# Stolen wages becoming a industry wide issue



## merlinhimself (Jan 24, 2021)

I've seen a lot of people expressing their discontent lately on different forums and groups. This issue was one that always bothered me, even not being in the same situation anymore (yet still not fully making my worth even as an additional). As an assistant, at one point I made the mistake of calculating my hourly wage from my "contractor rate" and it ended up being something around 4.50 an hour. That definitely did a number on my self esteem.

There are a lot of arguments for both sides of the assistant & composer dynamic, but on the side of the composers paying people less than their worth or value, it generally is summed up to "well you dont have to take the job or do it" but in this industry most of us who dreamed of working in the field really dont have much a choice if they want to give their dream a shot. It seems like youre in or youre out and if you're in then we cant really pay you fairly. This topic always has seemed like taboo as well, which is highly irregular as it has to deal with the well being of underpaid assistants, interns, and anyone who isnt the boss. Its a really unhealthy lifestyle to work 18+ hours for months on end, no benefits, no overtime, and then to come out of it with a meager salary. Especially in such a technical, talent, skill, and time demanding industry. I know the legality of it all is backed by backwards freelance/contractor laws, but that still doesnt make it right. Anyone paying their employees/contractors this type of deal knows exactly what theyre doing. I just wanted to open up friendly conversation on this here and would love to hear everyone's thoughts on it as well as if anyone thinks a solution could be made.


----------



## Barrel Maker (Jan 24, 2021)

Not only is what you describe unethical, but it could also be illegal (depending on the labor laws of where you live). It never ceases to amaze me that some very, very well-known composers blatantly violate California labor law, as defined, in part, by the Labor Commissioner's Office and EDD.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 24, 2021)

Barrel Maker said:


> Not only is what you describe unethical, but it could also be illegal (depending on the labor laws of where you live). It never ceases to amaze me that some very, very well-known composers blatantly violate California labor law, as defined, in part, by the Labor Commissioner's Office and EDD.


absolutely, the independent contractor laws are awful and should be amended. You can basically pay a daily/weekly/monthly rate and it doesnt how many hours were worked. The legality of it is over my head, I wouldnt doubt that it is actually illegal, and if its not it should be.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Jan 24, 2021)

I think in the realm of the arts, you are being paid for a finished product (_e.g._ a score for a film in this case). Say you are paid, just for sake of argument, $10,000 for a project -- well, what if you can get the project done in 1 hour (not going to happen - well, maybe with a Drama Tool Kit ) - well, you just made $10,000/hour - but, if you work on it for 10,000 hours, then you only got paid $1/hour

The main takeaway I see is to ensure you (or your agent) negotiate a fee that takes into account how much time you predict you will spend on a project so that you are earning a per hour rate you can live with

However, I am neither an economist nor professional composer so take my home spun wisdom with a grain of salt


----------



## rgames (Jan 24, 2021)

merlinhimself said:


> "well you dont have to take the job or do it"


That's correct. And is at the heart of the answer to your question.

Nobody is forcing anyone to take a bad deal. Therfore, if it's consensual, then let people do what they want.

Labor protection is important in places where there are underdeveloped economies and people don't have any options. For example, sweat shops in third world countries. Those people are being exploited because the job is their only means of surviving. The same cannot be said for composers. Composers and musicians who take bad deals have other options available to them but they choose to enter into bad deals in pursuit of their dreams. That's perfectly fine.

There's no inherent right to make a living as a composer. Therefore, let market forces decide how many composers it wants. That approach provides the most benefit to society becaue, quite frankly, the vast majority of people aren't asking for more composers.

So why should they have to pay for them?

They shouldn't. And they don't. That's called "democracy" and it's a great thing because it gives power directly to the people.

rgames


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 24, 2021)

ChromeCrescendo said:


> I think in the realm of the arts, you are being paid for a finished product (_e.g._ a score for a film in this case). Say you are paid, just for sake of argument, $10,000 for a project -- well, what if you can get the project done in 1 hour (not going to happen - well, maybe with a Drama Tool Kit ) - well, you just made $10,000/hour - but, if you work on it for 10,000 hours, then you only got paid $1/hour
> 
> The main takeaway I see is to ensure you (or your agent) negotiate a fee that takes into account how much time you predict you will spend on a project so that you are earning a per hour you can live with
> 
> However, I am neither an economist nor professional composer so take my home spun wisdom with a grain of salt


I think that definitely is also a big seperate issue with composer rates and what a composer can negotiate for a project (there definitely is imo a huge lack of appreciation and understanding for what goes into making music for film) 

I do think its different when you get paid a flat daily rate working exclusively for the same composer way more than full time. Also taxes are awful when you're an independent contractor, so not only do you get paid hardly anything for your time, but you also pay more taxes on that money as well. During my time as an assistant I would constantly have little meltdowns from the stress of the perfection demanded, the long overworked days, looking at my bank account, and the lack of appreciation or notice for all those sacrifices I foolishly was making.


----------



## Barrel Maker (Jan 24, 2021)

merlinhimself said:


> absolutely, the independent contractor laws are awful and should be amended. You can basically pay a daily/weekly/monthly rate and it doesnt how many hours were worked. The legality of it is over my head, I wouldnt doubt that it is actually illegal, and if its not it should be.


Yeah, and if people felt safe, they would come out of the woodwork, and you’d hear some very sad stories.

Big companies, like network studios, aren’t able to get away with it as easily (they used to, but it came back to bite them), but small companies, like those created by film composers, are under the radar-- unless someone speaks up.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 24, 2021)

rgames said:


> Nobody is forcing anyone to take a bad deal. Therfore, if it's consensual, then let people do what they want.


Its also called exploitation. Everyone knows they dont have to do it, but they also know they dont have another option if they want a chance at composing.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 24, 2021)

rgames said:


> There's no inherent right to make a living as a composer. Therefore, let market forces decide how many composers it wants. That approach provides the most benefit to society becaue, quite frankly, the vast majority of people aren't asking for more composers.
> 
> So why should they have to pay for them?


I totally agree with you on market saturation, theres a lot of people who want to be composers and not enough jobs for it. An assistant isnt that though, theyre hired by the composer to help and should be paid fairly, I dont think thats a big ask or wrong to ask for.


----------



## rgames (Jan 24, 2021)

merlinhimself said:


> Its also called exploitation. Everyone knows they dont have to do it, but they also know they dont have another option if they want a chance at composing.


I disagree. It's not exploitation because a composer, especially one in a first-wold country, has other options. I've never met a composer who couldn't make a living doing something else.

Exploitation requires that the person being exploited has no other options.

People making bad decisions is not exploitation.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Jan 24, 2021)

Also, working for experience is common in a lot of fields. My daughter is going off to college next year in a pre-veterinary tract. She's looking into volunteer jobs at animal care clinics so she has some kind of experience to build a resume that she can then use to get a part-time paying gig with a vet in a few years. She can then do that through vet school, help cover her expenses, and have a leg up becuase she'll have a bunch of real-world experience when she gets out of vet school.

Same thing as a composer working as an assistant.

rgames


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 24, 2021)

Of course, no one is forcing anyone to do anything, but labour exploitation can be consensual and voluntary from the employee. Does that make it right? No. It's still knowing and understanding that the fresh grad from music school, or the person who just moved out to LA will jump at any chance to work on a project in any capacity and if you tell them you'll pay them a bag of chips theyll most likely take it.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 24, 2021)

rgames said:


> Also, working for experience is common in a lot of fields. My daughter is going off to college next year in a pre-veterinary tract. She's looking into volunteer jobs at animal care clinics so she has some kind of experience to build a resume that she can then use to get a part-time paying gig with a vet in a few years. She can then do that through vet school, help cover her expenses, and have a leg up becuase she'll have a bunch of real-world experience when she gets out of vet school.
> 
> Same thing as a composer working as an assistant.
> 
> rgames


Very different though, there's misclassification of assistants working fulltime-overtime-6-7 days a week as independent contractors and that allows the employer to basically abuse that with any rate they choose without having to worry about employer taxes or benefits.


----------



## rgames (Jan 24, 2021)

merlinhimself said:


> Of course, no one is forcing anyone to do anything, but labour exploitation can be consensual and voluntary from the employee. Does that make it right? No. It's still knowing and understanding that the fresh grad from music school, or the person who just moved out to LA will jump at any chance to work on a project in any capacity and if you tell them you'll pay them a bag of chips theyll most likely take it.


I agree that labor exploitation can occur with voluntary participation from the employee but the part you keep skipping over is the "no other options" part. That's the key distinction. A person with no other options is being exploited. A person who has other options is not being exploited; at that point it's a choice. And that's the situation composers are in: they have other choices. Therefore, they're not being exploited.

The tenor of your comments seems to indicate that you believe in a fundamental right to make a living as a composer. I disagree that such a right exists. I guess I'll just leave it there.

rgames


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 24, 2021)

rgames said:


> I agree that labor exploitation can occur with voluntary participation from the employee but the part you keep skipping over is the "no other options" part. That's the key distinction. A person with no other options is being exploited. A person who has other options is not being exploited; at that point it's a choice. And that's the situation composers are in: they have other choices. Therefore, they're not being exploited.
> 
> The tenor of your comments seems to indicate that you believe in a fundamental right to make a living as a composer. I disagree that such a right exists. I guess I'll just leave it there.
> 
> rgames


Out of context with the rest of what I said that makes sense, but thats not my point. Everyone has plenty of options to take a job somewhere else outside of working for a composer, but assistant positions are rare and few, so youre left with the option of "take this position regardless of the pay, or do something else". Most people with ambitions to work as a composer or in the industry will take it hoping one day it will lead to something else, like with any career you start at the bottom, but this is one of the few bottoms that do not compensate you justly or honestly. Of course as a composer, you are your own boss and youre not guaranteed anything, we can agree on that but that's not at all what this topic is about.

To say it straightforward, if you as an employer hire someone to do a job that is requiring over 8 hours a day, and hire them on indefinitely, they should be classified as an employee and everything that comes with that. Not as an independent contractor so you can skirt paying them what they're due. Id rather talk about how this paragraph in any way comes off as unfair to the composer hiring the assistant, to me its immoral to hire someone paying a daily rate when it averages well below the minimum wage which in its definition by the International Labor Organization "cannot be reduced by collective agreement or an individual contract", which the US is also part of.


----------



## twincities (Jan 24, 2021)

merlinhimself said:


> like with any career you start at the bottom, but this is one of the few bottoms that do not compensate you justly or honestly.


i think most every other creative/artistic field would have some problem with you making that claim. i started my career mixing sound in small (small) clubs/bars for a fraction what anyone should have to. i could have choosen to work behind the bar in those venues and made 5 times what i was making per night, and not needed to show up to soundcheck.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 24, 2021)

twincities said:


> i think most every other creative/artistic field would have some problem with you making that claim. i started my career mixing sound in small (small) clubs/bars for a fraction what anyone should have to. i could have choosen to work behind the bar in those venues and made 5 times what i was making per night, and not needed to show up to soundcheck.


It's definitely not something only the film industry has, hence "one of the few bottoms". I definitely agree that this type of practice does seem to generally cover most of the arts.


----------



## Gingerbread (Jan 24, 2021)

rgames said:


> I agree that labor exploitation can occur with voluntary participation from the employee but the part you keep skipping over is the "no other options" part. That's the key distinction. A person with no other options is being exploited. A person who has other options is not being exploited; at that point it's a choice. And that's the situation composers are in: they have other choices. Therefore, they're not being exploited.
> 
> The tenor of your comments seems to indicate that you believe in a fundamental right to make a living as a composer. I disagree that such a right exists. I guess I'll just leave it there.
> 
> rgames


To a certain point I'd agree, but not to the extent you're taking it. Without a wage floor, that is a recipe for societal suicide, as it results in a desperate underclass which is both a burden and a threat to everyone else.

Societies with basic labor laws and standards are more stable, and who ends up benefitting the most from that? The middle and upper classes. It's in your and my interest.

Yes, it's optional to become a composer, and most all start at the bottom. But if that "bottom" is so low as to dissuade the talented from pursuing it, then ironically it those in the middle and top who would be hurt the most, as they would not find qualified assistants.


----------



## Markrs (Jan 24, 2021)

Where there are gatekeepers or restricted access then it can be exploitation even, some people agree to it. It also restricts who can do the job as poorer people cannot live on very little. We see this same problem with unpaid internships as well. In acting it is now seen as a profession only those from wealthy backgrounds can pursue. This is the risk that it becomes not a meritocracy as normally you would expect in a functioning demand scale market place, but one restricted by wealth and connections.

This is a exploitative model even if there are still those that are able to take the route of being exploited.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 24, 2021)

Gingerbread said:


> To a certain point I'd agree, but not to the extent you're taking it. Without a wage floor, that is a recipe for societal suicide, as it results in a desperate underclass which is both a burden and a threat to everyone else.
> 
> Societies with basic labor laws and standards are more stable, and who ends up benefitting the most from that? The middle and upper classes. It's in your and my interest.
> 
> Yes, it's optional to become a composer, and most all start at the bottom. But if that "bottom" is so low as to dissuade the talented from pursuing it, then ironically it those in the middle and top who would be hurt the most, as they would not find qualified assistants.


my point exactly, there's always a high turnover rate for assistants because at some point they're done with it putting up with it. I know of one composer who burnt so many out that they have a really hard time getting one at all because of their reputation.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Jan 24, 2021)

I could set my watch to forum members wandering into the rgames 'free market-no royalties-no one is forcing you' theme park ride. No one is forcing anyone to nurse house pets back to health and you should pay for the priv..


----------



## Barrel Maker (Jan 24, 2021)

merlinhimself said:


> ... there's always a high turnover rate for assistants because at some point they're done with it putting up with it. I know of one composer who burnt so many out that they have a really hard time getting one at all because of their reputation.


Very true. If you treat people like _junk_ you become a _pariah. 😉_


----------



## JohnG (Jan 24, 2021)

It costs $240-260,000 to attend a private university in the United States. You pay them, not the other way around. Is that exploitation?

I was offered $1,500 for my first feature film and they later doubled that because I'd spent the entire amount hiring players. So, $3,000 for a month's work, from which I paid for the players, the engineer, the studio, the tape (yes tape).

