# How to Make Money from Music Licensing



## Andrew Aversa (Apr 16, 2009)

OK, so this guide might be a bit basic for many of you, but if you don't know how to get your already-written music in TV shows, video games, ads, and corporate videos, it might be worth a read! I've had a lot of success with licensing over the last 5 years (even as a full time student) including placements in AAA games, network TV (Heroes), etc. It's pretty fun to write the music that YOU want to do and get paid for it, rather than fighting tooth and nail for gigs. 

http://soundtempest.net/guides/how-to-make-money-from-music-licensing/ (http://soundtempest.net/guides/how-to-m ... licensing/)

Let me know what you think!


----------



## autopilot (Apr 16, 2009)

Nice article!


----------



## kid-surf (Apr 16, 2009)

I read your article...

One thing you should consider. You make the claims that:

*--"I’ll reiterate that Taxi is a wholly legitimate organization that really does achieve success for its members, assuming their music is up to snuff. "--*

And...

*--"Look at organizations such as CD Baby, [TAXI], or Ariel Publicity - there is no shortage of people shouting praise for these companies, because they are 100% legit!"--*

And...


*--“We’d love to represent you and place your music in five films right now! Just pay us $300 and we’ll get right on that.” Yes, a similar pitch really is used by lots of sleazy businesses. You should always ask “how much does this cost?”--*

And...

*--"If someone is looking for money in order to put your music on a compilation, or place your music in a film, hang up the phone or delete the email. You should never have to PAY money for someone to use your music. They might try to obfuscate the facts by talking about royalties, or that you’re just “covering production costs”… and it’s all total bull! Real publishers and agents that can actually do something profitable with your music will not need you to pay anything. They will be getting their cut from the success of the music."--*

Now let me ask you if you see a contradiction. I'm sorry to tell you that I don't find Taxi to be "wholly legitimate" and far from "100% legit". When you make these sorts of claims you really do a disservice to fledgling composers and music artists alike. The fact is, you can't be sure.

Now here is my opinion: It is my opinion that Taxi is one of the biggest scams amongst the music industry (I say "amongst" due to the fact that that I don't consider them to be "in" the industry, and instead, a "fringe" organization). And...I've never heard a music professional mention them. In fact, say, 4 years ago, I asked a music agent friend of mine for the straight scoop on Taxi for a pal of mine who swore up and down that Taxi was god's gift, despite the fact that he'd NEVER gotten work through them. Well, the agent's response was "What is Taxi...never heard of it".

My pal says to me "Well then, this agent is obviously a nobody". Fact of the matter is that this agent is highly regarded in the music world and reps some of the biggest names out there.

Furthermore -- No music/composer agent, no music supervisor, no director or producer or anyone else has ever recommended any service such as Taxi to me. Not once. I've been around industry folks for going on 15 years -- I'm married to one.

Consider that there may be some aspects of the industry that you aren't privy to yet as a student. And perhaps refrain from being utterly adamant about organizations you can't realistically vouch for.


...That's my only note on your well intended article.


----------



## kid-surf (Apr 16, 2009)

zircon_st @ Thu Apr 16 said:


> Let me know what you think!



I did just that. o-[][]-o


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Apr 16, 2009)

Hey, no hate here, my friend - I listen to all the feedback I get. If I had even a shred of evidence that Taxi wasn't 100% legit and an excellent resource, I wouldn't advocate it. You'll note in my music scams guide that over 150 people have posted their thanks for the guide, sharing their experiences with various horrible companies (mostly Hitt) - but I've yet to hear any substantive criticism of Taxi. You get what you pay for with it; it's not really any different than, say, Film Music Network's job listings (and perhaps it's even better since you're guaranteed screener feedback.)

Anyway, the underlying point of the article was to outline the variety of avenues where you can monetize your catalog of music. Taxi is verifiably one such avenue, but I noted a variety of other methods as well. I would never recommend relying on just one channel, because that limits your options. I've personally had the most success simply making cold calls and working with the same companies over and over, but other people I know have made serious dough from sites like Audiosparx and Pump, others still advocate direct licensing...


