Interested in writing film music? Here's a link to a Vanity Fair article that claims that the majority of film composers, including "big-name" composers such as Hans Zimmer, farm out much of the composing to uncredited "ghost composers," most of whom are paid very poorly and gain no recognition for their work, even when their work leads to Oscar and Golden Globe awards for the big-name composers who take all the credit. Here's the link:
“The Minions Do the Actual Writing”: The Ugly Truth of How Movie Scores Are Made
John Williams is apparently a rare exception to this practice; he reputedly writes all his music himself.
Posts
35 comments:
I thought this was a pretty fascinating article, and provides a lot of insight into an industry that I have always been a fan of, but not known a whole lot about. First of all, I think this could really be two separate articles. There is of course the topic of ghostwriting which is referred to in the title, however half of the article seems to be focused on the negative affects of streaming services like Netflix on the revenue of film composers. This is something we have talked about at great length over the past couple of years, and I think the opinion that streaming services suck for artists has been pretty unanimous. The problem is that, outside of the arts industry, no one cares; and these streaming services are growing at an exponential rate. I for one am an avid Spotify user. While this is not a huge deal for the super famous artists, the lesser known ones are really struggling as they are only getting a fraction of what they would have gotten in the past in terms of royalties. More and more famous artists are speaking out and filing lawsuits against these services but so there may be a more fair model created down the road, but as it stands these services have been detrimental to many artists around the world, and it really is a shame.
As for the actual point of the article: ghostwriting in film scores; I honestly not sure if it is really that bad. Obviously certain situations are more acceptable than others. Hans Zimmer (who I am a big fan of, so I'm pretty biased), seems to be on the chopping block for most of this article. First he is criticized for having a team of associate composers who he oversees. I'm okay with that. It's like he is an editor at a newspaper, and the other composers are his writers. He gets to keep a pretty hefty percentage of the money but he is also involved in every single project, as opposed to the writers who may only be involved in one, so that aspect does seem fair. He is listed as the lead composer and the others are listed as additional composers, which could be misleading but everyone is still getting credit and getting paid, so I think it's fine. The real problem would be with the actual ghostwriting, where composers don't get any credit. This seems like the biggest issue to me. While the ghost composers are getting paid, they are not getting any sort of public recognition. This is likely going to keep them from moving forward in their field and getting asked to do future projects. It is said in the article that this is because of bureaucracy at the movie studio. and there is sometimes not enough space to include the names of everyone in the music department. While I can't say for sure, I find that really hard to believe. If they can include the names of the person who is responsible for doing the morning coffee run (which I have noticed in multiple movies), then they can certainly make room for one more composer. I don't know if there is any solution to this beyond giving credit where credit is due, but I certainly hope for the sake of all aspiring film composers that something is done about this and a more equitable system is implemented
I’m not completely opposed to the model of scoring used by people like Hans Zimmer, but I am strongly against how it is implemented. I think there’s a way to fix this system without “throwing the baby out with the bath water” as the saying goes. What this system needs more than anything is a much higher amount of transparency, crediting, and ability to move up in the industry. I think the part of the reason that people like Hans Zimmer try so hard to maintain their image as the “true creator” of everything they do, is because their reputation is directly linked to future job opportunities and career defining roles. If there were more transparency, maybe the next big blockbuster would be scored primarily by one of their underlings, instead of them. This is also linked to problems of ego for some composers, but I don’t mean to imply that this applies to all of them. But should we completely do away with this model? Can we even?
On the other hand, the factory model of scoring is now an essential part of Hollywood moviemaking. It would be practically impossible for a single person, or even a small group to create and continuously revise a film score in some of the now insanely small timeframes given to them by studios. Of course, there are still opportunities for these kinds of small group/solo scoring jobs, but they are rarely seen for big budget movies nowadays. It's just a simple fact that a factory of composers and collaborators can churn out high quality scores much quicker. How do we fix this problem then?
Transparency is the key, because it is the only way to ensure that everyone is being fairly compensated for their work. It can be difficult or even impossible sometimes to determine exactly how much of an idea was created by a specific person, so I don’t ever expect this to be a conflict-free environment. But I would much rather see an environment where disagreements over originators are common than one where actual creators are actively swindled, and forced to awkwardly sit in meetings where someone else claims their work as their own.