Was that "exploitation?" or "stolen wages?"

Scoring that movie transformed me from another would-be composer with only student film credits to a composer with a movie under my belt. Moreover, I scored multiple additional films for that director over the years. He just wrote me this week to ask if I'd work on another one.

Sometimes it's a roll of the dice. It might not work out -- it doesn't for most people -- and you can always go back to IT or law school or something. 

But I'm really glad I took that job.


----------



## Alex Niedt (Jan 24, 2021)

merlinhimself said:


> my point exactly, there's always a high turnover rate for assistants because at some point they're done with it putting up with it. I know of one composer who burnt so many out that they have a really hard time getting one at all because of their reputation.


I've seen this in the mixing world. It's normalized to such an extent that burnout is a source of pride, and the attitude toward anyone who leaves such a position is, "They're not cut out for this," rather than, "This is toxic to physical and mental health and should change."


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 24, 2021)

JohnG said:


> It costs $240-260,000 to attend a private university in the United States. You pay them, not the other way around. Is that exploitation?
> 
> I was offered $1,500 for my first feature film and they later doubled that because I'd spent the entire amount hiring players. So, $3,000 for a month's work, from which I paid for the players, the engineer, the studio, the tape (yes tape).
> 
> ...


I think somehow, maybe in my communication which I thought was straightforward, you and rgames keep thinking im talking about the composers pay for taking on films or tv. This isnt the what Im talking about. Also I dont think I follow the example about university, of course you pay them to teach you and thats not exploitation. The composer is his own boss, hes an actual and true contractor, dont be mistaken I agree with you and rgames about all of that.

What I've expressed a few times in this thread is how its not ok for that same composer regardless of their project budget to exploit cheap labor from people eager to get into the business. If you cant afford to pay an assistant a livable wage, then you're not ready for an assistant. In my own case I would love to have an assistant, but Im not going to try and find someone right out of college and offer them a free meal and sub minimum wage to print all my stems. Sure the opportunity may have a good outcome, but nothings promised. I'm chalking it up to miscommunication, but I personally dont understand the opposition to paying an assistant a fair wage.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 24, 2021)

Alex Niedt said:


> I've seen this in the mixing world. It's normalized to such an extent that burnout is a source of pride, and the attitude toward anyone who leaves such a position is, "They're not cut out for this," rather than, "This is toxic to physical and mental health and should change."


Absolutely. I seriously would in a way brag about the crazy hours I worked, it was all I could do to make it seem not as bad as it was. It's a highly toxic work environment.


----------



## Mark Kouznetsov (Jan 24, 2021)

I understand both sides. But one thing is when you're slaving at the work you hate. Another one, is when you do that in a field that you dreamed to work in. The question is: do you want it? Or not? The world is far from ideal or fair. You have to be tough as nails to do it, too few of us really "make it". I think, while totally understanding the complaints, that there is too many words like "toxic", "oppressive" and all of that thrown around these days. People in the past were used to just doing it. Nobody complained. It blows my mind what people achieved without all the benefits of today, TITANIC work has been done.

If you watch various interviews with film composers, it's kind of normal. From Harry Gregson-Williams, who was living in the basement on ramen noodles when he moved to LA (while learning DAW by himself and then being told by HZ that he needs synths if he wants to work; so Hans lended him a lot of money that he had to pay him back!), to Bear McCreary, who I remember, said that he was practically homeless when he was starting out, despite knowing Elmer Bernstein.

After all, in always has been like this with pursuing arts. Never a stable career. It's not like you get a degree, find a job and do the same thing in the same office for 10 years with stable wages and promotions every couple of months.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 24, 2021)

Mark Kouznetsov said:


> I understand both sides. But one thing is when you're slaving at the work you hate. Another one, is when you do that in a field that you dreamed to work in. The question is: do you want it? Or not? The world is far from ideal or fair. You have to be tough as nails to do it, too few of us really "make it". I think, while totally understanding the complains, that there is too many words like "toxic", "oppressive" and all of that thrown around these days. People in the past were used to just doing it. Nobody complained. It blows my mind what people achieved without all the benefits of today, TITANIC work has been done.
> 
> If you watch various interviews with film composers, it's kind of normal. From Harry Gregson-Williams, who was living in the basement on ramen noodles when he moved to LA, to Bear McCreary, who I remember, said that he was practically homeless when he was starting out, despite knowing Elmer Bernstein.


It's been something thats been going on for awhile. Im sure one aspect of it is that "Well I went through it, so my assistants will too". That doesnt mean the old ways are the right way. I dont think oppression is happening, but "toxic workloads" I dont think is the wrong word for it. But justifying fractions of minimum wage an hour in the modern world just because somebody else accepted it in the past doesnt sit well with me. If we relied on the old ways nothing would progress and efficiency would stall. 

Being tough as nails doesnt have to include you forgoing fair payment. I would have happily done the same job and hours I did if I didnt have the downer of knowing I was being paid unfairly. Tough as nails is doing the hard job, pay is something separate. We're fortunate enough to live in a time and a place where we can speak out about unfair pay.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Jan 24, 2021)

givemenoughrope said:


> I could set my watch to forum members wandering into the rgames 'free market-no royalties-no one is forcing you' theme park ride. No one is forcing anyone to nurse house pets back to health and you should pay for the priv..


This was rude of me to say this in this way I guess. I understand his pov which is a rough and realistic one tbh. I'm just not sure that the power of walking away in the type of 'power' artisans/craftsmen are looking for atm.


----------



## Mark Kouznetsov (Jan 24, 2021)

merlinhimself said:


> It's been something thats been going on for awhile. Im sure one aspect of it is that "Well I went through it, so my assistants will too". That doesnt mean the old ways are the right way. I dont think oppression is happening, but "toxic workloads" I dont think is the wrong word for it. But justifying fractions of minimum wage an hour in the modern world just because somebody else accepted it in the past doesnt sit well with me. If we relied on the old ways nothing would progress and efficiency would stall.
> 
> Being tough as nails doesnt have to include you forgoing fair payment. I would have happily done the same job and hours I did if I didnt have the downer of knowing I was being paid unfairly. Tough as nails is doing the hard job, pay is something separate. We're fortunate enough to live in a time and a place where we can speak out about unfair pay.


I think you have to be the judge of your own situation. If you feel like there's no light at the end of the tunnel, then there's no reason for you to stay there. I personally wouldn't work as an assistant period. But that also means that I don't have a mentor. So nobody to learn from or to get an advise from. I have to do everything myself, from zero. You may even be in a better position than me: working in California, with a well known (presumably?) composer, learning the chops and getting paid at least something for it, while working in the field you wanted to work in. Maybe even landing a gig when your boss is too busy. That's a head start already. There are a lot of people slaving as you do, while working the jobs they hate. 

But I do get where you're coming from. AND at the same time, there are a lot of people who would trade places with you.


----------



## Crowe (Jan 24, 2021)

I'm pretty sure that over here, paying people less than minimum wage is a felony, whether both parties agree to it or not.. And that's definitely under minimum wage.

I may be confused here, but when did 'not having any other choice' become a requirement for behavior being considered exploitative? It's not and never has been. Exploitation can happen when another option is _undesirable _at minimum.

Anyway. I don't much appreciate how having to accept being underpaid seems to be the norm in some places, but it's clear that's how it seems to work right now. Maybe being an assistant just isn't really feasible if you're trying to make a living? I don't have experience in this, I'm just a code-monkey.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 24, 2021)

Mark Kouznetsov said:


> I think you have to be the judge of your own situation. If you feel like there's no light at the end of the tunnel, then there's no reason for you to stay there. I personally wouldn't work as an assistant period. But that also means that I don't have a mentor. So nobody to learn from or to get an advise from. I have to do everything myself, from zero. You may even be in a better position than me: working in the California, with a well known (presumably?) composer, learning the chops and getting paid at least something for it, while working in the field you wanted to work in. Maybe even landing a gig when your boss is too busy. That's a head start already. There are a lot of people slaving as you do, while working the jobs they hate. But I do get where you're coming from.


Totally, and I do get where youre coming from too. Being an assistant is a great way to get a start in the industry, hopefully landing a job with a composer who will actually teach you, I know some out there unfortunately are not generous with mentorships. I'm definitely in a better place than where I started and grateful for it, but I also dont look back at that time with any warm memories. Just empty pockets and stress.


----------



## ReleaseCandidate (Jan 24, 2021)

Mark Kouznetsov said:


> But one thing is when you're slaving at the work you hate. Another one, is when you do that in a field that you dreamed to work in.


And that's the bullshit right here. No non- (wannabee) artist or non-creative would accept almost not being paid for their dream job (gaming industry software developers are an exception, but it got better). But somehow 'creatives' accept being worthless. 
It's another thing being an artist (or self-employed) and not being able to sell your works and being employed and not getting money for your work.

But I have to say that in civilized countries such exploitation isn't legal (but happens).


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 24, 2021)

@Mark Kouznetsov Also, there are composers out there who do follow honest practices with how they pay and treat their assistants regardless of the loopholes and ways to not do so. To me it just boils down to peoples morality.


----------



## Mark Kouznetsov (Jan 24, 2021)

merlinhimself said:


> Totally, and I do get where youre coming from too. Being an assistant is a great way to get a start in the industry, hopefully landing a job with a composer who will actually teach you, I know some out there unfortunately are not generous with mentorships. I'm definitely in a better place than where I started and grateful for it, but I also dont look back at that time with any warm memories. Just empty pockets and stress.


Empty pockets and stress would be your best friends too, if you would start as a composer on your own. Indeed, mentorships are disappearing nowadays. Back in the day it was the best option. Seems like everybody had one.


----------



## Alex Niedt (Jan 24, 2021)

Mark Kouznetsov said:


> I think, while totally understanding the complaints, that there is too many words like "toxic", "oppressive" and all of that thrown around these days.


Feel free to toss out a better word for perpetuating a work environment that leads to strokes, heart attacks, and so on while taking pride in the lack of sleep and exercise people get because they can't leave the studio. I feel like "toxic" is being kind. Some of my friends are lucky to still be here.



merlinhimself said:


> "Well I went through it, so my assistants will too"


I think this is exactly why so many people don't want to change anything. If they went through hell to be where they are, they want everyone else to suffer, too.


----------



## Barrel Maker (Jan 24, 2021)

Shiirai said:


> ... 'not having any other choice' become a requirement for behavior being considered exploitative? It's not and never has been. Exploitation can happen when another option is _undesirable _at minimum ...


Exactly! this is a good thread, but there seems to be several different points trying to be made. 

People can debate about the semantics of exploitation--it’s subjective.
Fortunately, labor law (specifically labor law regarding employee vs independent contractor status) is objective, and well-defined. 

Lastly, while the logic of the “if he didn’t want to be underpaid (i.e. what's legal), then he shouldn’t have applied to the job” argument is not unsound, it is eerily similar to the “if she didn’t want to be groped, then she shouldn’t have worn that dress” type of victim blaming which ran rampant in the past. It's not an excuse, and it should not be tolerated. Period.


----------



## Ivan M. (Jan 24, 2021)

I understand your frustration, it would be great if we all could pursue our careers of choice and simply make a living out of it.
But it's impossible, resources are limited and I have to say it how it is: supply and demand. 

There are too many people wanting to get into that studio. Getting into the studio is hard, finding people is easy. That puts you in a position where you simply cannot negotiate. 

The technology made it so that anyone can make music, but then there's many people doing it and value drops.

Forcing minimum wages only does more harm, because if a studio has to pay more then they will demand more and look for people they would want to pay more, which effectively rules out all beginners and therefore destroys any opportunity they might have had.

I think we need to accept the fact that music is a low paying job.


----------



## robgb (Jan 24, 2021)

Hey, when I was screenwriting they'd send out an assignment and take pitches from a dozen different guys before they'd decide who to hire. I'm not talking spec work, I'm talking assignment work. Coming up with your "take" on a story idea they've generated is not an easy job. But you got paid bupkis for doing it. And sometimes—it has happened to me—they listen to your take, steal it, and hire someone else to write it. The film business pays great, IF you can actually get them to pay you. If someone can take advantage of you, they will. But they'll be really, really nice about it.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 24, 2021)

robgb said:


> Hey, when I was screenwriting they'd send out an assignment and take pitches from a dozen different guys before they'd decide who to hire. I'm not talking spec work, I'm talking assignment work. Coming up with your "take" on a story idea they've generated is not an easy job. But you got paid bupkis for doing it. And sometimes—it has happened to me—they listen to your take, steal it, and hire someone else to write it. The film business pays great, IF you can actually get them to pay you. If someone can take advantage of you, they will. But they'll be really, really nice about it.


Damn that sounds awful. The one nice thing about pitches in music is demo fees, some arent great whereas some are almost worth it just for the demo fee.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 24, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> I understand your frustration, it would be great if we all could pursue our careers of choice and simply make a living out of it.
> But it's impossible, resources are limited and I have to say it how it is: supply and demand.
> 
> There are too many people wanting to get into that studio. Getting into the studio is hard, finding people is easy. That puts you in a position where you simply cannot negotiate.
> ...


When you work for someone who is doing fine yet still cant afford to pay you properly its a different situation.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Jan 24, 2021)

Think about all of the "stolen" wages in the form of ad revenue derived from the spectacular eye-grabbing content populating this forum, not a cent of which any of the authors of these posts will ever see. 😭😭😭

"Stolen" is quite a charge. Did everyone skip that chapter in _Rich Dad Poor Dad_? Or if not that, the pertinent biblical parable with which we are all (hopefully) familiar?


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 24, 2021)

My situation wasnt the worst ive heard, people working for well off composers still


Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Think about all of the "stolen" wages in the form of ad revenue derived from the spectacular eye-grabbing content populating this forum, not a cent of which any of the authors of these posts will ever see. 😭😭😭
> 
> "Stolen" is quite a charge. Did everyone skip that chapter in _Rich Dad Poor Dad_? Or if not that, the pertinent biblical parable with which we are all (hopefully) familiar?