----------



## lux (Apr 17, 2009)

I've found a couple of good lands with Taxi. Problem with Taxi is that you need a huge number of tracks to match the announcements, and you need to sound "current". No place for non current stuff.

As example if youre requested to send electronica you need "current" sounding tracks, even if youre the coolest "retro" or "progressive" or whatever subgenre artist. So just have a listen to whats on commercial, movies and TV's and you'll be likely to find sooner or later something.

Not a talent show. So if you just want to show your talent its a difficult game on Taxi.

In my experience not a rip-off at all, but as everything you need the right expectations from it. Personally i renewed it two times.

btw, thanks for the article Andrew

Luca


----------



## Brian Ralston (Apr 17, 2009)

videohlper @ Fri Apr 17 said:


> That all said, here's the part that's going to sound snarky: I have never found what I was looking for with them. I've done three (extensive) composer searches within the past six years, and although I've found approximations of what I wanted, I've never thrown down what I was doing while listening to the CDs and exclaimed "I MUST have that person!" The level of composers that use the service are usually a little below hi-level professional.
> 
> I'm not saying that everyone on the service isn't good -- just I wasn't blown away by what I heard.



Want to know why Stew? (Now that I am sticking my nose where it doesn't really belong) :wink: 

The reason why finding a composer can be such a stressful and hectic process for a director/producer/game developer, etc...is because they are looking for and listening to the wrong things. Not at all implying you didn't know what you were looking for at all. You are a professional and know what you want. But I have spoken with A LOT of young directors and last fall had the opportunity to guest lecture at the USC Stark Producing program about this very subject. 

The best thing directors/producers/game developers/music supervisors placing tracks in projects can do to find a composer is to NOT expect to hear the score for their project in anyone's demo reel. That is music, after all, that was written for another project with other specific needs most likely not matching the needs of your project. You can gauge competency from a reel...but not really pigeonhole someone's style, unless you have years and years (decades?) of work you can reference. 

That is the biggest mistake in my opinion. One needs to listen for a broad range of compositional ability. A broad range of styles...all done well and professionally. All at a broadcast quality lòðŠ   m“ðŠ   m”ðŠ   m•ðŠ   m–ðŠ   m—ð‹   m˜ð‹   m™ð‹   mšð‹   m›ð‹   mœð‹   mð‹   mžð‹   mŸð‹   m ð‹   m¡ð‹   m¢ð‹   m£ð‹   m¤ð‹   m¥ð‹   m¦ð‹   m§ð‹   m¨ð‹   m©ð‹   mªð‹   m«ð‹   m¬ð‹   m­ð‹   m®ð‹   m¯ð‹   m°ð‹   m±ð‹   m²ð‹   m³ð‹   m´ð‹   mµð‹   m¶ð‹   m·ð‹   m¸ð‹   m¹ð‹   mºð‹   m»ð‹   m¼ð‹   m½ð‹   m¾ð‹   m¿ð‹   mÀð‹   mÁð‹   mÂð‹   mÃð‹   mÄð‹   mÅð‹   mÆð‹   mÇð‹   mÈð‹   mÉð‹   mÊð‹   mËð‹   mÌð‹   mÍð‹   mÎð‹   mÏðŒ   mÐðŒ   mÑðŒ   mÒðŒ   mÓðŒ   mÔðŒ   mÕðŒ   mÖðŒ   m×ðŒ   mØðŒ   mÙðŒ   mÚðŒ   mÛðŒ   mÜðŒ   mÝðŒ   mÞðŒ   mßðŒ   màðŒ   máðŒ   mâðŒ   mãðŒ   mäðŒ   måðŒ   mæðŒ   mçðŒ   mèðŒ   méðŒ   mêðŒ   mëðŒ   mìðŒ   míðŒ   mîðŒ   mïðŒ   mððŒ   mñðŒ   mòðŒ   móðŒ   môðŒ   mõðŒ   möðŒ   m÷ðŒ   møðŒ   mùðŒ   múðŒ   mûðŒ   müðŒ   mýðŒ   mþðŒ   mÿðŒ   n ðŒ   nðŒ   n              òðŒ   nðŒ   nðŒ   nðŒ   nðŒ   nðŒ   n	ðŒ   n
ðŒ   nðŒ   nðŒ   n ðŒ   nðŒ   nðŒ   nðŒ   nðŒ   nðŒ   nðŒ   nðŒ   nðŒ   nðŒ   nðŒ   nðŒ   nðŒ   nðŒ   nðŒ   nðŒ   nðŒ   nðŒ   nðŒ   n ðŒ   n!ðŒ   n"ðŒ   n#ðŒ   n$ðŒ   n%ðŒ   n&ðŒ   n'ðŒ   n(ðŒ   n)ðŒ   n*ðŒ   n+ðŒ   n,ðŒ   n-ðŒ   n.ðŒ   n/ðŒ   n0ðŒ   n1ð   n2ð   n3ð   n4ð   n5ð   n6ð   n7ð   n8ð   n9ð   n:ð   n;ð   n<ð   n=ð   n>ð   n?ð   [email protected]ð   nAð   nBð   nCð   nDð   nEð   nFð   nGð   nHð   nIð   nJð   nKð   nLð   nMð   nNð   nOð   nPð   nQð   nRð   nSð   nTð   nUð   nVð   nWð   nXð   nYð   nZð   n[ð   n\ð   n]ð   n^ð   n_ð   n`ð   nað   nbð   ncð   ndð   neð   nfð   ngð   nhð   nið   njð   nkð   nlð   nmð   nnð   noð   npð   nqð   nrð   ns              òð   nuð   nvð   nwð   nxð   nyð   nzð   n{ðŽ   n|ðŽ   n}ðŽ   n~ðŽ   nðŽ   n€ðŽ   nðŽ   n‚ðŽ   nƒðŽ   n„ðŽ   n…ðŽ   n†ðŽ   n‡ðŽ   nˆðŽ   n‰ðŽ   nŠðŽ   n‹ðŽ   nŒðŽ   nð   nŽð   nð   nð   n‘ð   n’ð   n“ð   n”ð   n•ð   n–ð   n—ð   n˜ð   n™ð   nšð   n›ð   nœð