I agree with Andrew's comment, I think the concept of a group of composers working under one primary composer is not necessarily a bad model as it makes creating work for bigger budget productions more efficient however it is evident this model is being used to take advantage of composers, who are not paid adequately or given due credit for their work. Rather than the result of composers like Zimmer being greedy or lazy though, I think this is the symptom of a larger issue in the economy of the entertainment/streaming industry. More and more people are being forced to work in gig-economy style jobs where they work on contracts rather than getting paychecks or receiving royalties from work they're involved in. One economist who's work I find interesting calls this "Techno-feudalism" and his theory is essentially that in the post-2008 economy, CEO's that control digital spaces or powerful companies like Amazon, Facebook, Netflix, etc. are becoming less dependent on the market system as they become more powerful. Just through being active on online platforms by viewing ads or sharing our location alone we make free profit for the people who own them. There is such a disparity between employer and employee that there is no longer any incentive on the employer side to pay workers decent wages. I think establishing stronger musician/composers unions could play a part in alleviating this but I don't think it's an issue we're bound to see go away soon unless streaming and Hollywood companies are forced to become accountable.
Yanis Varoufakis' article on "Technofeudalism": https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/techno-feudalism-replacing-market-capitalism-by-yanis-varoufakis-2021-06
**Here's that last link without the paywall
https://www.yanisvaroufakis.eu/2021/07/05/techno-feudalism-is-taking-over-project-syndicate-op-ed/
Very interesting article, I never knew that a lot of big name composers basically hire young beginning composers to write the majority of their compositions for them, it seems backwards. I feel that the practice of "ghost composers" and the whole idea of them being minions to well known composers is a toxic field of work to put it lightly. I can't imagine that any composer reading this article would want to pursue a career in film composing, to me the stress and uncertainty wouldn't be worth it, let alone the fact that you may never get credit for work that you may have poured your heart and soul into. On the topic of royalties, it is unsurprising to me that companies such as Netflix are trying to get away with undercutting artists whenever they can, this article presents a prime example of corporate greed and the underlying number one reason for business to exist "to make money." That short three word phrase gets hammered into every business owner, Major, analyst from day 1, I remember being told repeatedly in the first business course I took that the only purpose of business is to make money; The problem being that companies never want to stop making money, they need to outperform last years revenue, they need to stay ahead of their competitors, as such it is a vicious cycle of there never being enough money. I can certainly say that with the knowledge of business that I have, mixed with my knowledge of music, I don't think I would ever take the dive into composing for film, its a volatile market.
This article certainly sheds light on multiple topics. Streaming for example is something that is so convenient as a consumer yet so detrimental to the industry and livelihood of the people creating the content. Many conveniences seem to have a deeper price when further examining them. What is the ideal situation where the creator and consumer win? I wish I had the answer! It really does not surprise me how companies like Netflix are making it harder for composers and artists to get their compensation.
I think in a hypothetical fantasy world ghost writing would not exist but lets face it. There will always be someone who has enough money to hire someone to ghost write as many artists are not in positions to turn down gigs. While I would not do it myself I do not view ghost writing as the problem. The problem is taking advantage of people in lower positions of power and extorting them to serve yourself. To sum it up if someone did something, give them credit for it. Pay them.
I really empathize with the people risking their careers and reputations talking about this. Corrupt institutions seem to only budge slowly however giving up should not be an option either. I don't blame people for keeping quiet as so much is on the line when speaking out. It will take more brave souls to come forward with the truth before anything meaningful can change.