Stolen Wage (or wage theft) is just the term. It sounds a lot more incriminating, but stealing doesnt always mean taking from someone but not giving whats due as well. Im not familiar with that parable or book, what is it?


----------



## Trash Panda (Jan 24, 2021)

It never ceases to amaze how people defend the horrendous business practices of the entertainment industry. Yes, you as the employer, when the demand for employment exceeds the supply of positions available, have a lot of bargaining power.

What you see with exploitation of independent contractor laws is on another level in the entertainment industry. When you defend these terrible practices, it makes you look like you suffer from Stockholm syndrome.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jan 24, 2021)

rgames said:


> Labor protection is important in places where there are underdeveloped economies and people don't have any options.





rgames said:


> That's called "democracy" and it's a great thing because it gives power directly to the people.


Just wow.


----------



## asherpope (Jan 24, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> "Stolen" is quite a charge. Did everyone skip that chapter in _Rich Dad Poor Dad_? Or if not that, the pertinent biblical parable with which we are all (hopefully) familiar?


Why should we all be familiar with biblical phrases?!


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Jan 24, 2021)

asherpope said:


> Why should we all be familiar with biblical phrases?!


Presumably because you are a musician, as canonical works one should have familiarized themselves with at an early stage of their musical education contain many.

Do you perform any Bach, Beethoven, Handel, Mozart, Verdi, Pärt, Brahms, Stravinsky, Rachmaninov, Bernstein, Mahler? If not, these are probably composers you should study. Let me know if you need any guidance and I am happy to prepare a program of study.


----------



## asherpope (Jan 24, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Presumably because you are a musician, as canonical works one should have familiarized themselves with at an early stage of their musical education contain many.
> 
> Do you perform any Bach, Beethoven, Handel, Mozart, Verdi, Pärt, Brahms, Stravinsky, Rachmaninov, Bernstein, Mahler? If not, these are probably composers you should study. Let me know if you need any guidance and I am happy to prepare a program of study.


Ummm I'm fine, thanks.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 24, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Presumably because you are a musician, as canonical works one should have familiarized themselves with at an early stage of their musical education contain many.
> 
> Do you perform any Bach, Beethoven, Handel, Mozart, Verdi, Pärt, Brahms, Stravinsky, Rachmaninov, Bernstein, Mahler? If not, these are probably composers you should study. Let me know if you need any guidance and I am happy to prepare a program of study.


----------



## Paul Cardon (Jan 24, 2021)

There are two big problems here:

*1. The hiring parties and expectations*

If a project's producer expects professional results and high-level knowledge in music and tech that REQUIRES the help of a team but does not have the RESOURCES to support that team, then should that job be allowed to exist? Does fulfilling those expectations on a low budget with underpaid assistants reinforce it?

*2. Who can actually accept these meager pays?*

These jobs immediately become class filters. The only people that can take them and survive them will trend towards people that already have the comfort, the savings, and the external support (family, spouses, etc.) to "rough it out". So these opportunities immediately become inaccessible to people that don't have those luxuries.

So sure, "the market", don't take the job if you can't handle it! That's your choice! Hurray! But isn't it kind of a huge moral problem for both composers and project leads to expect this sort of output on such low pay? To even allow this sort of abusive/class-based economy to exist? Why are we supposed to just accept that? That's bullshit. Maybe "cold hard reality", but why can't we be better than that?

Saying it's "just economics/democracy/reality" is such a shitty cop-out. If the people that actively make these harmful decisions (producers expecting quality levels above the budget, composers hiring assistants at abysmal pay to meet expectations and justifying the producer's undercutting) keep making harmful decisions, then of course it'll stay shitty.

The power to change this isn't in the hands of the abused.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 24, 2021)

@Paul Cardon Youve summed it up much better than I could. A large portion of the time Im sure it does have to do with necessity for an assistant to get the job done and the funds for the composer just arent there. And then theres extreme cases that happen where well off well known composers just dont give a damn. 

I agree theres nothing I or any other assistant can do which is unfortunate. We're the only side of the industry (talking about music for film) without a union to regulate and prevent these budget abuses whether they come from a hollywood producers lack of morals, the composers, or something else entirely. Session musicians even have a union. Everyone seems afraid of unionizing, and the only people/composers that could potentially push for it to happen would rather just go on paying people less instead of recognizing the problem.


----------



## Crowe (Jan 24, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> "Stolen" is quite a charge. Did everyone skip that chapter in _Rich Dad Poor Dad_? Or if not that, the pertinent biblical parable with which we are all (hopefully) familiar?


Must be nice to be this out of touch with reality. Most people need drugs for that.


----------



## Paul Cardon (Jan 25, 2021)

merlinhimself said:


> @Paul Cardon Youve summed it up much better than I could. A large portion of the time Im sure it does have to do with necessity for an assistant to get the job done and the funds for the composer just arent there. And then theres extreme cases that happen where well off well known composers just dont give a damn.
> 
> I agree theres nothing I or any other assistant can do which is unfortunate. We're the only side of the industry (talking about music for film) without a union to regulate and prevent these budget abuses whether they come from a hollywood producers lack of morals, the composers, or something else entirely. Session musicians even have a union. Everyone seems afraid of unionizing, and the only people/composers that could potentially push for it to happen would rather just go on paying people less instead of recognizing the problem.


One part of the reality that's worth digesting is that the budgets being allocated to "music" on lots of professional productions are likely just not great and won't improve, but the bar of quality will always be there. So in a way, unionization efforts and pay standards would do two things: reduce effort and quality and expectations of some projects, and limit the number of working composers throughout the industry, specifically assistants. But.... is that a bad thing? There isn't a world where every aspiring composer can get a stable high-level job. Of course not. But is it maybe more culturally damaging to allow this race-to-the-bottom to keep going? I think so. It's only gonna keep getting worse as time goes on.

We're not talking about student films. Of course, those will always be for the passion. Limited in scope. No this is about TV shows and movies and games and more. Professional projects. Why are we letting the bar creep so high for every piece of released media that we need to start exploiting people? Maybe it's better to create smaller projects where people work less and are paid better? Oh but that's not competitive is it... We have to stretch every dollar to its limit with a complete disregard for human life.

I think about the animation industry a lot, about how, as technology has grown, the amount of animators expected to take over tasks that used to be distributed amongst a whole team has grown rapidly. Storyboard artists, for example, are expected to do so much more than storyboard. They're expected to know how to edit storyboards into a video, expected to do sound design, temp voice acting, animate more and more frames so there's motion through every moment. Some storyboard artists are approaching key-animation. You can hear stories from storyboard artists about how they're burnt out and hurting. The age range of storyboard artists has dropped so far from what it was 10-20 years ago. The time investment required and the pay rates can't support people growing older, starting a family, and the jobs that would support it are so limited. There are only so many spots at the higher positions while everyone working below is no longer able to live a life off those vital jobs. Vital jobs! And animators have a union! They don't get paid peanuts like assistants often get. But there was a time when productions were structured to support the hard work of people, to support their livelihoods.

These systems are inherently broken if they can't support their staff needs, can't support their lives, but all the while, project leads and studio heads need to incentivize everyone below them to make these shitty decisions to stay competitive. Everyone has to do it because anyone CAN do it.

The race to the bottom won't stop without external motivation to do better, and until then, how much these industries value human life, value their work, will keep creeping lower and lower and lower.

Sure some companies and productions do better, and of course, the biggest franchises generally support the main bulk of the people working on them, but once someone finds out they can get away with something and there's no drawback (other than underpaying their workers, teehee!), then the rest of the industry will follow. Do we keep letting abuse creep so opportunities don't disappear? Or do we make efforts to pull back our expectations? This shit isn't sustainable without the abuse and that should make anyone livid. Race to the bottom.


----------



## Ivan M. (Jan 25, 2021)

merlinhimself said:


> When you work for someone who is doing fine yet still cant afford to pay you properly its a different situation.



That simply means he doesn't really need you or the services you provide that much. If he really needed he would have payed more. On the other side, you really need him. 

You talk about morals, that he should have some decency and understanding and pay you the amount you expect. But that's something you have to negotiate. It should be a mutual agreement and that's the only moral thing to do. You say "I want this much", he says "No", you walk away. Except, you don't want to walk away, but want it your way. 
Asking people to just give more because of "morals" is either begging or extortion, depending on your power and your use of it.


----------



## Ivan M. (Jan 25, 2021)

Trash Panda said:


> It never ceases to amaze how people defend the horrendous business practices of the entertainment industry. Yes, you as the employer, when the demand for employment exceeds the supply of positions available, have a lot of bargaining power.
> 
> What you see with exploitation of independent contractor laws is on another level in the entertainment industry. When you defend these terrible practices, it makes you look like you suffer from Stockholm syndrome.


That's backwards. You don't have to like a particular price. But you can't and it's way more immoral (than low wages) to force people (either by shaming or government coercion) to pay more than they are willing to.
Let's take a different example just to put this into proper perspective: the sexual market. There are many men who can't get attention from women. Would you argue that's unfair? Maybe, they have needs, which they can't fulfill. But does that mean women should just give you attention because you have needs, or, God forbid, be forced into such arrangements? Of course not!


----------



## Ivan M. (Jan 25, 2021)

Let me give you another example, where we determine the price. I have some music on some royalty free site where I can set my own prices. And I did set it a bit higher than the average. Guess how much I sold on that site: zero. And it's still a small amount of money for the effort I put in. Should I be angry? Is the public immoral for not buying it?


----------



## Paul Cardon (Jan 25, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> That simply means he doesn't really need you or the services you provide that much. If he really needed he would have payed more. On the other side, you really need him.
> 
> You talk about morals, that he should have some decency and understanding and pay you the amount you expect. But that's something you have to negotiate. It should be a mutual agreement and that's the only moral thing to do. You say "I want this much", he says "No", you walk away. Except, you don't want to walk away, but want it your way.
> Asking people to just give more because of "morals" is either begging or extortion, depending on your power and your use of it.


I'd love you to step back for a moment and think about why you're saying some of the things you are, removed from the market theory, removed from the "this is just the way it is, tough shit lol"

-Why is that the only moral thing to do? Why is that "the way"? Why is that fair? Why is it fair for industries to continually allow devaluing people to continue its creep? Why do you posit a code of ethics that does nothing to stop that?

-Why is a call for morals, doing good for people in your industry for yourself, others, and future potentials "begging or extortion"? Are we that up capitalisms cold hard bum that people really believe there's no other way?


Ivan M. said:


> That's backwards. You don't have to like a particular price. But you can't and it's way more immoral (than low wages) to force people (either by shaming or government coercion) to pay more than they are willing to.
> Let's take a different example just to put this into proper perspective: the sexual market. There are many men who can't get attention from women. Would you argue that's unfair? Maybe, they have needs, which they can't fulfill. But does that mean women should just give you attention because you have needs, or, God forbid, be forced into such arrangements? Of course not!


Also, this is the weirdest analogy I've seen in a while. Do men need to get off to survive? This isn't making the point you think it is even if it feels like a fun "gotcha".


Ivan M. said:


> Let me give you another example, where we determine the price. I have some music on some royalty free site where I can set my own prices. And I did set it a bit higher than the average. Guess how much I sold on that site: zero. And it's still a small amount of money for the effort I put in. Should I be angry? Is the public immoral for not buying it?


Of course not. But we're not talking about individuals or the public's market effect. We're talking about people in positions of power on professional projects, from composer hiring assistant up to project producer up to studio head making explicit decisions to squeeze more life out of people for every dollar they can, and how everyone at every level is being expected to do more for less while the media industry grows larger and larger year to year. Commodified artistry. Race to the bottom.

The industry is not as it was 10-20-30 years ago. You can't play the same flawed tangential comparisons. When all industries are being supported by exploitation because they keep pushing it further and further, generation to generation, then we're all fucked. Why should people be expected to hold up the social contracts of our society if the systems that house that society are being tightly optimized to wring us all dry, further and further, year after year? Wouldn't it make more sense to soften those systems and slow down, optimize for life instead of profit? What is the end state going to be?


----------



## Ivan M. (Jan 25, 2021)

Paul Cardon said:


> Why is that the only moral thing to do?


Because it's immoral to tell people what to do with their own money. You exchange your lifetime and health for money. It would be extremelly immoral for *me* to manage *your* money. That's why the only moral thing is a mutual agreement between *free* people. 
(I'll answer the rest later, have some work to do now)


----------



## Paul Cardon (Jan 25, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> Because it's immoral to tell people what to do with their own money. You exchange your lifetime and health for money. It would be extremelly immoral for *me* to manage *your* money. That's why the only moral thing is a mutual agreement between *free* people.
> (I'll answer the rest later, have some work to do now)


Why is that immoral? I don't mean some analogy or example, I mean why is it inherently immoral to want people to do good with their money when they have the power to choose but choose not to?

"Exchange your lifetime and health for money." So do assistants trying to edge their way into shrinking opportunities for a healthy lifestyle that's willing to rip them off and will rip them off because "that's just the way it is." Is that moral?


----------



## AudioLoco (Jan 25, 2021)

This is my experience: I come from a sound engineering background and I have been a very lowly paid assistant for more then two years when I was starting. 

I was the first to enter the studio, turn on the computers, speakers etc and the last to go. I would go home when the engineer would say the job was done. Until we passed the last instrumental version and the DAT master has been doubled checked for errors or problems, until late at night, until it was done. 

Every morning while powering up all the outboard FX, compressors and speakers I would breath in the smell of gear and look forward to another amazing day I was lucky to witness. 
I was even getting payed! (not by the hour, I don't think I ever calculated what was the hourly resulting rate) 
I made a lot of coffees and went to do chores for artists and producers - but also got to annoy them and ask them everything I wanted, I got to see exactly where the mics were put when recording drums, strings, guitars and discuss it over lunch. 
I will always be thankful for that studio owner to have let me in. The pay was barely enough, and I probably ate mostly spaghetti and onions for a couple of years... But I don't regret it and don't resent the low wage. I was young and hungry (for decent food, but more so for knowledge)

Was it fair? I consider it as a university course, an amazing university course paying you, little but still paying you, to learn.

One day we were about to record a string ensemble, the engineer, for the first time said, "I will sit over there, let me know what you need...." I graduated, I thought to myself!