----------



## rJames (Apr 17, 2009)

There are a host of music placement services on the internet. There will be twice as many tomorrow and another doubling by next Thursday.

Because it is a business model that is win-win. (for the owner of the music placement service.)

They make money when they help to place music. So, they do their utmost to place music. 

They also make money playing off of the egos of the thousands of us who don't know how to write (or produce) but think we can.

Win-win.


----------



## kid-surf (Apr 18, 2009)

Why are any of us apologizing for sharing our opinions? I thought that's what this place was for? 

So...I likely used the wrong word (scam). I should have said that I find the pitch completely cheesy. And that I don't understand how "The WORLD'S leading A&R company" claims "success tories" that are 5-6 years old (relatively small deals, said and done, for the self-proclaimed world leader). And I fail to understand why they feel the need to put in BOLD lettering "the TRUTH about Taxi A&R". The truth? Why assume we think they're dishonest? Not to mention tactics I find to be much like cults or organized religion. But whatever. There are ton of red flags from my perspective. But hey, if you're happy with it, great! 

Just...I've never heard of a single person to land a gig through them. I've heard second hand, but never anything specific, obviously nothing about numbers ($). Though, I agree with Brian that it's not the place for a composing gig regardless.

RJames -- I feel the same way. Years ago I looked at their claim of tens of thousands of subscribers (50,000?). At $300 a pop that's $15,000,000 a year before you get anyone a gig. Win-Win for sure. Questionable ethics though...IMO.


----------



## kid-surf (Apr 18, 2009)

Brain -- I agree with enough of what you said. Particularly that far too many fledgling directors look to hear "the score to their film" when running through demos/reels. That idea is illogical on a rudimentary level. And I agree that most of those types wouldn't know what they needed (wanted?) if it jumped in their lap.

We agree on the problem. We don't, perhaps, agree on the solution...

The idea I disagree with is that a director should necessarily look for a composer who possesses a broad range of styles. My take is the exact opposite. I've heard far too many composers trying to "do it all" and failing to deliver any sort of authentic voice, more so a jumbled mess of clumsy, generic stylings. But considering many films have very little in the way of authenticity, well, match made in heaven much of the time. But that's far from, IMO, "saying something" on screen. 