I think that this article was a very interesting deep dive into the world of film scoring. I feel like it is very easy to put certain big name film composers up on a pedestal and to forget that it is often not a seldom effort, but the efforts of many composers that bring a film to life. This article describes an “assembly line” approach to film scoring that may be controversial, but personally I am not opposed to it. I think that, in a lot of cases, many hands make for light work, and this could possibly be of benefit in a film composition scenario. I also think that it can be very hard to have a successful project without a visionary leader, so I can see how this is important to have as well. Electing a “head composer”, if you will, can be a great tool in ensuring unity and clarity throughout the project. Perhaps the head composer could determine different recurring sonarities to appear with different moods/characters/visuals, or they could ensure that certain motifs carry their meaning throughout the project. In film acting/production, this task is assigned to a Continuity Supervisor, but musically I feel as if a head composer would be more fit for the role. In this case, I feel like it makes sense that these lead composers get credit to their name, as this is a difficult and important role! However, this isn’t often how it is.
I think that the only way this sort of “assembly line” style of composition can work is if each composer is being fairly compensated for their time and work. Otherwise, this system turns into a giant ghostwriting scheme that exploits smaller composers who are simply just trying to work in their field. This article makes it pretty clear that most film work falls into the latter category. It’s so hard as a young composer to avoid falling into the trap of a project that “pays in experience”, as it isn’t easy to get a start in the industry these days. However, creating environments like these where artists aren’t fairly compensated for their work is clearly unjust, no matter what “experience” you are offering, and unpaid/poorly paid opportunities only contribute towards making a creative career less and less attainable/sustainable for the newest generation of composers.
This comment is me ^ Sorry!
I am not at all surprised that big name composers actually use ideas from lower level composers - that same idea has been happening since the dawn of man in every area of life. For example, many people credit Thomas Edison for the invention of the lightbulb. Well, many people credit Thomas Edison for inventing A LOT of stuff, but he was actually a pretty crappy inventor. He would take other peoples’ ideas and “improve” them (barely altering them at all) so he could take credit.
So this whole thing is not a new idea, but it is a dangerous thing. Allowing people to get away with stealing credit makes space for a lot of erasure - it makes it easy for the contributions of minority groups to be erased. The person who actually invented the carbon-filament lightbulb was a black man named Lewis Latimer but Edison stole his spotlight and erased the legacy of that black man. Imagine how many other POC, women, lower socio-economic class, etc. there are who we don’t know about.
I have heard about this topic and It is so frustrating that this kind of thing happens still in this world. I believe we should all be paid fairly according to the work we do. And to kind of go off of Cassie's comment above, this has been going on for so long in many areas of career fields. I have heard about presentations being taken and being shown with the "Boss'" name on it instead of the employee who did it.
If you look at it this way, it's plagiarism... plain and simple. They are taking others work and putting their name on it for a profit, Which we as University students are told that plagiarism is wrong and if we are caught doing it, then we could face severe consequences. I am not sure what the laws are surrounding this and I know some employees sign contracts saying their work can be used and credit can be taken to save the clients behind from copyright laws.
Honestly, I think the songs should have the true creator's name on the piece so they can have the credit they deserve for the work that do. Composing isn't an easy feat and to push out song after song is absolutely incredible and is a career position that deserves the recognition.
The above comment was me, sorry about that!
This article has left me very shocked and frustrated that this kind of thing even happens. I really hoped that I would scroll to the top to find out that it was an older article, and that maybe things have improved since it was written, but it is in fact very recent. I've always been very intrigued by film scoring, and learning that most big-name composers take advantage of those working under them is just very saddening. While it does seem logical to have a group of composers who are all working under one lead composer, the fact that these "ghost composers" frequently receive zero credit or recognition is astounding. Going off of Matthew's comment, this is literally plagiarism and I genuinely don't understand how it is allowed to happen. It is understandable that the lines can become blurred when many composers are all working together on one project, and the question of who wrote what can become tricky, but based on the given examples, it seems like each composer is given specific sections to work on, so I feel as though it wouldn't be THAT difficult to give credit to each person for their work. Simply put, if you can't give credit to your composers, you don't deserve them.
Wow, what an interesting article! I definitely had no idea that most composers do not write their own film scores, rather delegate them. It begs the question, of course, discussed in the article, what does it mean to be a film composer? What does it entail? As someone who wants to go into the industry of film scoring, this article was enlightening. All people should be credited for their work in not just film scoring, but all aspects of work. I’ve always enjoyed having a routine in terms of work, and it would suck big time if my dream job turned out to be a nightmare.