----------



## JohnG (Jan 25, 2021)

Paul Cardon said:


> ... why is it inherently immoral to want people to do good with their money when they have the power to choose but choose not to?


Hi Paul,

I'm all for trying to be decent to people working for you, but the picture you have of the money flow sounds a bit unrealistic for all but a happy few composers. Your notion of "power" seems to posit a composer with plenty of money coming in who could, if he chose, give an assistant a nice wage and benefits.

But that's ignoring what is going on. Except for a tiny, tiny minority, few composers make much from writing; hardly any make six figures. Today, many composers earn half as much, or less, per-episode than they did 20 years ago -- in nominal terms, not constant currency (so it's even worse, adjusted for inflation). AND there's often 1.5x-2.0x as much music per episode.

Most composers just scrape by, with almost nothing saved, and everyone has to know that each job could be succeeded by a long dry spell.

It's not like there are all these miserly Ebineezer Scrooge Composers out there, counting stacks of gold and cackling while their assistants suffer.

Assistants get something you literally cannot buy -- hands-on experience with projects. It's tuition.


----------



## chillbot (Jan 25, 2021)

JohnG said:


> Assistants get something you literally cannot buy -- hands-on experience with projects. It's tuition.


Pro tip: don't assist broke composers.


----------



## ReleaseCandidate (Jan 25, 2021)

JohnG said:


> Most composers just scrape by, with almost nothing saved, and everyone has to know that each job could be succeeded by a long dry spell.


If you don't have the money for an assistant - don't employ one!
What you are describing is normal for self-employed persons. Many of them would need assistants, but guess what: normally people don't work for nothing, even if it is their dream job.
I'd like to have a butler and there certainly is a inexperienced one somewhere in need of good references who wants to work 12 h/day for 10 bucks a day?


JohnG said:


> Assistants get something you literally cannot buy -- hands-on experience with projects. It's tuition.


As in any other job with a beginner from university. Even when experienced people change companies you have to train them. But nobody except the 'creative'-industry has the chutzpah calling that "something you literally cannot buy -- hands-on experience with projects."


----------



## gamma-ut (Jan 25, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Presumably because you are a musician, as canonical works one should have familiarized themselves with at an early stage of their musical education contain many.
> 
> Do you perform any Bach, Beethoven, Handel, Mozart, Verdi, Pärt, Brahms, Stravinsky, Rachmaninov, Bernstein, Mahler? If not, these are probably composers you should study. Let me know if you need any guidance and I am happy to prepare a program of study.


So I told the boss "kyrie eléison" and he said "not today, you're working 'til 10, mate".


----------



## JohnG (Jan 25, 2021)

ReleaseCandidate said:


> nobody except the 'creative'-industry has the chutzpah calling that "something you literally cannot buy -- hands-on experience with projects."


But it IS something you cannot buy. If you advertised, you could have 100 people with good credentials who'd pay to have that job. Same with many first-time composers; after four years at university and maybe grad school on top of that, how much would it be worth to an unbaptised composer to have a feature credit?

I used to get paid as an orchestrator in the days when that paid comparatively well. It was, by far, the most helpful training I ever got. Constant all-nighters. Per hour? don't make me laugh! It's piece-work; until you get good at it, you're going to be pretty slow.

How long did it take Dante to write The Divine Comedy? Did he get paid fairly? Who knows?

If you want good working conditions, with a clear career path, composing music is not on your list.

*Who Are You?*

Another issue -- are you entertaining? Do people flock to your parties? Do you tell jokes that make the whole room laugh? Do potential romantic partners pursue you constantly?

A lot of people mistakenly think composing music is about talent and "good material." Certainly, those are gating factors and you can't hope to succeed without them. But bear in mind, it's the _entertainment business_. People are entertaining -- you meet directors, actors, even many producers, and they have funny stories, interesting stories, weird and crazy stories. They are FUN.

Are you fun?

Think about some of the outraged posts on this thread. People complaining about working conditions -- come on! I worked 100 hours the last five days before I had a break at Christmas. Twenty hours a day, five days running. Not at all uncommon, and I'm not complaining even a little; that's how it is.


----------



## ReleaseCandidate (Jan 25, 2021)

JohnG said:


> But it IS something you cannot buy.


Yes, same as with almost any other job!


JohnG said:


> Think about some of the outraged posts on this thread. People complaining about working conditions -- come on! I worked 100 hours the last five days before I had a break at Christmas. Twenty hours a day, five days running. Not at all uncommon, and I'm not complaining even a little; that's how it is.


But that's the problem. As long as you (that's the plural 'you', ye) don't complain (well, actually say 'no' to impossible contracts) and put up with more and more shit and less and less money, it keeps getting worse.
So instead of being proud of not complaining, you (that's the plural 'you', ye) could grow a spine.
Or at least go to Twitter and start a hashtag (no, that's not a joke).

I know that that's easy to say and difficult to do (except going to Twitter and starting a new hashtag). But everything that's good is hard to achieve, I've read in this thread more than once, I guess


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 25, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> That simply means he doesn't really need you or the services you provide that much. If he really needed he would have payed more. On the other side, you really need him.
> 
> You talk about morals, that he should have some decency and understanding and pay you the amount you expect. But that's something you have to negotiate. It should be a mutual agreement and that's the only moral thing to do. You say "I want this much", he says "No", you walk away. Except, you don't want to walk away, but want it your way.
> Asking people to just give more because of "morals" is either begging or extortion, depending on your power and your use of it.


I'm sorry but this is so wrong in so many ways calling it extortion to ask to not be paid below minimum wage lol


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 25, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> That's backwards. You don't have to like a particular price. But you can't and it's way more immoral (than low wages) to force people (either by shaming or government coercion) to pay more than they are willing to.
> Let's take a different example just to put this into proper perspective: the sexual market. There are many men who can't get attention from women. Would you argue that's unfair? Maybe, they have needs, which they can't fulfill. But does that mean women should just give you attention because you have needs, or, God forbid, be forced into such arrangements? Of course not!


This also makes absolutely no sense comparatively to what were talking about, were talking about people's jobs lives and pay, not lonely men


----------



## Trash Panda (Jan 25, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> That's backwards. You don't have to like a particular price. But you can't and it's way more immoral (than low wages) to force people (either by shaming or government coercion) to pay more than they are willing to.
> Let's take a different example just to put this into proper perspective: the sexual market. There are many men who can't get attention from women. Would you argue that's unfair? Maybe, they have needs, which they can't fulfill. But does that mean women should just give you attention because you have needs, or, God forbid, be forced into such arrangements? Of course not!


Your entire argument is fundamentally flawed because labor laws exist in the US - particularly those regarding minimum wages based on an hourly rate. Independent contractor laws allow massive loopholes that give companies a legal avenue for skirting minimum wage laws. That loophole needs to be addressed not only for the entertainment industry, but across all industries.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 25, 2021)

JohnG said:


> Think about some of the outraged posts on this thread. People complaining about working conditions -- come on! I worked 100 hours the last five days before I had a break at Christmas. Twenty hours a day, five days running. Not at all uncommon, and I'm not complaining even a little; that's how it is.


No one is complaining about the work hours, but when you look at the work hours of assistants to the garbage pay that's what outrages people. When you're sacrificing your health without any sort of compensation to make some movie or show get by, it's not ok. We all know this isn't a 9-5 and what is expected, but when you're the only assistant on a major budget hollywood film where the composer is pulling in quite a lot yet you're seeing less than minimum wage you'd be right to be upset. I don't think you've ever been in that sort of situation based on your comments.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 25, 2021)

chillbot said:


> Pro tip: don't assist broke composers.


Lol this is one way


----------



## jmauz (Jan 25, 2021)

Wah wah wah. This thread reeks of crybaby millennial BS. 

Don't get me wrong; I'm all for fair compensation. However, like any business based in the arts you can't expect to make a livable wage until you've put in many years if dedicated hard work. And even then you might not make much.

If you're driven primarily by money then go be a lawyer or an accountant.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 25, 2021)

jmauz said:


> Wah wah wah. This thread reeks of crybaby millennial BS.
> 
> Don't get me wrong; I'm all for fair compensation. However, like any business based in the arts you can't expect to make a livable wage until you've put in many years if dedicated hard work. And even then you might not make much.
> 
> If you're driven primarily by money then go be a lawyer or an accountant.


This sounds like some boomer who safe gaurds his comment with "Don't get me wrong; I'm all for fair compensation." but still has an issue with fair compensation.

Nobody's saying composing is a moneymaker, but when you work in an industry full of it and still arent seeing it you have to ask yourself why that is. Im not talking about some low budget indie film, I'm talking about films that had budgets of over 200 million.


----------



## ReleaseCandidate (Jan 25, 2021)

jmauz said:


> Wah wah wah. This thread reeks of crybaby millennial BS.


Yes, if it still were the 60s and 70s you'd see them carrying pitchforks and torches. Ah, the youth of today!


----------



## Al Maurice (Jan 25, 2021)

I always find it's interesting the number of misconceptions about the film business that are out there.

We're surrounded by the successes and glamour portrayed in the media, but what we don't see is the hard work and graft.

It can take up to 10-15 years to get a project off the ground, most don't even make it. So those productions that do manage to gross huge dvidends for the investors, are few and far between.

An average production has countless production companies working on them, and each one only sees a fraction of the production or post-production budget allocated.


----------



## dpasdernick (Jan 25, 2021)

Go become an A-list composer and then pay your assistants a premium wage plus Cadillac benefits. Lead the way. 

Conversely, do not take any job that makes you feel exploited. 

I know it's more nuanced than this but... it really isn't.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 25, 2021)

dpasdernick said:


> Go become an A-list composer and then pay your assistants a premium wage plus Cadillac benefits. Lead the way.
> 
> Conversely, do not take any job that makes you feel exploited.
> 
> I know it's more nuanced than this but... it really isn't.


"Conversely, do not take any job that makes you feel exploited."

It's something you dont realize right away when you're young and eager. When I first started I was thrilled, I got to work on huge movies and was in the start of my career. Fast forward a year and it was a much different story. 

Also by that means most of the composers out there just shouldnt have assistants right? There are some who actually value their assistants and can afford to pay them a proper amount. You all boil it down to "well just dont do it" but ignore the larger view of "Why do these demanding but low paying positions exist in our industry?" Its stagnant to have that kind of attitude where if it doesnt bother you, youre ok with it. It's easy to come to the conclusion "Yeah just dont take a bad job". Yet all the entry level jobs in our industry are bad jobs, and by bad I mean exploited labor.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 25, 2021)

Al Maurice said:


> I always find it's interesting the number of misconceptions about the film business that are out there.
> 
> We're surrounded by the successes and glamour portrayed in the media, but what we don't see is the hard work and graft.
> 
> ...


I think after seeing everyone who actually had an educated opinion on this other than "you dont have to do it" makes me think more about how music for film, being such an important part of a film, is treated like a bastard. I think you and a couple others are right that maybe the immorality and underpay isnt all or at all on the composer's but stems from a lot of issues in the industry itself.


----------



## Paul Cardon (Jan 25, 2021)

JohnG said:


> Hi Paul,
> 
> I'm all for trying to be decent to people working for you, but the picture you have of the money flow sounds a bit unrealistic for all but a happy few composers. Your notion of "power" seems to posit a composer with plenty of money coming in who could, if he chose, give an assistant a nice wage and benefits.
> 
> ...


But as you say, a tiny minority of composers won't make much, and so many more will flush out, then why is it cool to reinforce that culture, to take advantage of the thousands of unprepared students being pumped out by universities? I'm not trying to posit a specific plan because this is all super complex, but there are places in the whole scheme where people can make decisions to do better. Stringing someone along for two years at low-pay to take advantage of their work ethic and optimism sucks, no matter the reason for it.


chillbot said:


> Pro tip: don't assist broke composers.


I mean yeah, this is kind of the point. Why is there a culture growing that tells all aspiring composers pumped out by a university in the thousands that they need to rough it for a couple to a few years in hilariously low-pay but vital assistant jobs to have any chance at knowing enough to make it in the industry? That's set up to allow so many problems (i.e the class filter issue, abuse).

And then there are stories of notable composers with notable projects doing the same thing, so here's two things, 1. if the hiring composer had to up their assistants pay to respect the amount of work they put in compared to themselves, could they even budget that? And 2. if the hiring composer had to cut down on assistants to support less for healthy pay, would they be able to keep the level of quality they're known for?

If the answer to either is no, then... they probably shouldn't be taking advantage of those people for long periods, rotating these people through to keep their operation going.

Like there's something to working alongside a professional and learning things when you yourself don't know a whole lot. That's awesome stuff. Great, fine. But when there are structural incentives for a professional to just... use that person to keep their shop up and running, to keep their output high, then it becomes something entirely different. When assistants become vital, they deserve the appropriate respect.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 25, 2021)

Paul Cardon said:


> Why is there a culture growing that tells all aspiring composers pumped out by a university in the thousands that they need to rough it for a couple to a few years in hilariously low-pay but vital assistant jobs to have any chance at knowing enough to make it in the industry?


Paul, it's not "growing." It's always been that way as far as the eye can see. In Florence, during the Renaissance, would-be painters and sculptors worked for someone with a name. That's why you see paintings attributed to "school of Bellini" or "school of Tintoretto." How much did those apprentices make? Enough not to starve, but I'm guessing not much more until their skills allowed them to make it independently.

This is not something new, it's not getting worse -- it's always been "worse."

It's insanely high risk. If you aren't fun to be around, it's nearly impossible. If you aren't willing to put in 10,000 / 20,000 hours (many unpaid) to get good at it, it's impossible. How many hours did the members of The Beatles play for cigarettes and beer in Hamburg and probably not much more? IDK

Those guys had charm dripping from their pores and great gifts, but they also put in the time.

People keep using expressions like "exploitation" or "taking advantage." How much can the people writing that afford to pay an assistant and still eat themselves? It's not like composers live in a castle and keep assistants in a hovel; half the composers are barely out of a hovel themselves.

Besides, how do you know how much composer assistants make anyway? Most likely nobody does, because it's private information and not freely available. Some get some cue sheet credit, plenty don't. Some make more than others.

