 2007)

bryla @ Tue 27 Nov said:


> Google
> 
> Grammy-wining composer and sounddesigner


So what? He doesn't live in Hollywood, so he hardly has the right to exist. ~o)


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Nov 27, 2007)

I think that at this point, it's only fair to ask: who is ghostwriting posts in this thread? :shock:


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Nov 27, 2007)

What I want to know is; How do I get John Williams to ghostwrite for me? It appears he has no moral issues with it :D


----------



## re-peat (Nov 27, 2007)

aeneas @ Tue Nov 27 said:


> Let us use the type of logic and the wisdom radiating from this discussion. Credits are _"silly and meaningless."_ Also, _"people of true talent know what they're worth and don't need to see it confirmed time and again with a silly, meaningless credit."_ (...)"[/i] Only _"mediocre talents believe every single note they write is deserving of a credit."_


Aeneas,

Excuse me, but I'd like to take credit for MY wisdom which you now attribute to the whole forum. Sorry, can't do. It is my wisdom and my wisdom only.

_


----------



## aeneas (Nov 27, 2007)

Ashermusic @ Tue 27 Nov said:


> aeneas, interesting that you are totally ignoring my post about continuing an argument when you have already made your points.
> 
> I do not mean this as a put down, only saying what I believe. There is a psychological payoff for you of some kind to keep doing this that is not healthy.


1) RABNC. (except one: my 'unintentional ghostwriter' point can hardly be consider as "continuing to make the same points")
2) TYVM!
:D



re-peat @ Tue 27 Nov said:


> aeneas @ Tue Nov 27 said:
> 
> 
> > Let us use the type of logic and the wisdom radiating from this discussion. Credits are _"silly and meaningless."_ Also, _"people of true talent know what they're worth and don't need to see it confirmed time and again with a silly, meaningless credit."_ (...)"[/i] Only _"mediocre talents believe every single note they write is deserving of a credit."_
> ...


KHYF. TOBAL...
:wink:


----------



## wonshu (Nov 28, 2007)

LOL

aeneas - at least you have a sense of humor, well... anybody knows that already from your nickname.... 

You know what: I think we all get what you were saying and in principle you're right, but in principle it's also wrong to smoke and still a lot of people fight tooth and nail to do so...


----------



## bryla (Nov 28, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Nov 27 said:


> Bryla, I think you get the point I'm making without my being 100% literal?



??


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Nov 28, 2007)

bryla @ Wed Nov 28 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Nov 27 said:
> 
> 
> > Bryla, I think you get the point I'm making without my being 100% literal?
> ...



I guess not :D


----------



## aeneas (Nov 28, 2007)

wonshu @ Wed 28 Nov said:


> The semantics fan that you are you probably mean 'could', right?
> 
> ok, enough... for me at least.


I am no fan of semantics. As you can plainly see, I'm not a fan of grammar either. I am a fan of my fan, but even that, only during the summer. 8) 

I much appreciate when people only consider the content, the meaning - without making big fuss about form, language, semantics, grammar... My poor English has nothing to do with what I mean - and I think you got right what I mean, but only try to put me down by highlighting my poor English. That is only my opinion, of course - I *'could'* be wrong. :wink:


----------



## wonshu (Nov 28, 2007)

Funny thing is:

I truly respect your way of posting and I apologize.

That does not mean I think that the whole industry has to change because everyone should get credit where credit is due... as long as there's bread on the table... 

anyway...


----------



## aeneas (Nov 28, 2007)

wonshu @ Wed 28 Nov said:


> as long as there's bread on the table...


Here's to bread! o-[][]-o


----------



## rgames (Dec 3, 2007)

Late to the discussion, I know...

I read through most of the thread but there's one observation that seems to be missing: "ghostwriting" is the standard method of operation in nearly every human endeavor.

The lead composer is really an administrator and an "idea" person. His skill lies in an ability to assemble teams of people who, collectively, can do a better job than any one alone.

The same happens in law, science, engineering, architecture, accounting, government, etc. How many senators do you think actually write the legislation that holds their names? How many lead engineers actually do the engineering work associated with the projects that hold their names? What percentage of legal work is done by the lawyer whose name is on the firm or the case?

I'd guess that 90% of workers (not just composers, ALL workers) work as part of some group and never have their names associated with that group's product. And, as far as I can tell, they're OK with it.

The other 10% use their profession's equivalent of ghostwriters.  

rgames


----------



## aeneas (Dec 3, 2007)

rgames @ Mon 03 Dec said:


> The lead composer is really an administrator and an "idea" person. His skill lies in an ability to assemble teams of people who, collectively, can do a better job than any one alone.


Exactly! That is why he gets the credit for scoring the film - Music: Hans Zimmer
But that is not something that would prevent the filmscorer from giving due credits to his helpers - Additional music: Jeff Rona, Steve Jablonsky, Harry Gregson-Williams, Klaus Badelt, etc.