This article is a really eye-opening read and it raises lots of questions within the sphere of composition and writing in general. The idea of ghost writers is not anything new, we've heard of them for years in the pop music world, many famous rappers have even had beef with one another due to the use of ghost writers and many famous pop stars have had their biggest hits outed as being written by an unnamed ghost. Ghost writing is such a common thing that this article shouldn't be too surprising but for some reason it is. I account this to the idea that many people think about classical (in this case specifically film scoring) and popular music completely differently. To me the idea of having someone else compose a piece of music and putting your name on it is a lot worse than the idea of someone writing words for a pop song and getting a big name pop star to sing the song, cause at least with the pop song the the pop star still needs to perform the song well.
Another question which this kind of made me ask myself is that, if this information was made public from the beginning and instead of having pieces written by ghost writers and these big name composers slapping their names on it, what if the ghost writers in question had been given credit from the start? How would this change the careers of many of these great film composers if we knew that a lot of the music they wrote had been essentially contracted out to other composers but had their name attached to it because thats the name that sells better? If this was the case would we look at Zimmer and other great film composers the same way we do now, or would these unnamed ghost writers be getting more chances for blockbuster films?
As someone who wants to become part of the film industry, this post was a bit of a rude awakening! Of course, it's good to know what I may be getting into if I continue pursuing this path, but it's still frustrating to see so many big names take the credit for other people’s work. Towards the end of the article, the author cites Hans Zimmer as he stated “I think we need to be fairer” in regards to how we treat ghost composers. This begs my question: why not just give them the credit they’re due in the first place?
I thought this article was really interesting and also very depressing considering how it describes the poor pay and acknowledgement many ghost writers get in the film business. The way this articles is written also frustrates me. After describing all this bad stuff, the solution given by the article is that "the market will fix it in 10 years." This feels like a real cop out from suggesting any real structural change that could give composers the amount of compensation they deserve from their music. The topic of unions came up a couple times but all the article discussed was how they "used to have one in 1950, but not anymore." This article doesn't provide any solution to this problem facing composers and doesn't actually interview any composers that are looking to unionize. I truly believe that unionization would give composers with little recognition the ability to leverage against companies and other big name composers that would want to exploit their talents.
I think this is a super interesting article, especially as someone who is interested in film scoring as a potential career.
Considering how exploitative the rest of the film industry is, the treatment of composers is not surprising. It makes the lack of credit by composers like Zimmer even more frustrating. The recognition of that work could potentially give a lot of composers the clout to demand royalties from film companies.
I agree with what others have said and what Deborah Lurie says in the article. The issue isn’t necessarily the use of ghost composers, but the lack of transparency. With the speed at which (mainstream) media is being created, it is difficult for one person to create an entire film score by themselves.
Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening in the current film industry climate. It is much easier to market a film with “music by Hans Zimmer” than with “music by Hans Zimmer (and Et al.). Even if the ghost composers are credited, their names would be put at the end of film, onscreen for 10 seconds at most. I hope a shift happens in which everyone gets the credit they deserve.
[The following comment ran 155 characters in excess of the max number which this blog will accept. It has thus been split into two acts.]
Act I
This is all very grim lore. Regrettably, I feel as though it parallels a more general trend which is being seen at the highest levels of today's film and television industry: One of heavy, centralized creative authority married to a broad, undervalued delegation of the actual work. The largest intellectual properties in Hollywood today are at the tender mercies of extraordinarily wealthy, and often apathetic or domineering executive level authorities. One might take the state of Disney's Star Wars for instance (perhaps topical given the invocation of Williams' name).
As it stands, the absolute preeminent production authority on the direction of all live action Star Wars media is a woman by the name of Kathleen Kennedy. In the case of "her" sequel trilogy, she makes the bizarre decision to delegate each film's direction to a separate director, compromising any chance for holistic creative continuity between the three films.