I like @chillbot 's suggestion: work for someone making a lot.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jan 25, 2021)

jmauz said:


> Wah wah wah. This thread reeks of crybaby millennial BS.
> 
> Don't get me wrong; I'm all for fair compensation. However, like any business based in the arts you can't expect to make a livable wage until you've put in many years if dedicated hard work. And even then you might not make much.
> 
> If you're driven primarily by money then go be a lawyer or an accountant.


This^. I toured as professional drummer, living on a tour bus for years. The gigs were great, played full time, but most of the money went to the agents, the road crew, production, and of course, plenty of alcohol and debauchery. At the end of it all, I literally had a duffle bag with my pungent spandex/leather, my gear, and zero dollars. But.....I had a blast and learned a TON about the music industry, and most importantly, met a lot of contacts. The composer world is really no different. If you're not willing to basically sweep the studio floor and make coffee for peanuts (at the beginning), you're definitely on the wrong path. IMO, there are "unwritten" labour rules in the creative world. I've also done my share of unpaid, sleepless scoring work. But.....that was years ago, and I managed to build some really valuable relationships that are still key to this day.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 25, 2021)

Paul Cardon said:


> when there are structural incentives for a professional to just... use that person to keep their shop up and running, to keep their output high, then it becomes something entirely different.


? what are you talking about? That's how capitalism works. Do you want to try "everyone makes the same no matter how experienced?" That's been tried a few times and it is not a pretty result.


----------



## Paul Cardon (Jan 25, 2021)

JohnG said:


> ? what are you talking about? That's how capitalism works. Do you want to try "everyone makes the same no matter how experienced?" That's been tried a few times and it is not a pretty result.


Nice selective quote. I'm obviously not talking about the entire concept. I'm talking about doing that at abysmally low pay, taking advantage of someone's optimism until they flush out and the next bright-eyed kid lines up.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jan 25, 2021)

Paul Cardon said:


> why is it cool to reinforce that culture, to take advantage of the thousands of unprepared students being pumped out by universities?


I think the biggest problem is the schools themselves. They really should tell prospective students the dark realities of succeeding in the real world.....but they probably don't, because that would mean less profits.


----------



## Ivan M. (Jan 25, 2021)

Paul Cardon said:


> Also, this is the weirdest analogy I've seen in a while. Do men need to get off to survive? This isn't making the point you think it is even if it feels like a fun "gotcha".


By the same principle:
men do NOT NEED to work in a studio to survive
studio owners should not be coerced into giving you more than you already agreed upon.



Paul Cardon said:


> Of course not. But we're not talking about individuals or the public's market effect. We're talking about people in positions of power on professional projects, from composer hiring assistant up to project producer up to studio head making explicit decisions to squeeze more life out of people for every dollar they can, and how everyone at every level is being expected to do more for less while the media industry grows larger and larger year to year. Commodified artistry. Race to the bottom.
> 
> The industry is not as it was 10-20-30 years ago. You can't play the same flawed tangential comparisons. When all industries are being supported by exploitation because they keep pushing it further and further, generation to generation, then we're all fucked. Why should people be expected to hold up the social contracts of our society if the systems that house that society are being tightly optimized to wring us all dry, further and further, year after year?


"All industries are being supported by exploitation" is an overstatement.

Not everything is exploitation. You know what's exploitation? When you have a factory whose owner beats his employees, molests women, doesn't allow bathroom breaks and tells them to wear diapers. This really happened. And many put up with exploitation because otherwise they would starve. Those who complained got fired. No one should work for such a company, ideally everyone should abandon it and let it rot. But this is impossible when you don't have jobs. In the west, you do have jobs, and choice.



Paul Cardon said:


> Wouldn't it make more sense to soften those systems and slow down, optimize for life instead of profit? What is the end state going to be?


Yes, simply don't work where you're not feeling comfortable. It's your, mine, everuone's personal responsibility to make our lives better. It's not my responsibility to make your life better.

A system cannot really solve this, because systems tend to boil down to coercion. There are only two ways to get money from another person: he gives it to you, as much or as little as he wants, or you take it from him by force. But beware, if you take by force, you will also be taken from by force.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 25, 2021)

JohnG said:


> ? what are you talking about? That's how capitalism works. Do you want to try "everyone makes the same no matter how experienced?" That's been tried a few times and it is not a pretty result.


I dont think anyones asking for communism in the entertainment industry lol. 

Look I would love to see it from your perspective, but its impossible to understand how you can rationally and morally justify that its ok to pay people less than a living wage for the amount of work that is done. The only defense anyone seems to make is just "well thats how its been so Im for it". Are you anti progress? Are you anti-fair wage? If you think the industry operates just perfectly fine how it is I think its sad that members of our community would rather turn a blind eye to obvious problems (and more so actually defend them) than at the very least recognize that it is a problem.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 25, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> By the same principle:
> men do NOT NEED to work in a studio to survive
> studio owners should not be coerced into giving you more than you already agreed upon.
> 
> ...


Exploitation has a lot more cases than what you described. The weakest excuse for something is giving an example of somewhere that has it worse and saying "you should be grateful". Also funny enough half of your example started sounding a lot like a western company called Amazon, are their factory workers conditions fine by you?


----------



## Paul Cardon (Jan 25, 2021)

JohnG said:


> Paul, it's not "growing." It's always been that way as far as the eye can see. In Florence, during the Renaissance, would-be painters and sculptors worked for someone with a name. That's why you see paintings attributed to "school of Bellini" or "school of Tintoretto." How much did those apprentices make? Enough not to starve, but I'm guessing not much more until their skills allowed them to make it independently.
> 
> This is not something new, it's not getting worse -- it's always been "worse."
> 
> ...


1. Assistants talk, tell stories

2. I'm not saying you're wrong, but.. that's what it is, "taking advantage", and maybe there are ways to be better? And sure it's growing. Longstanding composers getting replaced with cheaper easier TV-optimized options. Budgets getting tightened down. Royalties and shares being stripped by new streaming agreements. The amount composers make is trending downwards, and so the idea of firing staff and hiring cheap fresh blood to churn through on the regular to keep output and quality high is sexier than ever. Some people will do it, and to stay competitive, everyone else will need to, too.


----------



## Ivan M. (Jan 25, 2021)

merlinhimself said:


> I'm sorry but this is so wrong in so many ways calling it extortion to ask to not be paid below minimum wage lol





merlinhimself said:


> This also makes absolutely no sense comparatively to what were talking about, were talking about people's jobs lives and pay, not lonely men


I'm trying to illustrate some principles.

Anyway, look, I understand the frustration, composers are not earning enough, and it's a tough path to choose. Should we complain about it? Absolutelly! Should we talk about it? Yes! Should we seek solutions? Yes!

I just don't agree with the proposed solution where employers should just give you more.

Try doing this, if possible, talk to your employer, don't demand, just ask why he thinks the money is so low. Maybe you'll hear the very same complaint and frustration.


----------



## Ivan M. (Jan 25, 2021)

merlinhimself said:


> The weakest excuse for something is giving an example of somewhere that has it worse and saying "you should be grateful".


Oh, yes, I forgot to guard against that. Of course that would be a sophism, a false argument. I was just giving it as an example of exploitation, and trying to clarify terms, as I don't think our tread here is about real exploitation.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 25, 2021)

@Ivan M. maybe just to clear up what exploitation I can help by posting the actual definition of exploitation.

ex·ploi·ta·tion - the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.

Just ask yourself, is it *fair* that a composers assistant can be paid less than the federal minimum wage?

"Life's not fair" - no its not, but Im pretty sure the law doesnt give a damn about that.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 25, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> I'm trying to illustrate some principles.
> 
> Anyway, look, I understand the frustration, composers are not earning enough, and it's a tough path to choose. Should we complain about it? Absolutelly! Should we talk about it? Yes! Should we seek solutions? Yes!
> 
> ...


Im not trying to point blame, there are good people left with bad options on how they can manage to get a project done. If youre a composer working on a big project and the only way is with an assistant but youre left in the unfortunate position of a terrible budget, what are you left to do? I think the people who have to make that choice are the ones responsible for doing something about it do you not agree? Why are the assistants asking for above minimum wage and not the composers asking for more budget to get the project done? We all know composers deserve more than they get.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 25, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> Oh, yes, I forgot to guard against that. Of course that would be a sophism, a false argument. I was just giving it as an example of exploitation, and trying to clarify terms, as I don't think our tread here is about real exploitation.


I also dont mean to come off as rude with the definition of exploitation, but its definition is exactly what happens to a lot of people working in the industry.


----------



## Paul Cardon (Jan 25, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> I'm trying to illustrate some principles.
> 
> Anyway, look, I understand the frustration, composers are not earning enough, and it's a tough path to choose. Should we complain about it? Absolutelly! Should we talk about it? Yes! Should we seek solutions? Yes!
> 
> ...


With this, I think we're more on the same page than I previously thought. But with the caveat that I think employers should pay more OR just don't hire assistants if they can't because doing so encourages others in the industry to do the same, and then things become "just the way it is", as they are now. They become complicit in reinforcing an exploitive trend under the guise of "competition".

EDIT: And yeah exploitation is a scaled thing, but... as things improve, are we supposed to stop pushing against the things that still suck?


----------



## Ivan M. (Jan 25, 2021)

Trash Panda said:


> Your entire argument is fundamentally flawed because labor laws exist in the US - particularly those regarding minimum wages based on an hourly rate. Independent contractor laws allow massive loopholes that give companies a legal avenue for skirting minimum wage laws. That loophole needs to be addressed not only for the entertainment industry, but across all industries.


Minimum wage laws are yet another problem. They are a destructive policy. A populist policy, that does something you like, that gives short term benefits. Benefits to a one group of people at the expense of another (by brute force). Moreover, it completelly neglects the long term effects.
Min wages prevent young people from finding part jobs, prevent them from getting experience, prevent unskilled people to be hired. 

There are people who would accept the conditions we discuss here, and wouldn't complain, for whatever reason. Maybe they are young and still supported by family.

By effectivelly preventing those people from entering the workforce and gaining experience, you're protecting yourself. So, again, at the expense of another. That's what lobbying, corporatism, special privileges etc are all about.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Jan 25, 2021)

Suppose there is a choice:

—$200,000 over 2 years assisting “D list” composer. Includes health insurance and no work days lasting longer than 8 hours.

—Direct 2-year access to “A list” composer, his resources, his plugins, his contacts, methods, stories, wisdom, Oscar gifting suit, and wine cellar. No pay. 16 hour days. No credit. Get to write 2 cues.

Some people are seduced by the well-paid path to the middle. I personally do not understand that decision, but it _is_ what most people choose.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 25, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> There are people who would accept the conditions we discuss here, and wouldn't complain, for whatever reason. Maybe they are young and still supported by family.
> 
> By effectivelly preventing those people from entering the workforce and gaining experience, you're protecting yourself. So, again, at the expense of another. That's what lobbying, corporatism, special privileges etc are all about.


So we should cater to the few well off kids wanting to compose?


----------



## Ivan M. (Jan 25, 2021)

merlinhimself said:


> @Ivan M. maybe just to clear up what exploitation I can help by posting the actual definition of exploitation.
> 
> ex·ploi·ta·tion - the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.
> 
> ...


You shouldn't have agreed to it


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 25, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Suppose there is a choice:
> 
> —$200,000 over 2 years assisting “D list” composer. Includes health insurance and no work days lasting longer than 8 hours.
> 
> ...


How is the D list composer able to afford paying an assistant 100k a year and the A list composer is asking for free labor?


----------



## JohnG (Jan 25, 2021)

Guys, if you don't want to work in an industry that's like this, that's great. I just didn't want to be 50 years old and working as a VP of Finance at some company.

You get a lot more besides money by working as an assistant, whether that's assistant orchestrator, assistant composer / arranger, or someone who prints Pro Tools stems. You get experience. You see what is ok to push back on, creatively, and what's not, and _how_ to push back. You see what it's actually like to do that job, and maybe get an inkling that you don't buy a new Mercedes or something every year. Composers in the main, with some exceptions, make a pretty modest income.

So I view it as a short-term learning process that nobody plans to endure long term -- more like a school internship (which typically involves you paying school and getting little or no money at all).

My first film -- exploitation? Sure. Learned a lot, got another one, and another one after that. Result: worth it.


----------



## Paul Cardon (Jan 25, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Suppose there is a choice:
> 
> —$200,000 over 2 years assisting “D list” composer. Includes health insurance and no work days lasting longer than 8 hours.
> 
> ...


Nice hypothetical, Stephen. Why is the A-list composer not paying and why is it justified?


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 25, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> You shouldn't have agreed to it


I shouldnt have been presented the choice that I was going to say yes to no matter what. Like I said, young kids straight out of school would basically do anything and take anything to be in that position. That doesnt justify it.


----------



## Lisa Mueller (Jan 25, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Suppose there is a choice:
> 
> —$200,000 over 2 years assisting “D list” composer. Includes health insurance and no work days lasting longer than 8 hours.
> 
> ...


That could only come from a person that basically could afford to work full-time for 2 years without any wage. It is great when parents can afford to support their kids that much, but this idea is deeply anti-social. In my ideal world I would like the best composers do the music for films. Not the ones with the richest parents that can support them chasing their dreams.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 25, 2021)

JohnG said:


> Guys, if you don't want to work in an industry that's like this, that's great. I just didn't want to be 50 years old and working as a VP of Finance at some company.
> 
> You get a lot more besides money by working as an assistant, whether that's assistant orchestrator, assistant composer / arranger, or someone who prints Pro Tools stems. You get experience. You see what is ok to push back on, creatively, and what's not, and _how_ to push back. You see what it's actually like to do that job, and maybe get an inkling that you don't buy a new Mercedes or something every year. Composers in the main, with some exceptions, make a pretty modest income.
> 
> ...


Why is the industry like it, and why are you ok with it? It sounds like Stockholm Syndrome.
Of course theres many benefits of being an assistant *if* you land the right composer by luck. But this isnt an internship that has protections for the intern by law. This is people misclassifying employees as contractors so they can pay them next to nothing for 18+ hours of work.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Jan 25, 2021)

Paul Cardon said:


> Nice hypothetical, Stephen. Why is the A-list composer not paying and why is it justified?