I would instead give this advice: "Look for a composer whose music MOVES you. Who gives a crap what it is, exactly, that guy will likely be able to please you."

That's my solution...

Personally speaking -- I likely know far more about music than most directors simply because I can write it (which would be true for any director who can write music). Seeing as I don't feel the need to try and control that aspect from here on out on every project - I will at some point seek out a composer. What I'll be looking for is music that moves me. I'd pass right over a guy who tries to do too much and doesn't quite do anything amazingly well. The top guys don't do "everything" well, they each have a niche. Same with writers, directors and so on.

Perhaps it's only semantics, but I see the "broad-stroke" idea as what's wrong with the lower level composing world. Far too many aiming for the lower/lowest level gigs trying to be as broad as possible (to have a job - I get it), yet too often forsaking the notion of branding themselves, and/or establishing an IDENTY. The top guys are brands/identities. I believe this idea to be the key to the big leagues (who the hell are you? - Is the question). Although, it'll cost you jobs in the minor leagues. Absolutely. Less smart directors there...

My philosophy...know your range, more importantly know your brand/identity, have something to say artistically, and kick ass from there...

Oh, one more thing -- A student doesn't deserve anyone with a proven track record. They themselves don't have a proven track record. Find another student.

Otherwise, I don't believe in the 'proven track record' approach as a hard and fast rule. I believe in "can do the job and has samples to prove it". Otherwise how will you ever score a studio film? How will I ever direct one? Someone somewhere has to take a chance on us otherwise we'll never get the chance to prove we can earn a track record in studio-land. Right? How else would it happen for any of us?

There's not one person working in the studio environment that someone didn't take a risk on. Not one.


----------



## rgames (Apr 18, 2009)

So where does the Composer Collective fit in all of this? It's been discussed in a separate thread, but it's basically a licensing service but with a different approach. I'm still uncertain what to think about this group (though I continue to submit the occasional cue...).

I'm not certain how you develop a musical brand/identity for film/tv, though. Probably 90% of the gigs I've done wanted me to sound like someone else. Granted, I haven't yet worked a bid-budget production (which seem to allow more of that), but how do you work up the chain and develop a niche when the low-budget directors are hellbent on mimicking somebody else's sound?

rgames


----------



## Brian Ralston (Apr 18, 2009)

kid-surf @ Sat Apr 18 said:


> Brain -- I agree with enough of what you said. Particularly that far too many fledgling directors look to hear "the score to their film" when running through demos/reels. That idea is illogical on a rudimentary level. And I agree that most of those types wouldn't know what they needed (wanted?) if it jumped in their lap.
> 
> We agree on the problem. We don't, perhaps, agree on the solution...



We probably agree on more than you think. 



kid-surf @ Sat Apr 18 said:


> The idea I disagree with is that a director should necessarily look for a composer who possesses a broad range of styles. My take is the exact opposite. I've heard far too many composers trying to "do it all" and failing to deliver any sort of authentic voice, more so a jumbled mess of clumsy, generic stylings. But considering many films have very little in the way of authenticity, well, match made in heaven much of the time. But that's far from, IMO, "saying something" on screen.



I consider the ability to be competent in a variety of "styles' to not necessarily be the same as having or developing a unique voice as a composer. For example, I can tell is a score is a Horner score (or is that Goldsmith?? :twisted: ) whether it is the electronics of Commando...the classical orchestral score of Braveheart...or the eclectic score of The Chumscrubber. 



kid-surf @ Sat Apr 18 said:


> I would instead give this advice: "Look for a composer whose music MOVES you. Who gives a crap what it is, exactly, that guy will likely be able to please you."
> 
> That's my solution...