J.J. Abrams co-writes a script for episode VII in cooperation with Lawrence Kasdan in four months (but not before the original screenwriter, Michael Arndt, walks out due to not being granted enough time to complete his script by his own judgement; he wanted two years). Kennedy later provides that "we haven't mapped out every single detail [of the sequel trilogy] yet", but expects Abrams to collaborate on the writing process of episode VIII with director Ryan Johnson. For his part, Abrams has already penned drafts for all three films. But oops, Ryan Johnson wants to build his episode VIII on the back of "trope subversion", and decides to disregard Abrams' holistic story treatment. Furthermore, he actually delegates much of the writing process to a "story group" before episode VII is even complete.
The same director is expected to help "write" a story treatment for episode IX, but this idea gets lost in production hell before directorial and writing duties are passed off to Colin Trevorrow. Eventually, Trevorrow himself is taken off the project due to "creative differences". Creative differences with who you ask? Why, with god-emperor-producer Kathleen Kennedy, who was allegedly unsatisfied with a number of drafts and revisions produced by Trevorrow. Eventually, Abrams is brought back in to try and salvage this. What a shame that he didn't write drafts for all three films in the first place!
Act II
At this point, somebody finally decides that it may be a good idea for the team to get in touch with George Lucas to discuss "the nature of the force" (lol) before continuing to write episode IX (Lucas himself submitted his own treatment for a sequel trilogy at the outset of Disney's acquisition of Star Wars, which was supposed to be used under a stipulation of said acquisition. This treatment was later discarded anyways in 2015, with Abrams being told to "start from scratch"). Abrams is also given a list of specific "narrative beats" that the script must conform to by Kennedy and co-producer Michelle Rejwan. More rewrites occur during the filming process itself, and ousted director-screenwriter Colin Trevorrow is in fact still given a writing credit on the final product.
What is the end result of all of this administrative squabbling and outsourcing of creative labour? A narratively self-contradictory dumpster fire of a trilogy that can ultimately say and mean nothing, ostensibly "created" by one or two upper level producers. Kennedy would later say the following of Abrams' desire to treat the story for all three films: "So I think if you asked him today, he probably wishes he’d been in a situation where he could have done all three — but as I said, these are huge projects. So it’s very difficult unless there’s three or four years in between. It’s not really physically possible." Who does she think wrote and directed the first six films??? An AI???? A bunch of ants wearing a trench coat?????
This odyssey of a polemic was to demonstrate that this trend of top-heavy administrative overhead married to the delegation of actual work to underrepresented and often underpaid soldiers is by no means a trend isolated to film scoring. It can equally be seen in film production more largely, and perhaps also somewhere else that is very near and dear to everybody commenting on this blog.
Crediting individuals in the film industry can often be a complex issue. It's not always a straightforward matter of determining who deserves recognition, especially in an industry where numerous individuals are required to fulfill various roles. While the director may appear to get most of the creative credit, for example, they're essentially the person responsible for financing everything from the cast to the lighting crew and screenwriters, just like the composers you mentioned, who hire other people for the job. The actors who receive most of the attention (given their faces on the screen) aren't the main creators of the film but naturally get the most attention. Many behind-the-scenes players, such as scriptwriters, composers, and directors, are often overlooked, despite contributing significantly to the movie's creative success, are under credited. It's not surprising that the soundtrack credit works similarly. Ultimately, while getting a lot depends on industry connections, managerial abilities, creative talent, and, most significantly, luck. I'm convinced that many people could write music as well as Hans Zimmer, just as many could sing like a famous pop star. However, becoming well-known is dependent on many factors other than the talent you are famous for.