There's probably a cogent argument to be made that the knowledge and perks acquired from directly assisting for John Williams are worth more than a quarter-million dollars.


----------



## Ivan M. (Jan 25, 2021)

JohnG said:


> Guys, if you don't want to work in an industry that's like this, that's great. I just didn't want to be 50 years old and working as a VP of Finance at some company.
> 
> You get a lot more besides money by working as an assistant, whether that's assistant orchestrator, assistant composer / arranger, or someone who prints Pro Tools stems. You get experience. You see what is ok to push back on, creatively, and what's not, and _how_ to push back. You see what it's actually like to do that job, and maybe get an inkling that you don't buy a new Mercedes or something every year. Composers in the main, with some exceptions, make a pretty modest income.
> 
> ...


In the end, it should be a personal decision, not a policy


----------



## Paul Cardon (Jan 25, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> There's probably a cogent argument to be made that the knowledge and perks acquired from directly assisting for John Williams are worth more than a quarter-million dollars.


Sure it might seem that way when a good handful of the A, B, and C-listers have their own positive stories about working shit hours for shit pay for great knowledge at the beginning, but that absolutely reeks of survivorship-bias. 99% of the people churning through those sorts of positions are not gonna make it.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 25, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> In the end, it should be a personal decision, not a policy


there are reasons why we have a minimum wage, its not like these assistants are being greedy asking for more, theyre literally just asking to be paid a livable wage.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 25, 2021)

How much is tuition, again? $65k a year at a private university and up. If instead you take a year or two as an assistant at a relatively low wage, it might make more financial sense to you. If not, don't.

You guys act as though people are forced into assistant jobs because they can't find anything else. That is improbable.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 25, 2021)

JohnG said:


> Besides, how do you know how much composer assistants make anyway? Most likely nobody does, because it's private information and not freely available. Some get some cue sheet credit, plenty don't. Some make more than others.


I know that I was making roughly 4.50/hr when I was an assistant


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Jan 25, 2021)

Paul Cardon said:


> Sure it might seem that way when a good handful of the A, B, and C-listers have their own positive stories about working shit hours for shit pay for great knowledge at the beginning, but that absolutely reeks of survivorship-bias. 99% of the people churning through those sorts of positions are not gonna make it.


Lets hope the A list composers only pick assistants with a bright future. 😊 (Some other aspiring composers might be insulted if money were to be wasted on an assistant who washes out of the industry to the warm comfort of a winery job in Temecula.)


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 25, 2021)

JohnG said:


> How much is tuition, again? $65k a year at a private university and up. If instead you take a year or two as an assistant at a relatively low wage, it might make more financial sense to you. If not, don't.
> 
> You guys act as though people are forced into assistant jobs because they can't find anything else. That is improbable.


nobody is acting like that. If you can find somewhere in the thread someone saying along the lines of "My only option was to be an assistant and I literally could not find a job anywhere else." please share and if not come back to the actual conversation of : why does it happen? is it ok? what could be done to fix this issue we have in our community?


----------



## Ivan M. (Jan 25, 2021)

Who's to blame? Everyone complains about plummeting prices of music, yet everyone uses streaming service. I use them because I like them, they are user friendly, and I've never used a CD since. Also, technology advances and now anyone with at least some talent can create music. All this comes at a cost, or it's better to say: at a cost of a change. A few decades ago, most of us would simply have absolutelly no chance at working in the industry. Today, many new doors opened.

We can't just cling to old ways. If old jobs are bad, then lets abandon them. Society constantly finds new pradigms and therefore jobs. Maybe you don't have to work in a studio as a coffee guy, maybe there's another opportunity in the music world that's new and way better.


----------



## AudioLoco (Jan 25, 2021)

The sentiment and general point the OP is making is 100% right in my opinion. Everyone should be paid fairly!
The only thing is that its just not realistic in the real world I reckon, in this profession/area.

Talking about rate-per-hour is not even contemplated. The job is done when the job is done or the deadline arrives and you gotta wrap it up.

Another point is that at least, in the first year, at least, of doing any profession, even when having a good, even amazing education and a solid theoretical knowledge, you are basically USELESS in the studio.
Often you are a even a burden, making mistakes, not being fast enough, not being really used to dealing with clients, collaborators and session musicians, being a pain in the a** asking questions, making bad coffee. The mentor has to take you under his/her wing and allocate some time to explain things about workflow, requirement, backups, client pshycology and all the things they don't teach at school or Youtube.
Many years of on the field experience at your service - to be observed and aided live in a "no drill situation". Priceless.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 25, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> Who's to blame? Everyone complains about plummeting prices of music, yet everyone uses streaming service. I use them because I like them, they are user friendly, and I've never used a CD since. Also, technology advances and now anyone with at least some talent can create music. All this comes at a cost, or it's better to say: at a cost of a change. A few decades ago, most of us would simply have absolutelly no chance at working in the industry. Today, many new doors opened.
> 
> We can't just cling to old ways. If old jobs are bad, then lets abandon them. Society constantly finds new pradigms and therefore jobs. Maybe you don't have to work in a studio as a coffee guy, maybe there's another opportunity in the music world that's new and way better.


I agree 100% thank you. Thats what ive been trying to say the whole time that just because its the old way doesnt mean its the right way, and its obvious this problem is roots of an even larger issue with the composing community that if we dont act and sit complacently with how things are then there will be much bigger issues going forward.

EDIT: another thing too, as things get worse, less brighteyed kids will accept the roles, composers will be in much more of a position to have real ramifications if they are forced to pay less because less is coming in, seems like a recipe for disaster and implosion.


----------



## Minsky (Jan 25, 2021)

rgames said:


> I disagree. It's not exploitation because a composer, especially one in a first-wold country, has other options. I've never met a composer who couldn't make a living doing something else.
> 
> Exploitation requires that the person being exploited has no other options.
> 
> ...


I do not hold your views on 'let the market decide' when it comes to many things, this included. I'd argue that similar views to yours have delivered us to many of the problems that we now face in the first world. Free markets have long been proven to adhere too closely to the centralising tendencies of Capitalism. That is that money centralises around one major body / company / player. Rather than offer more alternatives - which they might do in the first stage, they proceed beyond that stage towards monopoly and market diminution - that is a smaller market of essentially 'one.' Judicious market steering or 'market correction' (when people get involved to tame the worst excesses of this effect) could mitigate that and that's what any Industry needs. It needs people to think about people ethically so as to allow different elements to flourish.

At the risk of being annoying (not my intention!) I would also make the case that the Oxford English Dictionary (the 'Go To' reference on English in ..well.. England) defines exploitation as: 'the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.' Whether there are other options does not feature. This is because the exploitation is something that happens TO someone and isn't something one acts upon themselves by their choices or actions. This introduces the complex question of 'who gets to decide whether exploitation has or is occurring?' We can do that individually (tied to our own value system) but in order to carry any real weight it must be done (in cases like this) by the generality of those working in that industry. Which .. leads us back to PEOPLE defining what happens in a particular market rather than the market itself.


----------



## Michael Antrum (Jan 25, 2021)

You know, some of the arguments read a bit like this......

Hey, if you want to be an 'A' list actress, then you'll need to sleep with Harvey, but if you don't maybe it's not the career for you......

I'm certainly not conflating the seriousness of these two different situations, but the argument 'It's the way it always has been done' is not a valid one.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 25, 2021)

Minsky said:


> At the risk of being annoying (not my intention!) I would also make the case that the Oxford English Dictionary (the 'Go To' reference on English in ..well.. England) defines exploitation as: 'the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.' Whether there are other options does not feature. This is because the exploitation is something that happens TO someone and isn't something one acts upon themselves by their choices or actions. This introduces the complex question of 'who gets to decide whether exploitation has or is occurring?' We can do that individually (tied to our own value structure) but in order to carry any real weight it must be done (in cases like this) by the generality of those working in that industry. Which .. leads us back to PEOPLE defining what happens in a particular market rather than the market itself.


I had to change my "like" to a "love" because you couldnt be more right with that 2nd paragraph


----------



## Ivan M. (Jan 25, 2021)

merlinhimself said:


> I agree 100% thank you. Thats what ive been trying to say the whole time that just because its the old way doesnt mean its the right way, and its obvious this problem is roots of an even larger issue with the composing community that if we dont act and sit complacently with how things are then there will be much bigger issues going forward.


After learning what the "industry" looks like, I've made a strong decision to never, ever work in the stupid industry, because it sucks big time 
And the movies are stupid, too :D I mean, I don't like movies anyway...

And, no hard feelings, please, I'm targeting ideas not people (also @Paul Cardon), I do realize I can be a bit dismissive of emotions when my logic kicks in


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 25, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> After learning what the "industry" looks like, I've made a strong decision to never, ever work in the stupid industry, because it sucks big time
> And the movies are stupid, too :D I mean, I don't like movies anyway...
> 
> And, no hard feelings, please, I'm targeting ideas not people (also @Paul Cardon), I do realize I can be a bit dismissive of emotions when my logic kicks in


same here, I hope I didnt let my frustrations come off as personal!


----------



## Ivan M. (Jan 25, 2021)

merlinhimself said:


> same here, I hope I didnt let my frustrations come off as personal!


Of course not! I actually enjoy a good internet brawl :D


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Jan 25, 2021)

Lisa Mueller said:


> That could only come from a person that basically could afford to work full-time for 2 years without any wage. It is great when parents can afford to support their kids that much, but this idea is deeply anti-social. In my ideal world I would like the best composers do the music for films. Not the ones with the richest parents that can support them chasing their dreams.


Do you feel that assistants being more generously paid would prevent children of means access to jobs as composers?


----------



## Michael Antrum (Jan 25, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Do you feel that assistants being more generously paid would prevent children of means access to jobs as composers?


No, but it would make it possible for those of limited means to access the opportunities that would otherwise be denied them....


----------



## Paul Cardon (Jan 25, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Do you feel that assistants being more generously paid would prevent children of means access to jobs as composers?


Nope, because the path to learning these skills is still massively guarded behind steep price-of-entry gates.

There are two issues here: inaccessible learning/training and starting positions that are unattainable.

If knowledge and skill training was better democratized, we could improve accessibility for those of means (which is already happening between access to cheaper technology and software and great online content). Low-pay-to-no-pay assistant positions don't help this. They reward those with systematic support and abuse those taking risks.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Jan 25, 2021)

Michael Antrum said:


> No, but it would make it possible for those of limited means to access the opportunities that would otherwise be denied them....


Ha! I think this gravely underestimates the rich's propensity for securing bright futures for their progeny!


----------



## Paul Cardon (Jan 25, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Ha! I think this gravely underestimates the rich's propensity for securing bright futures for their progeny!


This is correct. The people that will be ready to take those jobs of good pay will still be those people with the systematic security and support to spend time learning before they get to that point because either way it goes, accessibility to that knowledge and those skillsets is safe-guarded behind monetary walls. It's complex and multi-faceted of course, and finding flaws in an argument that pitches one narrow solution isn't a slam-dunk, rather it just opens the flood gates of problems that surround the paths into the industry (or any industry).


----------



## Michael Antrum (Jan 25, 2021)

If there’s a entry position that pays 200 a week, and your cost of living is 400, then it doesn’t matter how good you are - you can’t take it.

Of course, life has never been particularly fair - I spend a little time working i places like Sierra Leone, so I see this to the extreme, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea to try and make it a little bit more fair.

How does the wealth of the parents benefit to composer/employer - other than financial ?


----------



## Paul Cardon (Jan 25, 2021)

Michael Antrum said:


> If there’s a entry position that pays 200 a week, and your cost of living is 400, then it doesn’t matter how good you are - you can’t take it.
> 
> Of course, life has never been particularly fair - I spend a little time working i places like Sierra Leone, so I see this to the extreme, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea to try and make it a little bit more fair.
> 
> How does the wealth of the parents benefit to composer/employer - other than financial ?


Those that are wealthy often have better connections in all sorts of industries. Access to the ears of others with money. They also often exhibit cultural characteristics that are exclusive to the wealthy. Tastes in food and clothes and cars and music and houses and amenities and etc. that other wealthy people would like to continue surrounding themselves with. When you grow up in those worlds, you are better equipped to interact with other wealthy people. You are more likely to get recommended for positions by your parents. You are more modest and cultured because your life allows you the time to invest in "worldly pursuits" and classy social experiences.

The financial gain is a big part of it but there is often so much more to it. The playing field is unlevel no matter what way you look at it.


----------



## Lisa Mueller (Jan 25, 2021)

Paul Cardon said:


> Nope, because the path to learning these skills is still massively guarded behind steep price-of-entry gates.


You probably speak about that from the US point of view ... here in Europe, university education is mostly free (some countries may have minor fees). For very popular subjects like music there is more interest than people can be admitted, that is why they have trials. Only the people who cannot gain access to a public university have to pay for their education (or chage the subject). It is not perfect either - small income families may not be able to afford private music lessons - but even for that there are scholarships. I did not pay for my 7 years of musical studies and I was certainly not a genius. I just had to work for it. It never gets perfect, I suppose, but I wouldnt say we have massively guarded gates to music education in Europe.


----------



## Macrawn (Jan 25, 2021)

It's really not about fairness, it's about flushing out the 2999+ other people who want the same thing as you. 

I mean Mcdonalds has actual real job openings for a reason. Nobody wants to work there. Like there are no job openings in what you are trying to do, but you are still trying to get in the door. You are not going to get paid for that I'm afraid. 

The art world has no use or demand for anyone.... except the ones who were let in the door by the gatekeepers. You want to get paid being on the other side of the door? That will never ever happen. 

The system is trying to flush you out, it's not going to pay you. It wants you to quit. So you can decide if it's worth it to hold out or not. Just getting an opportunity that could lead to something for 4 bucks an hour is more than a lot of people get.