I don't really disagree with that. But when you are a director/producer/music sup who is in the situation where you really do not know what music you are looking for or what your film's score needs may be...the priority on how to find a composer is different. If you already know you want Elfman...then hire Elfman. But...if you are trying a lot of different things and going through grief over the process...then a lot of other factors should be considered. Including the composer's ability to not be a "one-note wonder" in terms of tricks and styles. Therefor you will ensure that your guy can tackle (in his own way)...anything you might ask him to try. That skill can be perfected (and is perfected by many) while still developing a "voice." A great example of this that immediately comes to mind is John Debney. His early years were a variety of projects in a variety of genres that allowed him to do just about everything. Now...his reputation of solid work...not being afraid to collaborate...delivering on time and budget...being easy to work with, etc...are what he is known and hired for. Those qualities take a while to develop, but are also crucial to longevity if you ask me. 



kid-surf @ Sat Apr 18 said:


> Personally speaking -- I likely know far more about music than most directors simply because I can write it (which would be true for any director who can write music). Seeing as I don't feel the need to try and control that aspect from here on out on every project - I will at some point seek out a composer. What I'll be looking for is music that moves me. I'd pass right over a guy who tries to do too much and doesn't quite do anything amazingly well. The top guys don't do "everything" well, they each have a niche. Same with writers, directors and so on.



The top guys developed their niche over decades of projects that gave them the opportunity to. But there are a couple things that make a composer a valuable hire to a producer. One could be doing a particular musical style well (like the hiring of Daft Punk for the Tron 2 score)...or another could be a composer who is "production friendly", delivers on time, on budget...easy to work with...AS WELL AS music that moves you. There are folks like that out there too. 



kid-surf @ Sat Apr 18 said:


> Perhaps it's only semantics, but I see the "broad-stroke" idea as what's wrong with the lower level composing world.



I don't that as what's wrong. I see what's wrong is that the tools of the trade are allowing more and more folks who have limited skills and talent "appear" to be able to compete on a much larger stage and anyone can call themselves a "film composer". Ironically...back on the topic of services like Taxi...every band "songwriter" guy in Taxi thinks he is also a film composer. Many of these are Garageband composers who have a website...a business card and Garageband loops ready to go. Oh...combined with directors/producers who don't know the difference...that is what is wrong if one were to ask me. But not all directors and producers...just some. There are many who are very knowledgeable. I don't at all paint them with a broad stroke. I certainly have not worked with any in that category. But I have met some who were. 



kid-surf @ Sat Apr 18 said:


> Far too many aiming for the lower/lowest level gigs trying to be as broad as possible (to have a job - I get it), yet too often forsaking the notion of branding themselves, and/or establishing an IDENTY. The top guys are brands/identities. I believe this idea to be the key to the big leagues (who the hell are you? - Is the question). Although, it'll cost you jobs in the minor leagues. Absolutely. Less smart directors there...



Again there are many things to be known for. I know plenty of guys who are great at some very unique music...but they are jerks...or hard to work for....won't re-score a scene if required because the first one was "the right one", etc...Guess what? They don't get the gig either and it has nothing to do with their music or unique voice.



kid-surf @ Sat Apr 18 said:


> My philosophy...know your range, more importantly know your brand/identity, have something to say artistically, and kick ass from there...



I can agree with that. One should know their strengths and weaknesses for sure. 



kid-surf @ Sat Apr 18 said:


> Oh, one more thing -- A student doesn't deserve anyone with a proven track record. They themselves don't have a proven track record. Find another student.



Why not? They need to start vetting their crew hires at some point. Their definition of "proven" just might be different. Like a good recommendation from a friend...or a couple students films that everyone in class talked about. I realize someone has to take a chance on someone at some point. But...on features where the producer knows what he is doing, those chances or really mitigated risks made by doing a lot of research on the composer in question. That should include a solid example/examples of experience being the head guy in charge of music. Perhaps a recommendation from someone the producer trusts or respects. And most certainly some conversations with the composer's previous directors on how the overall experience was. Any producer who does not call a composer's references or previous directors should not be producing. or at least not producing with someone else's money. When there is that much money on the line at the end of Post where there is little time and certainly no more money to fix it if it is wrong...you have to be that way. The responsibilities of a producer here are very different when looking at a composer hire than what a director might look for. That is for sure. That is why my discussion with the future producers at USC included this concept. Their responsibilities will certainly include looking for proven individuals in the positions they hire. It is no different just because they are students. 



kid-surf @ Sat Apr 18 said:


> Otherwise, I don't believe in the 'proven track record' approach as a hard and fast rule. I believe in "can do the job and has samples to prove it".