Aren't we all little minions of this blog? responsible for most of the traffic even if we're under the subdomain "clarkross.blogspot.com"? ;)
I find this article finally opens up a huge issue that has been siding the professional industry for the last decade and beyond when it comes to royalties and how valued peoples creations (especially when it comes to the musical side) really are in the modern film industry. It's something that is extremely frustrating to sit back and view, after seeing a few personal friends get their personal music in movies, tv shows, short films, etc. I've gotten to see first hand the issue that composers deal with when it comes to the true credibility and pay they deserve for their creations. It's saddening to see such a disrespect to composers and an increase buyout culture, how it's not bringing in supportive backed income for composers. it's terrifying knowing these composers put all of their time and effort into a creation that may not even land them a second job or a steady paycheque. The culture of ghost composing is one that is also saddening to see as people are not receiving the historical credit they deserve. It makes it harder also on other composers who want their names and royalties collective to their works as it makes the film industry think of how to profit the most. Why pay a composer for a work that will cost more money than buying out a ghost composer that will do a one and done work and then never ask to be seen or heard from again until another job opens up months down the road. Personally, I think it takes all of the respect out of giving credit to those who rightfully should be credited with their work. I understand In the film industry that the actors and the directing crew are a huge part of the film and are payed a lot of the final cut, but the music that Is played during certain scenes is what truly brings a specific mood or clip come together and be as iconic as it is. Without music, the emotion that a lot of iconic movies give off goes away and they would become plain boring film with a lot of white noise and awkward silence. I believe the credit composers such as Zimmer get in that industry are not near as what they deserve, and I agree with the quotes throughout the article. Its very disheartening to see how the composers are getting the bottom of the barrel when it comes to the budgets and royalties off these films. This is what they have worked for their entire lives, it deserves a ton of more credit and recognition than it is getting In my opinion.
This doesn’t surprise me at all and to say that it is infuriating would be an understatement considering the amount of work it takes to become educated in music at all and then trying to get your foot in the door to the industry only to get little to no recognition for it.
I can understand why working under a big-name composer would be a stepping stone to becoming more recognized in the industry. Those composers have a lot of connections, but for the composers who are taking credit for other people's work is extremely rude to say the least, however, I think it’s great that people like John Powell are bringing buyout deals to people's attention. The thought of being considered nothing but a “minion” as the article describes, while writing for another person to put their name on is very insulting. As composers, we pour emotion into each piece and to be told to give it to someone else to put their name on is heartbreaking.
From the listeners point of view, I feel very deceived. If I am going to listen to a score, I am expecting that score to be written by the person indicated. Not by someone else or some other group of people.
This is definitely a disheartening fact for someone looking to head into the music industry. The article did a very good job at disclosing this injustice and discrepancy of recognition in the music industry, which to me (and I suspect many other people) had previously been unknown. However, it does remind me quite a lot of what happens in the popular music industry. In virtually every main stream recording (done on the professional level) and a whole host of studio musicians and engineers that in many respects make the recordings what they are. Similar in the film industry case discussed in the article, studio musicians are commonly given bare-bones tracks such as the melody and harmony of pop songs, much like the ideas or themes that film "minion" film composer's are given, and told to expand on these ideas and create them into a full musical product. Unlike the film example however, most if not all studio musicians that work on a certain pop product are credited on the final product. I find it very interesting that in the cases of "minion" composers, they are not credited at all, as whether they add to the ideas they are given or simply arrange them they are still creating new artistic material. At the very least I feel the composition compony or studio should be credited, not simply the lead composer.
The issue of pay and accreditation within films is an industry-wide problem. Not only do composers receive low wages, are subject to the whims of their higher ups, are forced to participate in the gig economy, are given little recognition for their work, and often work gruelling hours, similar problems exist within the special effects sector of the industry. The commonality between these two parts of the film industry is they are both not unionized, making collective action against mistreatment impossible.
These problems don't exist nearly to the same extent when examining professions within film that are unionized such as screen writers, directors, actors, and even the musicians. Unions are able to set strict rules on wages, working hours, working conditions, and accreditation with a threat of fees and strike should the executives misstep and exploit their workers. The problems composers face within the film industry is indicative of a wider problem within the United States and Canada of diminishing union participation and union busting by corporations which isn't legislated against. In order to fix these issues which affect the lives of composers and other artists within the film industry, a systemic change need to be made in the way workers are able to make collective decisions regarding their employment.
