Quoting Vega:

Quote:
Checking around it seems most places consider him a "Composer" and he's won "composing" (versus "song writing") awards for his "theme songs" which is how he's being credited here.

He was nominated for an Emmy as composer for the first episode of Hill Street Blues. Thereafter, his awards and nominations at the Emmys were in the category of "Outstanding Individual Achievement in Main Title Theme Music".

Theme music is really a 3rd music credit that we're fighting about shoehorning into 2 places in which it doesn't belong. It's definitely not an original score and some argue it's not a song.

In movies we have multiple sets of musical compositions called
a score and
a single musical composition with or without lyrics called
a song, the first is made by
a composer the second by
a songwriter.
A songwriter composes music and/or writes lyrics, but as
a song does not accompanies the whole movie, it's not the same as a score and therefore
a songwriter may not be called the composer of a movie.

Frankly, I'm amazed by the ambigious results of this thread. As I said before: I do understand why some would argue that a "theme" doesn't equal a "song", but my main point of concern is that the "theme" writer (a small piece of music that only plays over the credits) does NOT deserve joint "composer" credit together with the person that provided the actual score. I thought that would be more important than just quibbling over what exactly constitutes a "song".

As someone pointed out, the rules actually say that the "composer" credit is to be "Used for the composer of the film's Original Score." We all agree that Mike Post was NOT "the composer of the film's Original Score", right? So the current situation, where Mike Post gets a joint "composer" credit together with the person that actually scored the movie, isn't even allowed by the rules. That leaves us with two options:

1) Remove the credit for Mike Post entirely.

2) Credit Mike Post as "song writer".

Well, I already gave my preference... Seeing that the current vote on my contribution is 4-4, chances are that it will be declined, and then the only other option will be to remove the credit. I think that's a shame, as it's a perfectly legitimate credit, which could be entered in DVD Profiler in a perfectly acceptable way. I'm amazed to see how many users would rather just lose the credit... If this gets declined, I will try to remove the credit, as the rules simply don't allow us to give Mike Post a "composer" credit. It's either "song writer" or nothing.

@ Staid S Barr: I was talking about the votes on my contribution (EAN 025193327222). I didn't include "remove the credit" as a poll option, as I felt that it's a perfectly legitimate credit which can be handled in DVD Profiler in a perfectly acceptable manner. Also, I hadn't even realised that the rules simply don't allow a "composer" credit for Mike Post. But they clearly do, so it turns out that the only way to retain Mike Post's credit in DVD Profiler is to change his credit to "song writer". If I can't convince the voters/screeners to accept that change, the only remaining option is to remove his credit altogether. So if necessary, that's what I'll do.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
The people who give awards for TV shows, here in the US, consider the person who wrote the music a 'composer' and the person that wrote the words a 'lyricist'.

As I said, I don't think it will solve anything as the problem with this rule is it was written from a 'theatrical' point of view. 

This is sort of like the writing category where everyone in that category is a writer, but not all get to be credited as "written by". Different aspects of writing are categorized and credited differently.

In our case, the composer of an original score gets the composer credit in Profiler.

A composer of music that is used in a song with words gets the song writer credit in Profiler.

A composer of music that is used without words but isn't the score... ...doesn't fit the rules. It doesn't mean that composer is not a composer. Of course they are. But for DVD Profiler, they aren't.

It's sort of like a writer who's credited with "additional dialogue". Where does that go in Profiler? Nowhere.

I'm sorry but, I'm going to have to dissagree with those who don't think a theme is not a song.  Many so called themes have end up in the top 10 songs.  The "Friends" theme song comes to mind.  So how can anyone think that someones musical work isn't a song.

Those who say because the credit says "Theme by" shouldn't get credit at all need to re-read the rules for song writers.  The credit as colum is blank the the description simply says "Original Songs, written specifically for the film".

For those who think that a song writter should get composer credit.  Need to check the invaild use of composer credit "Songs by and Song/Music writers". Sorry the one who writes music for a song does not get composer credit as by our rules.

For me it is plain and simple if a theme song is an original song written for the TV series it should get Song writter credit.

One more example: I'm pretty sure I once saw a TV-show that had a theme song with lyrics for the first couple of episodes, but then changed to an instrumental version after a couple of episodes. It's a shame that I can't remember the name of that show, maybe it'll come back to me, but even as a hypothetical case it's interesting.

Let's assume the "theme" credit for the first couple of episodes was (let us also assume that a different person is credited as composer of the actual score):

"XYZ Theme"
Music: John Doe
Lyrics: Jane Doe

I'd give both "song writer" credits, and based on what I've read in this thread, all of you would do the same. Now after a couple of weeks, the producers decide to yank the vocals, and the "theme" credit changes to:

"XYZ Theme"
by John Doe

Am I correct in understanding that this would cause quite a number of you to suddenly look at John Doe's job - who probably wasn't even involved with the show anymore at that point - in a whole new light, and not give him a "song writer" credit anymore? Based on the fact that the producers decided to yank the vocals, John Doe magically no longer qualifies for a "song writer" credit, as he is now a "composer" (a credit which we cannot use, since someone else is credited for the actual score)? I really don't get that. John Doe did the same thing for both batches of episodes; he basically gets the same credit for the same theme. Why would whether or not lyrics are included affect how we look at John Doe's work?

This whole discussion wouldn't have to go on if we could just accept that for DVD Profiler purposes, we can consider a "theme" as a "song". Many, many TV-shows have "music by XXX, theme by YYY" credits - that is valuable data to me, and I don't want to lose that. The rules make clear that we can't list the theme writer as a "composer", so if only we could consider the "theme" a "theme song", then all our problems are solved, and we can happily credit them as "song writers". Pros: we retain all the valuable data that's in the credits, with a clear distinction between the actual composer who supplied the score and the person that supplied the "theme song" to boot. Cons: none at all. The only alternative is not to credit the theme writers at all - cons: loss of valuable and legitimate data; pros: none at all...

Again: the rules tell us that the "composer" credit is to be "used for the composer of the film's Original Score." So, going back to the original question in the first post of this thread, John Cacavas is the composer (from the opening credits: "Music by John Cacavas"). We're all clear on that, right? The only other music/song-related credit is in the end credits, and that says: "Mystery Movie Theme by Mike Post". We can't use "composer", as Mike Post obviously did NOT score the movie together with John Cacavas. So if we want to retain the credit, we can only give him a "song writer" credit. And I'd very much like to keep his credit: Mike Post appears quite a lot throughout my collection, and I'd like the database to show that he contributed a "theme" to this season of 'Columbo'. But if we can't agree on using "song writer", the only other option is to remove him altogether...

No it wasn't, Hal, it was an accusation. Like i said there were numerous other possible interpretations, but you chose the most negative and the most inflammatory.

Skip