Proving that does not happen just on a demo reel. That is only part of the equation. It also happens with recommendations from previous employers. One has to get an overall picture of who is being hired when there are millions of dollars on the line like there are in most indie and certainly studio feature films. The "proven track record" approach is why it is so hard to break in. It is also not going away. It is a business after all...remember those discussion we have had Kid?



kid-surf @ Sat Apr 18 said:


> Otherwise how will you ever score a studio film? How will I ever direct one? Someone somewhere has to take a chance on us otherwise we'll never get the chance to prove we can earn a track record in studio-land. Right? How else would it happen for any of us?



Most likely years and years of building relationships with directors and producers who will hire you...multiple times...and films where the budgets and exposure gets larger and larger each time. A decade or so later...people 'may' have heard of you. That is how one gets on a studio film.


----------



## kid-surf (Apr 18, 2009)

RGames --

That's definitely the catch 22: How does one brand/establish an identity when the majority of indie directors (etc) want "sound alike" music for "look alike" films. I'm not really the guy with the answer to that question, I couldn't figure out a way around it other than to start doing it myself. Obviously it's a long range process, what I chose to do, and not for everyone.

Far as Composer's Collective -- Why would a successful composer need to do this. How would they have time to do this? I don't think they would. But whatever...I don't know much of anything about what they do. But it does seem to be , at the very least, a questionable practice.


----------



## kid-surf (Apr 18, 2009)

Brian--



> I don't really disagree with that. But when you are a director/producer/music sup who is in the situation where you really do not know what music you are looking for or what your film's score needs may be...the priority on how to find a composer is different.



Which in my opinion is one of, if not the (thee?) major problems in the composing world. These people should know what they want, and they should know how to articulate it. It's their job to know.



> But...if you are trying a lot of different things and going through grief over the process...then a lot of other factors should be considered. Including the composer's ability to not be a "one-note wonder" in terms of tricks and styles.



Unless you book a guy BECAUSE of his one-note-wonder-ness. Then again, one should know this far before the film is shot.



> Therefor you will ensure that your guy can tackle (in his own way)...anything you might ask him to try.



Except for when he can't. Hence, the replacing of many highly skilled guys.



> A great example of this that immediately comes to mind is John Debney. His early years were a variety of projects in a variety of genres that allowed him to do just about everything. Now...his reputation of solid work...not being afraid to collaborate...delivering on time and budget...being easy to work with, etc...are what he is known and hired for. Those qualities take a while to develop, but are also crucial to longevity if you ask me.



I agree. One must be a collaborative energy or they shouldn't be in the film business, as no (good) film is a one man show.



> The top guys developed their niche over decades of projects that gave them the opportunity to. But there are a couple things that make a composer a valuable hire to a producer. One could be doing a particular musical style well (like the hiring of Daft Punk for the Tron 2 score)...or another could be a composer who is "production friendly", delivers on time, on budget...easy to work with...AS WELL AS music that moves you. There are folks like that out there too.



I agree. Just like the guys in Daft Punk may very well be a pleasure to work with, production friendly, deliver on time, on budget, etc...

Hey, look at that, I'm agree with some of your thoughts. :D


----------



## kid-surf (Apr 18, 2009)

Hadda' break it up due to quotes...



> I don't that as what's wrong. I see what's wrong is that the tools of the trade are allowing more and more folks who have limited skills and talent "appear" to be able to compete on a much larger stage and anyone can call themselves a "film composer". Ironically...back on the topic of services like Taxi...every band "songwriter" guy in Taxi thinks he is also a film composer. Many of these are Garageband composers who have a website...a business card and Garageband loops ready to go. Oh...combined with directors/producers who don't know the difference...that is what is wrong if one were to ask me. But not all directors and producers...just some. There are many who are very knowledgeable. I don't at all paint them with a broad stroke. I certainly have not worked with any in that category. But I have met some who were.



I don't believe that Garage Band type productions should be an issue. The only reason they would be is if a director/producer didn't know enough about music which, again, is part of their job (particularly a director). So, I'm going to have to chalk that up as their fault when/if that sort of music fools them. If more directors were savvy the Garage Band stuff wouldn't ever register and wouldn't stand a chance in hell. Case solved! 