Big-name composers borrowing concepts from lesser-known composers are nothing new to me; it has been happening in all areas of human endeavours since the dawn of time. The idea of receiving little to no credit for your work was not even recognized as a problem until copyright was invented (thank you Mickey Mouse). Copying others, and tweaking things to get the credit is common. I mean, outside of music, many inventors received credit for inventions they didn't make or tweaked slightly. Example: Galileo is famously credited for the invention of the telescope, but in reality, Hans Lippershey is the one who should be credited with the find. The same can be said for the majority of music compositions. The Loney Tunes soundtracks utilize a bunch of famous classical pieces, and the Star Wars soundtrack also utilizes big names like Mozart, Wagner and more. This use of copying on top of the use of unnamed composers is unfair, but sadly, not surprising.
I had a biology teacher in highschool who used to say that there is nothing unique to human invention. Everything that has been invented exists somehow in nature. I don't know if I fully understand or agree with this, but it does seem to make sense that we can only create what we know and recognize. That being said, there's a serious difference between inspiration or writing from familiarity and copying another artists work. For me, it comes down to giving credit where credit is due as well as consent.
While it is incredible disappointing that bigger composers take ideas from smaller composers, it is not a surprise, or even anything new. This act of taking from smaller artists is also very frequent In mainstream. for example, there are so many songs from popular artists that take ideas from smaller, more niche songs. while I believe it is totally fine if the bigger artist asks for permission to take or use these ideas in a different way, this sometimes is not the case. Some artists steal musical ideas wether it be lyrics, chord progressions, or melodies, or audio from the original song without any sort of permission. I am happy to hear that some artists and composers are fighting for their fair profits.
This article was not very surprising to me, but it was certainly disheartening. I remember the first time I heard that many composers do not compose 100% of their work I almost didn't want to believe it. I had idolized these composers and how they were able to make beautiful music while keeping their distinct sound to it. The article mention Hans Zimmer a lot, who has composed some film scores that I enjoy very much. I find his compositions to all be very "Zimmer-ish". It's like I can hear one of his scores and know its a Zimmer score. This made it extra difficult for me to come to terms with the fact that it is mostly a team of underpaid and uncredited ghost composers doing the bulk of the work. This article, while disheartening, did help clear up some things, like how the "Lead Composers" give a general idea or outline of what the piece should sound like, explaining why Zimmer's scores all have that "Zimmer-ish" sound to them.
It was a bit frustrating reading the quotes from composers talking about how difficult it is to credit everyone who works on a given score. If these composers are really trying to better represent their teams, why are there almost no mention of them during acceptance speeches for awards? I think many composers and film studios are perfectly fine with the general public being unaware of the amount of people who work on film scores. While I do believe some composers genuinely are trying to properly credit and represent their teams, this whole thing just feels like a secret Hollywood is content with keeping.
When reading this I was confused as I originally thought scoring for movies or video games is the dream job for composers and they make lots of money due the high amount of work and jobs available. When Henry Mancini said “The ultimate perquisite of a composer’s life, is being able to make a living doing what you truly love to do: create music.” This is so true and he has seen so much success and spot light where as many people who helped him are living the same dream but not getting credit and most importantly not getting paid. After all film industry is a business and the end goal is to make such a profit that more and more times musicians are seeing less and less of the pot. Which is insane as music is the thing that creates the atmosphere for films. We are seeing this more today as well as a weird example I can think of with music heavily in films is the James Bond movies. We see famous musicians take part in this and get paid lots gf money. But what about the composers in other films? It not right that we have people helping and “ghost writing” and they are not getting paid appropriately. The amount of work it takes to make a score for these films is insane and “The composers have six or seven projects on the go at any point,” This work load on top of the mistreatment is just simply not write and it is just so confusing as all these companies have so much money but they are just trying to save a few pennies.
Before reading this article I was aware that pursuing music, specifically composing as a full-time endeavour would be challenging in numerous ways. What I didn't expect to learn from this article was the issues in composing for films. I would have previously imagined that that kind of opportunity would be the ideal scenario for an aspiring composer, however, now I am not certain. I found it particularly disheartening that certain composers featured in the article chose to remain anonymous as they fear that speaking out will have negative impacts on their career.
On a more positive note, the "Your music, your future" initiative is an important step in the right direction in terms of adequately compensating composers for their work. It is important to advocate for initiatives that support the arts as there are already plenty of barriers that artists face.