----------



## Paul Cardon (Jan 25, 2021)

Lisa Mueller said:


> You probably speak about that from the US point of view ... here in Europe, university education is mostly free (some countries may have minor fees). For very popular subjects like music there is more interest than people can be admitted, that is why they have trials. Only the people who cannot gain access to a public university have to pay for their education (or chage the subject). It is not perfect either - small income families may not be able to afford private music lessons - but even for that there are scholarships. I did not pay for my 7 years of musical studies and I was certainly not a genius. I just had to work for it. It never gets perfect, I suppose, but I wouldnt say we have massively guarded gates to music education in Europe.


For sure. I'm definitely speaking from a more Southern California-informed position.


----------



## Paul Cardon (Jan 25, 2021)

Macrawn said:


> It's really not about fairness, it's about flushing out the 2999+ other people who want the same thing as you.
> 
> I mean Mcdonalds has actual real job openings for a reason. Nobody wants to work there. Like there are no job openings in what you are trying to do, but you are still trying to get in the door. You are not going to get paid for that I'm afraid.
> 
> ...


Of course, but that reality doesn't mean incentivizing fair pay for those that do get in and do hard work is wholly incompatible. And the argument is that there are composers who DO need assistants to reach the level of output and quality they wish to reach, and once that point is reached, that human investment and effort needs to be supported. If it can't be, then expectations need to be dropped.


----------



## Michael Antrum (Jan 25, 2021)

Absolutely, the wealthy have more resources and connections - so basically you should only consider a career as a composer if your parents are loaded and your surname is Newman ?

Looks like the American Dream of ‘anyone can make it if you work hard and have talent‘ is totally dead (yes I know in many ways it totally is).

But should we just accept that, and all that goes with it - or should we perhaps all push back a little to try and maintain at least some semblance of equality of opportunity.....


----------



## JohnG (Jan 25, 2021)

Report on "The Thread so Far"

1. Tenacity -- 10 of 10;
2. Repurposing same arguments slightly different ways -- 8 or 9 of 10;
3. Straw man arguments about imaginary $100k assistant jobs -- 11 of 10 for sheer audacity.
[edit: forgot, "selectively quoting while accusing other party of selectively quoting"]

I suggest law school.


----------



## stigc56 (Jan 25, 2021)

rgames said:


> That's correct. And is at the heart of the answer to your question.
> 
> Nobody is forcing anyone to take a bad deal. Therfore, if it's consensual, then let people do what they want.
> 
> ...


Has nothing to do with democracy, it’s the power of the market.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Jan 25, 2021)

Michael Antrum said:


> Looks like the American Dream of ‘anyone can make it if you work hard and have talent‘ is totally dead (yes I know in many ways it totally is).


Yes my man -- where have you been??? lol... Hollywood has never been a meritocracy, though it is interesting many good things have come out of Hollywood, despite the lack of talent. 😎


----------



## Lisa Mueller (Jan 25, 2021)

Michael Antrum said:


> Looks like the American Dream of ‘anyone can make it if you work hard and have talent‘ is totally dead (yes I know in many ways it totally is).


It was a propaganda slogan to keep the masses in line right from the beginning!  It might have had at least a small core of truth to it in the 50ies. At that time, at least the "Dream" of owning a house, having a car and feed the family with one job (just one person per houshold working - higher education no prerequisite) was a realistic model. Today, even that is far from reach for a huge part of the population.



Michael Antrum said:


> But should we just accept that, and all that goes with it - or should we perhaps all push back a little to try and maintain at least some semblance of equality of opportunity.....


We absolutely should NOT accept that!


----------



## patrick76 (Jan 25, 2021)

Just wanted to say that when I did a little bit of assistant work way back in 2005 ( i think), the composer paid me quite fairly. He is by no means super rich but made a pretty good living. I guess I was very lucky.


----------



## jononotbono (Jan 25, 2021)

If I had the opportunity to work for an A list composer and I got paid just enough to have some kind of roof over my head, and just “eat some noodles”, then I’d jump at that. The education, people and experience someone would get from working with people at that level is beyond any school and college could ever offer. Ever.

Who gives a shit if you gotta work 20hr days. I do that now, still on the verge of being broke... and all without working for an A Lister. 😂


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 25, 2021)

JohnG said:


> Report on "The Thread so Far"
> 
> 1. Tenacity -- 10 of 10;
> 2. Repurposing same arguments slightly different ways -- 8 or 9 of 10;
> ...


Dont act like you didnt contribute heavily to #1 and #2 of your "report" ha. #3 I had no idea where that guys point was heading the whole time. BUT anyways, somebody always has to leave it off with some petty sarcasm after theyve run out of steam right?


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Jan 25, 2021)

I've gotta say I am absolutely *disgusted *at members here suggesting exploitation is fine and normal (and capitalism?).

The dig at "millennials", the suggestion it's "just the way it is".

Shameful and disgusting.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 25, 2021)

merlinhimself said:


> Dont act like you didnt contribute heavily to #1 and #2 of your "report" ha. #3 I had no idea where that guys point was heading the whole time. BUT anyways, somebody always has to leave it off with some petty sarcasm after theyve run out of steam right?


Au contraire, Mr. Anonymous. I have offered several explanations of my point of view, with concrete examples from my own experience as a composer, orchestrator, and Payer-Of-University-Bills. 

By contrast, you have repeatedly sounded the grievance-gong and simply stated the same thing over and over with, as far as I read, mostly hypothetical or made-up "data."

I disagree with you. How's that?


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 25, 2021)

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> I've gotta say I am absolutely *disgusted *at members here suggesting exploitation is fine and normal (and capitalism?).
> 
> The dig at "millennials", the suggestion it's "just the way it is".
> 
> Shameful and disgusting.


My thoughts exactly, when I started this thread I thought any negativity or opposition would be more along the lines of "Yeah well, what can we do?", more pessimism than anything. But to see people saying its absolutely fine and that its totally acceptable is dark, and all coming from people who aren't assistants or never have been. But in the end, there are more people for change than against it from what I gathered, at least the conversation is happening. I felt like I hardly ever saw anyone bring the topic up so I felt like it needed to again.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 25, 2021)

JohnG said:


> Au contraire, Mr. Anonymous. I have offered several explanations of my point of view, with concrete examples from my own experience as a composer, orchestrator, and Payer-Of-University-Bills.
> 
> By contrast, you have repeatedly sounded the grievance-gong and simply stated the same thing over and over with, as far as I read, mostly hypothetical or made-up "data."
> 
> I disagree with you. How's that?


wheres my data? lol. The only numbers I threw out was my pay. I made 125 a day starting out, working somewhere from 16-20 hours a day, do the math.

I'm sorry but nothing about anything you said was concrete in any way to what the thread was about, and it took half the conversation for anything you said to have some sort of relevance, starting off saying how composers don't make money like they used to, then finally shifting to "thats the way it is", and although I think that opinion is a cop-out, at least you were finally commenting on the actual subject.

Whatever "grievances" you have about being a composer was all you could talk about, "well we dont make any money so why should we pay assistants" was the general idea I got from you. As others have pointed out contributively and progressively to this thread, assistants not being able to be paid fairly stems from an overall industry failure, but you show your true colors holding on to it being acceptable and that change should be discouraged.


----------



## davidanthony (Jan 25, 2021)

merlinhimself said:


> would love to hear everyone's thoughts on it as well as if anyone thinks a solution could be made


Well after reading this thread I have some guesses about who's been hiring unpaid interns ...

As far as change goes, IMO the fundamental strategy involves organizing and applying pressure in numbers, which is hard to execute in practice. Most people turn to professional unions and their armies of lawyers.

If you wanted to DIY, a loose roadmap would involve: 

1. Organizing. Get as many assistants in one virtual place as possible (website, forum, discord, etc.), and create a database with as much data as you can about who is being paid what. The more assistants and the more data the better.

2. Have all "members" share a letter with their employers formally requesting the same (equitably determined and well supported) conditions.

3. If/when employers don't comply, begin to apply pressure. Create a publicly facing website, hold public events (post COVID, please), research local labor laws and make sure they're in compliance (no reputable production entity is going to want to employ/associate with someone accused of labor law violations). 

The trick is to do all of the above _collectively_, as it increases leverage and decreases the "PR" hit that any individual will take from making demands. Group action is basically the only way to ask for / accuse a boss of something like this without harming the workplace dynamic to the point of no return. Basically, if every working assistant in LA is asking for the exact same thing, then threats like "you'll never work in this town again, you greedy bastard" carry a lot less weight. 

I worry that fear of being blacklisted will doom any kind of movement like this before it even starts, but the one thing going for this particular case is that the community of composer assistants is relatively small and reachable, so a guerrilla organizing effort could actually work.


----------



## Everratic (Jan 25, 2021)

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> I've gotta say I am absolutely *disgusted *at members here suggesting exploitation is fine and normal (and capitalism?).
> 
> The dig at "millennials", the suggestion it's "just the way it is".
> 
> Shameful and disgusting.


I was going to say the same thing. Before I joined VIControl, I thought composers were generally friendly, intelligent, and compassionate people, but I obviously think differently now.


----------



## Trash Panda (Jan 25, 2021)

Everratic said:


> I was going to say the same thing. Before I joined VIControl, I thought composers were generally friendly, intelligent, and compassionate people, but I obviously think differently now.


You might want to steer clear of the political board.


----------



## Michael Antrum (Jan 25, 2021)

Here in the U.K we had a similar issue with Junior doctors working in the NHS, but the bone of contention in this case was not the pay, but the rather more serious issue of the number of hours they worked.

Junior doctors were often working double shifts, and the total number of hours worked per week were simply ridiculous. The government would prosecute and/or take away the licence of an HGV driver who continually worked too many hours, on the grounds of public safety, but they would conveniently overlook, and to some extent encourage and rely upon, junior doctors working 16 hours straight often 5 days in a row, or worse. Some of them were working 70-80 hours a week and were catching sleep during quiet periods in any empty beds. Some took drugs simply to keep awake.

When the public became aware of this, there was outrage, and stories abounded of nursing staff catching potentially deadly mistakes (such a prescribing lethal amounts of drugs because a decimal point was in the wrong place) after a doctor had been on duty for 16 hours straight for the third time in three days, and something was done about it.

Oddly enough, the people who defended this 'system' were often the senior consultants, who were spending their time on the golf course. In short, the very people who had suffered though this ridiculous system at the start of the their careers. Personally I doubt the system was really character building as was often claimed. It was even argued that the smooth running of the NHS actually depend on this ridiculous arrangement. 'Its the way it's always been.'

I aways wondered if it were a form of Stockholm Syndrome.

Of course, the government intervened and forced this practice to stop, the NHS didn't collapse, in much the same way that when the minimum wage was introduced in the U.K. that the job market didn't actually collapse. Now we have a new norm, yes there were a few hiccoughs along the way, and whilst it isn't perfect, it is much, much better.

So I do wonder that if people were legally required to pay a living wage to interns/entry positions, what exactly would be the downside of that ?

I find the concept that a person can be effectively disbarred from a particular career path or opportunity purely because of the wealth of family quite offensive in principle. 

I know it that in the real world that this is often the case, but you should never give up trying to make society a fairer and more equitable place.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Jan 26, 2021)

Viva la millennials!


----------



## chillbot (Jan 26, 2021)

I'll weigh in just for fun!

I like to think that I am youthful at heart but if I had to pick a side I guess I would be on the "ok boomer" side, grumping about lazy millenials not "paying their dues".

Maybe everyone just wants everyone else to have to do it the way that they did it, I dunno. I see that a lot anyway.

The thing that I haven't seen separated out, unless I missed it, is that you can still "pay your dues" while also get paid for doing it.

(So here's the part where I say THIS IS HOW I DID IT SO THIS IS HOW YOU SHOULD DO IT OK IT'S EASY.)

When I was starting out as an assistant I negotiated up to a pay of $9/hour. (I think he wanted to pay $8/hour... small victories). Checking on an inflation calculator that is roughly $13.50/hour today.

But we were slammed. I worked 60-70 hours a week as an assistant at $9/hour and then went home and worked another 30-40 hours writing tracks, for which I also got paid (not hourly, but per track, for the ones that didn't get rejected, as well as cue sheet credit). I did this for two years, then went to writing full-time.

So the hourly pay sucked, relatively speaking... but all told I was probably clearing around $1,500/week plus eventually royalties as well. (Adjusted for inflation: $2,250/week).

And anyway I was working my ass off. No kids, no social stuff, no weekends. Wife, yes, fortunately, and she was ok with it. Terrible RSI and carpal tunnel (check your damn ergonomics before it's too late!)

When I refer to "paying your dues", I never think you should not get paid for doing so. But I also don't think you should get paid handsomely, yet, anyway. It should be fair to both and especially if you are learning things on the job even if it's nothing more than "real world experience" (this is SO important!). And I also get grumpy when I see a lot of younger people not wanting to put in the work, both the long hours and, maybe related, skipping formal education in favor of youtube vids or Mike Verta ramblings.

The other thing to separate out about salary is it's one thing to take less money to put yourself in a learning situation where you will come out ahead in the end, this is a good thing. But if it involves writing music then no, 100% no one should ever get music written for them for cheap or for free, you need to pay for that. And I have zero issues with ghost writing, just pay them fairly and put them on the damn cue sheet.

Cliff notes:

1) Get paid.
2) But it's fair to expect to take a reasonable discount if you are just starting out and especially if it's a learning situation.
3) But not $4/hour that's just stupid.
4) "Pay your dues" by putting in the hours.
5) But see #1.
6) If they expect you to write music for free and/or no cue sheet credit, immediately report them to the internet for shaming. We are past that now.


----------



## AudioLoco (Jan 26, 2021)

I have moral issues with ghost writing. I get in a busy schedule it is probably the only way, so I won't argue with reality, but still, the actual concept per se' is horrible. 

I was for a while working with a "composer" doing mostly TV adverts. I didn't care to get credit for the adverts, but when I saw the "composer"'s site with "his" reel populated by the stuff I did 100% on it I wanted to puke out of shame for that person....


----------



## chillbot (Jan 26, 2021)

AudioLoco said:


> I didn't care to get credit for the adverts, but when I saw the "composer"'s site with "his" reel populated by the stuff I did 100% on it I wanted to puke out of shame for that person....