Agreed. I don't intend to paint all directors/producers with on brush. Interestingly enough, you don't feel you've worked with any in that realm (clueless) yet you understand it to be a significant enough problem to mention it...which says something.

I have worked with some folks I thought were clueless and very hard to work with. Though I haven't in a long time. The folks I deal with now are every bit professional minded and just as easy to work with as I am. Which is refreshing. I should add that (since it may appear that I gripe a lot) the TV producer I'm working with is a flat out brilliant dude who has taught me a hell of a lot about the way TV works. We've broken down many shows to figure out just why they work or not and he's been tremendous in helping me develop my show. Other producers (film) have really been great too. One stuck his neck out for me to help me big time, went to bat for me. I have nothing but the utmost respect for these guys. No question.

But those guys are Class-A types. My gripe is more so on the lower levels where things can really get quite absurd. 



> Again there are many things to be known for. I know plenty of guys who are great at some very unique music...but they are jerks...or hard to work for....won't re-score a scene if required because the first one was "the right one", etc...Guess what? They don't get the gig either and it has nothing to do with their music or unique voice.



If a guy is a jerk to work with, he clearly should be let go regardless of what he is able to create or not. Unless...unless you're the director. 

How about having an authentic voice and being a blast to work with? :D



> Why not? They need to start vetting their crew hires at some point. Their definition of "proven" just might be different. Like a good recommendation from a friend...or a couple students films that everyone in class talked about.



Ok, semantics on that one. 



> I realize someone has to take a chance on someone at some point. But...on features where the producer knows what he is doing, those chances or really mitigated risks made by doing a lot of research on the composer in question. That should include a solid example/examples of experience being the head guy in charge of music. Perhaps a recommendation from someone the producer trusts or respects.



So, you would have felt this way BEFORE you scored a feature? I bet not, but now that you have, sure, let's be honest you want to keep the composer pool small. Nothing wrong with that, but let's call it like it is. :D



> The responsibilities of a producer here are very different when looking at a composer hire than what a director might look for. That is for sure. That is why my discussion with the future producers at USC included this concept. Their responsibilities will certainly include looking for proven individuals in the positions they hire. It is no different just because they are students.




Hmmm. See, now I can imagine a USC kid, with a candy cigar in his mouth, rejecting a stack of composer kids because they don't have a "track record". Meanwhile neither does this kid playing the producer. Though, I'm going to assume the way you put it to them came across differently.

Just...I feel it's is absolutely not the time to start playing big shot, it's a time in their lives where they should learn how to line-produce and get their hands dirty. More importantly it's the one time in their lives to help create work that MUST BE MADE. To hell with following the rules at that stage. 

That's one of my issues this (IMO) brainwashed mentality that says film must be about MONEY first. Nope, I don't agree. Money/Business yes, but not first and foremost. That is the best way to make flop after flop...suddenly you HAVE to produce a hit. Suddenly the script is worse and worse in hopes to go as broad as possible. Aside from spectacle films, the hits are normally risky films and or risky TV shows. In fact, some of the most successful franchise were turned down by EVERYONE in town but the one person who took a risk and acquired it. Harry Potter comes to mind among the hundreds like it (btw --including my wife's smash hit).



> Proving that does not happen just on a demo reel. That is only part of the equation. It also happens with recommendations from previous employers. One has to get an overall picture of who is being hired when there are millions of dollars on the line like there are in most indie and certainly studio feature films. The "proven track record" approach is why it is so hard to break in. It is also not going away. It is a business after all...remember those discussion we have had Kid?



Ok, I think there was a disconnect there. I'm not imply that one should be hired to score a several million dollar film having done absolutely nothing. Far from what I believe. My point is merely, nobody has scored a feature before they've scored one, including John Williams, who someone somewhere along the way took a risk on. And that goes for every composer in the A-list (as well as every director and writer)

Yes, I remember our discussions. The bottom line (in my view) is that you appear to think like a studio exec and I think like a passionate director. The point is, I know what the rules are but you'll never convince me that they make sense. Particularly because so many top level industry folks reiterate that none of it makes any sense, that it's which ever way the wind blows much of time. There has never been a GREAT film made that wasn't a battle to convince folks of it's merit. The best films of our time were not the "sure thing". I suppose I have no interest in aspiring to create the sure thing, mostly because I don't believe it exists.