In a similar way, the director cannot always do everything alone, so he hires assistants. AFAIK, the directors' assistants always get screen credit. In fact, everybody, including truck drivers, get screen credit. Everybody... excepting additional composers. Do you find that acceptable? Ghostwriting is a fact, I know, but it is a wrong one - so it has to be corrected, as opposed of accepted, closing our eyes, and letting others to take advantage of it by keeping it underground. 

Also, doing something that one cannot be later held responsible, like ghostwriting - that is not a very responsible behavior, is it? Who would like to be known as a person who doesn't take responsibility for his doings? Yeah, ghostwriters are not 'known', they are elusive slippery creatures counting their money in the dark... ("my preciousssss..." (o) )

Back to your point - the issue was never the TEAM WORK, which is the very heart of making movies. The issue was NOT giving credits, i.e. ghostwriting. 



> The same happens in law, science, engineering, architecture, accounting, government, etc.


Yes, that was #6 on my list of justifications for doing it:
- it is better than NOTHING
- it is PAID
- it is paid MUSIC work
- one gains experience of WRITING music (albeit writing someone else's music)
- cash is ALWAYS welcome
- EVERYBODY does it (or has done it)
- doing it never HURT anybody
- knowing-that-you-are-helping-other-composers is a justification for letting those 'other-composers' SIGN your music.
...

For me, there is a world of difference between reason and justification. Reason is rational, it is the result of reasoning. Justification is an excuse, a logical fallacy grounded on 'feelings' and 'beliefs'. There can be an excuse/justification for doing anything, while not everything can be rationally supported by reason. One can find plenty of justifications for his crime, but one cannot find one single reason for doing it. More concrete to the topic here - there are many reasons for giving due credit, while there is none for NOT giving due credit. For the latter, there are only justifications/excuses. Hence my list.


----------



## bryla (Dec 4, 2007)

:roll:


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 4, 2007)

<whispers>Shhhhhhh, Bryla... maybe if we're _really_ quiet, this thread will go to sleep.</whispers>


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 4, 2007)

BOO!


----------



## wonshu (Dec 4, 2007)

LOL


----------



## aeneas (Dec 4, 2007)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Tue 04 Dec said:


> <whispers>Shhhhhhh, Bryla... maybe if we're _really_ quiet, this thread will go to sleep.</whispers>


+1

Sleep well. Sweet dreams...


----------



## Mike Greene (Dec 4, 2007)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Tue Dec 04 said:


> <whispers>Shhhhhhh, Bryla... maybe if we're _really_ quiet, this thread will go to sleep.</whispers>


Well, maybe that would be OK with _some_ of you guys, but I'm still unclear on what aeneas' postion is on ghostwriting. Did he ever say?


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 4, 2007)

Where's that smack on Mike's head smiley???


----------



## Mike Greene (Dec 4, 2007)

Hey, I'm just doing what I can to get my warning count up! It just kills me to be tied with Choco!


----------



## aeneas (Dec 4, 2007)

Mike Greene @ Tue 04 Dec said:


> Well, maybe that would be OK with _some_ of you guys, but I'm still unclear on what aeneas' postion is on ghostwriting. Did he ever say?


Oh, sarcasm, how sweet...

Here is my reconsidered position on ghostwriting: 
As long as ghostwriting exists as an accepted practice in film scoring, 
1) the composer's name (and credit) has no meaning whatsoever, and 
2) no one can really complain about bad sounding film scores.

Film music is nothing but a *ghost-hotchpotch*. Eat it, it's authorless.

That is for all you 'Goldsmith-Williams-Zimmer' (etc.) worshipers, and also for all you 'toilet-flushed-soundtracks' complainers - your discussions have no subject but one: "I like this ghostwriting more, or less, than that other ghostwriting." That's all. No names. Film composers are unnamed ghosts. Naming them is misleading, for what (and if) they have really composed is highly uncertain. 

Long Live Ghostwriting! It really heightens the status of being a film composer. Be proud! Enjoy!


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 4, 2007)

aeneas @ 4/12/2007 said:


> Be proud! Enjoy!



Hey - you didn't write that! Jan Tuttel from the Netherlands wrote it already, at the end of the 5th post on this page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nottingham/speakout/archive_robinhood_3.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nottingham/speakou ... od_3.shtml)

Come clean, man, come clean! :evil:


----------



## aeneas (Dec 4, 2007)

The Power of Google! :twisted:

That was a diversion, ghostwriting has nothing to do with inadvertently bumping into three notes (or three words) that have already been played (said). If you want, we can talk about 'unwilling ghostwriters', like Holst and the ones I've mentioned. It is also known as plagiarism. Another 'reason' for some film composers to be proud and to enjoy...


----------



## aeneas (Dec 6, 2007)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Tue 04 Dec said:


> Come clean, man, come clean! :evil:


I hope you will find this clean enough: http://vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=100581


----------



## germancomponist (Sep 24, 2009)

Any new ghostwriters here?


----------