This is terrible, I don't understand how someone does this. I've also (let's say hypothetically) heard of composers accepting any of the numerous made-up industry awards that we have here in LA for music they didn't write.

On your website, or amongst your peers, how you would not want it to be YOUR music that you wrote is beyond me.

But properly paid/credited ghostwriting to make a deadline... this is not going to change. I don't even call that ghostwriting, it's more like you are part of a composing team with one lead composer and normally the producers are aware that it is happening as well. "Ghostwriting" to me is reserved for the actual shady situation, completely uncredited, and the other composer pretends they wrote it all themselves.


----------



## dcoscina (Jan 28, 2021)

I think this is a timely post from Joe Kramer.. The full thread is in my Joe Kramer Dishes on Hollywood thread..


----------



## Mr Mindcrime (Jan 28, 2021)

> Gingerbread said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it's optional to become a composer, and most all start at the bottom. But if that "bottom" is so low as to dissuade the talented from pursuing it, then ironically it those in the middle and top who would be hurt the most, as they would not find qualified assistants.


If they couldn't find qualified assistants, then wouldn't they do what other markets do, they offer higher wages? Supply and Demand?

If there is more labor supply than labor demand, wages will be lower. Which means you either accept lower wages with the hope of moving up the ladder or you find another ladder to climb. 

I run a business and the pay we offer for each different position can be very different for the supply (labor) market for each job type. Sure, the skill required and experience level obtained is a big factor, but we don't pay more than we have to to be competitive and fill our open positions. To the OP's point, we pay fair, but that said, the lowest paying job we have will stay low until we have trouble filling those positions. Then the pay will go up.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jan 28, 2021)

Mr Mindcrime said:


> the lowest paying job we have will stay low until we have trouble filling those positions. Then the pay will go up.


That's just plain greedy. If you're willing to pay a higher wage when you have trouble filling the positions, why wouldn't you pay it in the first place? You might have better employee retention as well.


----------



## Trash Panda (Jan 28, 2021)

Mr Mindcrime said:


> If they couldn't find qualified assistants, then wouldn't they do what other markets do, they offer higher wages? Supply and Demand?
> 
> If there is more labor supply than labor demand, wages will be lower. Which means you either accept lower wages with the hope of moving up the ladder or you find another ladder to climb.
> 
> I run a business and the pay we offer for each different position can be very different for the supply (labor) market for each job type. Sure, the skill required and experience level obtained is a big factor, but we don't pay more than we have to to be competitive and fill our open positions. To the OP's point, we pay fair, but that said, the lowest paying job we have will stay low until we have trouble filling those positions. Then the pay will go up.


Nothing wrong with this approach until the pay falls below the federal or state mandated minimums, which is often the reality with independent contractor situations. It's just a matter of closing a loophole that allows companies to force pseudo employees to work for less than what has been codified into law as being the allowed minimum.


----------



## Varishnipu (Jan 28, 2021)

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> I've gotta say I am absolutely *disgusted *at members here suggesting exploitation is fine and normal (and capitalism?).
> 
> The dig at "millennials", the suggestion it's "just the way it is".
> 
> Shameful and disgusting.


I do not feel disgust...just learn to move up the ladder to make more money....it is the way of life...


----------



## dcoscina (Jan 28, 2021)

Trash Panda said:


> Nothing wrong with this approach until the pay falls below the federal or state mandated minimums, which is often the reality with independent contractor situations. It's just a matter of closing a loophole that allows companies to force pseudo employees to work for less than what has been codified into law as being the allowed minimum.


You would think that continuing to hire new people at cost of onboarding/period of becoming proficient at their role would be something companies would try to avoid, compared to paying their staff a bit more and retaining knowledgeable, experienced workers. This doesn't apply every sector, but I surmise a fair bit or industries nonetheless. 

It's a rather odd phenomenon; pay your employees shit, but expect the same level of engagement and passion from them as people occupying higher positions have. I've seen this across various industries I've worked in. The level of projection is astounding. "You should care about this as much as I" says the CEO with a six figure income to his/her pee-ons who mostly likely work multiple jobs to make ends meet. Sure thing... 

p.s. I'm 52 and well beyond the millennial gen.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 28, 2021)

Varishnipu said:


> I do not feel disgust...just learn to move up the ladder to make more money....it is the way of life...


of course thats the way of life, but its regressive to think that the bottom wage floor is something that can be abused.

Just to be clear, I didnt start this thread to complain about the hours, or stress, or workload, or rising to the top, etc. I've only focused on one thing :

*assistants are not being paid the federally mandated minimum wage*​These assistant jobs can span from a year to multiple years, and if you think the stress of the job is enough, how about having stress added on top of wondering if youll make it by next month, that one minor financial setback could potentially ruin everything you've been working towards so far.


----------



## JonS (Jan 28, 2021)

My sense is that a good assistant to a composer should be getting $25-30 an hour. I strongly suggest any composer writing for film and tv to charge no less than $500-1,000 per minute of music. The more credits one gets the more a composer can charge. I have no experience with video games or music libraries or theme parks so I don't know what people get. As a general rule, a composer for a film or tv project should get 2-5% of the production budget as a creative fee. Don't believe anything a producer says if you hear "take it or leave it" or "that's all we can afford" when negotiating with a composer as producers have no issue lying to others regarding pay. Find out how much the production budget for the project is and assume they can afford to pay a composer 2-5% of that budget. Make sure your creative fee is at least 2-3% of the production budget, and if they are hiring live musicians or an orchestra make sure that does not come out of your creative fee. 

Always get a good entertainment attorney to negotiate your deal for you as they usually take 5% of the deal they negotiate for the composer. Some producers are complete scumbags and will try to lowball anyone that is not on the A-list with power agents. Even top A-list talent have been taken advantage of by Hollywood producers ie. Robin Williams for Aladdin, Brad Pitt for Thelma & Louise, Ryan Gosling for Half Nelson, Hilary Swank for Boys Don't Cry, and many others.


----------



## dcoscina (Jan 28, 2021)

I worked on a 40 minute game score in 2018 with my composer partner from the UK. We delivered on time and to the client's delight. So much so, they asked us to work on their next offering. For the initial score, we were writing for $75USD per minute of music. I live in Canada so that's more in my currency. It was still pretty much under going rates. We figured that we'd eat it if it secured future work. When the client loved what we did and asked us back, we said fine but the rates were going to be higher. They did not accept. We walked..


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jan 28, 2021)

dcoscina said:


> I worked on a 40 minute game score with my composer partner from the UK. We delivered on time and to the client's delight. So much so, they asked us to work on their next offering. For the initial score, we were writing for $75USD per minute of music. I live in Canada so that's more in my currency. It was still pretty much under going rates. We figured that we'd eat it if it secured future work. When the client loved what we did and asked us back, we said fine but the rates were going to be higher. They did not accept. We walked..


Of course they didn’t accept, you took the initial gig for peanuts. They’ll just move along to the next composer willing to work for nothing. You wrote that score and earned $2000 cdn each...and then there’s income tax you have to claim to our awesome buddy Trudeau. I don’t know how many hours you spent on it, but it probably works out to $5 per hour.


----------



## Mr Mindcrime (Jan 30, 2021)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> That's just plain greedy. If you're willing to pay a higher wage when you have trouble filling the positions, why wouldn't you pay it in the first place? You might have better employee retention as well.


It's not greedy at all. We pay what we have to to stay in business. Nobody is getting rich (including me) in my company. If I have trouble hiring a position and have to pay more, then I have to charge my customers more, which means I'm less competitive, which endangers my business. Do that enough and you'll go out of business. Supply and Demand. 

I 100% agree that people need to get paid a high enough wage to not only be fair but to allow them to have a life and buy groceries and pay the rent. But if my $10 an hour unskilled clerical job that requires no skills or experience doesn't do that for you, then improve your skills and apply for my $20 an hour job that requires skills, education, and experience.


----------



## merlinhimself (Jan 31, 2021)

Mr Mindcrime said:


> It's not greedy at all. We pay what we have to to stay in business. Nobody is getting rich (including me) in my company. If I have trouble hiring a position and have to pay more, then I have to charge my customers more, which means I'm less competitive, which endangers my business. Do that enough and you'll go out of business. Supply and Demand.
> 
> I 100% agree that people need to get paid a high enough wage to not only be fair but to allow them to have a life and buy groceries and pay the rent. But if my $10 an hour unskilled clerical job that requires no skills or experience doesn't do that for you, then improve your skills and apply for my $20 an hour job that requires skills, education, and experience.


I get your point, but also, composers *should* be asking for higher budgets, the problem will only get worse if composers dont ask for growth as well. If anything, the minimum wage being raised to 15 now should be leverage for composers to say "Hey, I have to pay my assistant a fair wage and the minimum went up, Im going to need more budget."


----------



## Mr Mindcrime (Jan 31, 2021)

merlinhimself said:


> I get your point, but also, composers *should* be asking for higher budgets, the problem will only get worse if composers dont ask for growth as well. If anything, the minimum wage being raised to 15 now should be leverage for composers to say "Hey, I have to pay my assistant a fair wage and the minimum went up, Im going to need more budget."


Agree 1000%.


----------



## Ivan M. (Jan 31, 2021)

AudioLoco said:


> I have moral issues with ghost writing. I get in a busy schedule it is probably the only way, so I won't argue with reality, but still, the actual concept per se' is horrible.
> 
> I was for a while working with a "composer" doing mostly TV adverts. I didn't care to get credit for the adverts, but when I saw the "composer"'s site with "his" reel populated by the stuff I did 100% on it I wanted to puke out of shame for that person....



Very wrong indeed! One can hold the copyright, economic rights on a piece of music to exploit and earn money, however there are also moral rights, so one cannot cannot claim to be the actual author if he isn't! It's a lie! Whether you can enforce the moral right depends on the local laws.


----------



## Varishnipu (Jan 31, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> Very wrong indeed! One can hold the copyright, economic rights on a piece of music to exploit and earn money, however there are also moral rights, so one cannot cannot claim to be the actual author if he isn't! It's a lie! Whether you can enforce the moral right depends on the local laws.


Please....you keep moral right and I keep copyright....you get exposure and I get the money....I will be right to you..


----------



## Jay Panikkar (Feb 3, 2021)

merlinhimself said:


> I get your point, but also, composers *should* be asking for higher budgets, the problem will only get worse if composers dont ask for growth as well. If anything, the minimum wage being raised to 15 now should be leverage for composers to say "Hey, I have to pay my assistant a fair wage and the minimum went up, Im going to need more budget."


Unfortunately, that's not how the economics tend to play out.

Clients who were only willing to pay low are not going to expand their budget to fit a government mandate, instead they'll look to alternate options that fit their existing budget. To put it more bluntly, increases in minimum wage will push clients away from individual composers and towards pre-made options (such as music libraries), pre-packaged options (such as corporate production houses) and outsourcing.

It's analogous to what minimum wage increases do to other domains.


----------



## Willowtree (Feb 4, 2021)

Jay Panikkar said:


> Unfortunately, that's not how the economics tend to play out.
> 
> Clients who were only willing to pay low are not going to expand their budget to fit a government mandate, instead they'll look to alternate options that fit their existing budget. To put it more bluntly, increases in minimum wage will push clients away from individual composers and towards pre-made options (such as music libraries), pre-packaged options (such as corporate production houses) and outsourcing.
> 
> It's analogous to what minimum wage increases do to other domains.


Finally some nuanced and educated opinions in this thread!


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Feb 4, 2021)

Willowtree said:


> Finally some nuanced and educated opinions in this thread!


True, but minimum wage rates place most people in North America below the poverty line....in any industry, but that's the harsh reality that's never going to change. Creative roles, such as a composer's assistant, are probably unregulated (unlike a fast food restaurant for example).


----------



## Willowtree (Feb 4, 2021)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> True, but minimum wage rates place most people in North America below the poverty line....in any industry, but that's the harsh reality that's never going to change. Creative roles, such as a composer's assistant, are probably unregulated (unlike a fast food restaurant for example).


Never say never! Ah, darn it... 

Ultimately I think my thoughts on this matter can be summed up as this:

1. Minimum wage laws are not the solution, and there's plenty countries without them (including my own) which do fare better than the US in many areas thanks to unions and various other economic regulations. Whether these would even work in the US is a different matter.

2. It's ridiculous we live in a world where the economy is so unfairly distributed, and this whole assistant getting paid poorly matter is a symptom of that, and not by any means exclusive to the music industry.

3. People seem to ignore there are other options than "big time movie film score". If you do want to work with music, there are options. Most of them suck, but they're there, whether it's education, video games, library music or all sorts of things you'll hate doing.

4. Exploitation is terrible. It needs to stop. Any defence of it is inexcusable. But can we stop with the odd comparisons to sex please? It makes it sound like sexual exploitation in the music industry isn't an actual problem that already exists..

5. Can we all just agree the music industry as a whole sucks?


----------



## Reid Rosefelt (Feb 4, 2021)

Here is a survey that just came out at Sundance about the income of independent film producers. I'm particularly intrigued by the fact that more than a quarter of producers earned less than $2500 from producing in 2020.

In 2019, 30% of respondents reported an income of $50K or less from all sources, including producing. In 2020, nearly 42% reported an income of $50K or less.
In 2019, 41% of respondents earned $25K or less exclusively from producing. In 2020, income from producing dropped significantly, with 56% of respondents earning $25K or less.
More than a quarter of respondents earned less than $2,500 from producing in 2020.,
Only 14% made over $100K from producing in 2020, with just 3.1% over $250K, meaning the “rich” producer is definitely an anomaly.
The numbers don’t make a huge jump when you consider all other sources of income
Granted, 2020 had Covid, but American independent film production has never been a lucrative profession.

I should say it's not unusual at all for it to take people 2 or 3 years to produce a film. Lots of false starts. And then there is shooting, where you are on the set 20 hours a day, and then post and marketing. The pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is that the distributor gives you an "advance," but then demands more than the advance in delivery expenses. And that's that. The director or actors may get a better deal on their next film, but producers are back to the beginning again.

And who do you negotiate with on an independent film? Producers.

The American independent film world is a system that screws over a lot of people.


----------