An interesting arising theme in this article is the lack of protection for musicians in the industry, notably ones that are attributed entire scores for films and other media. Every musician knows that pursuing music is no easy feat, and that a lot of hard work goes towards creating a diverse and high quality piece of music. However the article notes the modern streaming era, and big corporation's hold over the creations of musicians, more specifically Netflix and its tendency to buy out all royalties from their composers. This combined with the streaming industries lack of compensation effectively deprives musicians and writers the compensation for ongoing success of their pieces.
It seems wrong considering the layers that a films score add to a piece of work, as their role is essential in creating dynamic emotions in a work. There is no standard set for how composers and artists are to be treated when creating, which is evident in lack of union representations. Truly, it shows how undervalued composers are in modern work, and treated as small cogs to a big machine, when it is there work that elevates media to a new level. What was once regarded as an important and prestigious job is now underpaid, and not worth the amount of effort put into it.
Upon reading this article, I was disappointed but not surprised that the ghost composers behind film scores aren't credited and, in most cases, are poorly paid, since industries like this can often be corrupt in some ways. I understand that working with a team of composers can be more efficient than working alone, but everyone involved should get the credit they deserve, as well as a better paycheck.
In addition, is winning awards even that rewarding emotionally if someone else did a huge chunk of the work for you? I'm surprised ghost composers are not credited in acceptance speeches, since accepting an award would be a great time to give credit where it's due, especially if the ghost composers' names cannot be mentioned in the credits due to time constraints.
This was a fascinating article. I have seen some tough work environments and situations during my business career before I came to MUN. I think there are some interesting parallels between some of the issues raised in this article and many of the issues related to employee retention in tech and finance that are highly covered in mainstream business media.
Ultimately, if I were a major composer I don’t think I would want to outsource my work to others because I think it would be easier/faster to work as an individual composer than in a group. I think the benefits and drawbacks of working as a “Ghost Composer” for a Hollywood film scorer are highly case specific. As one of my former bosses/ mentors put it, career building is about navigating trade-offs. I think this is relevant to careers in composition and to many of the points made in this article.
For example, if I were on a project with Hans Zimmer where I did a bunch of work for not much credit or money, it would probably still be something I’d want to do so I could learn from him and put it on my resume and masters/doctoral/ other job applications that I had worked with him. In that case the money I’d be not making might be worth the experience of working on that project. Experience, connections and wow factor for networking, applications, and pursuing other opportunities is really valuable and I think the article overlooks this point.
That said, there are probably lots of situations where working on projects using this model is absolutely not worth it (i.e on a movie no one knows or a composer who isn’t famous or won’t teach you much). Determining whether this is a good model is case specific and depends on the goals of the ghost composers. A master’s student working with Hans Zimmer for no money or credit during a summer between semesters might treat it like a great opportunity whereas an established composer with years of experience might be discouraged by that prospect.
I think the greatest and most likely root to this problem is ego. I know that this topic is really complex but if we take away a bit of the ego, some things will get better. It seems with the big names like Hans Zimmer and John Williams, they want to take all the credit for more share of the money. I personally think they should think more of the ghost writers and pay them more so that they may feel more motivated to write the best music they can for the scores. This is especially true if some of the ghost composers having to choose between gas or food. I also think though, more money should go into the arts for new classical music in general but in this case, for film. It is hard when Hollywood doesn't want to take as many risks anymore. Risks make people want to see movies, maybe some people like bland movies, but I know the cool people don't.
This article was a good read, very insightful, but not surprising. It's sad that musicians are looking for jobs, doing what they love, only to have it taken from them with no recognition. It's disgusting when you think of it. For big names in the industry taking top credit for the music, and making the others shove their contribution under the rug. To make it worse, they don't get paid well.
When Henry Mancini said “The ultimate perquisite of a composer’s life, is being able to make a living doing what you truly love to do: create music," it is so true. Musicians work their hardest to get their work seen and heard. They work to fulfil their dreams but also make a living out of it. That is hard to do already, without someone taking credit. They think, just because they have a huge, popular name, they can take credit for your hard work. It's the same as saying I am taking credit for all the skills, talent, and the music degree you have.
Post a Comment