But before you tell me about territories and financing etc. I believe that to be one of the biggest probs with Indie at present. Folks writing/producing films aimed at a target as opposed to creating films that 'matter' (Matter - as in, they are passionate about the material unto itself). Which is the very reason Slumdog SMASHED. He fought to get that film made, it wasn't the sure thing...until it was.



> Most likely years and years of building relationships with directors and producers who will hire you...multiple times...and films where the budgets and exposure gets larger and larger each time. A decade or so later...people 'may' have heard of you. That is how one gets on a studio film.



Although, you left out the part where someone has to still take a 'flyer' on you (whomever), because an indie film isn't a studio film. Which is the point being made. There's no other way to get that first studio credit any other way, someone has to take a risk on you.


Ok, so where do we disagree, Brian. :D


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 19, 2009)

IMHO, Brian's take on this is dead on.

It is similar to actors. Some actors play a wide range of roles and yet somehow, they are always who they are whereas another kind of actor can dissolve into different roles in away where suddenly they are not still that actor.

Randy Newman i.e has a distinct style he does well. When you need that, no one does it better.But no doubt, his cousin Thomas would do a wider range of styles well and there are few films that you could hire Thomas for where he would not do a credible job.

Personally, I do not have a distinct voice s a composer, nor did I as a songwriter. But I honestly believe I can do a credible job on a very wide range of styles.


----------



## Brian Ralston (Apr 19, 2009)

kid-surf @ Sat Apr 18 said:


> The bottom line (in my view) is that you appear to think like a studio exec and I think like a passionate director. The point is, I know what the rules are but.........



Checkmate my friend. :wink: :mrgreen: 

I'll still buy you a beer next time out. o-[][]-o


----------



## JohnG (Apr 19, 2009)

kid-surf @ 18th April 2009 said:


> Which in my opinion is one of, if not the (thee?) major problems in the composing world. These people [directors] should know what they want, and they should know how to articulate it. It's their job to know.



The image conjured by your posts of a kind of whiz-kid director who is the auteur is something we see once in a while, but there are plenty of movies (comedies especially, in my view) where there's some extra magic that either happens or it doesn't and it's hard to plan in detail ahead of time. Doing so risks missed opportunities, or, at worst, strangulation.

Your portrait of the successful, all-knowing director who conceives every last element of his product, apart from being a rare being, risks two problems. 

First, few creative people, including directors, possess the mastery of the artistic and production issues in _every single craft_ that goes into a movie to truly be able to bear down on each one with a fully-fledged concept that is original and artistically valid. Some of the directors with whom I've worked have great musical ideas; they are knowledgeable about harmony, instrumentation, and so on. By contrast, some still ask -- in a serious drama, mind you -- for "a tune for every character" like Peter and the Wolf, or some equally dated or inappropriate or hackneyed concept. It's not that the latter tribe of directors aren't artists in their own right, but that they lack nuance and sophistication and will sometimes put forward what amounts to a layman's approach in music -- musical ideas too obvious or too blatantly manipulative or too dated or otherwise clumsy to support the otherwise high level of artistic vision they have created. So that's bad, in my view.

Second, probably related to the first problem, such a director risks strangling the contributions others bring to the picture, whether they are actors, composers, set designers or costumers. If the director knows all, sees all, it doesn't leave a lot of room for the composer or other contributors to leave a stamp. I know, one is there to serve the film, but that doesn't mean acting as a yes-man at every turn. It's one thing if the director is Jean-Luc Godard or Milos Forman or Guillermo del Toro or even Robert Zemeckis, directors with very clear concepts of what they are doing and a developed artistic vision, but of course not all directors reach such a level.

Moreover, sometimes I find as a composer that the original conception of what was in the screenplay has morphed during the inevitable vagaries of production -- substantially, in some cases -- so that, by the time music is called for, the original musical concept is not really the best choice, and the director, who's lived with every molecule of the project for a year or more, is not always fully aware of what he or she has in the can. Even good directors can lack perspective at that stage in the process (and sometimes will say so). Every director with whom I've worked freely confesses that not every scene / performance / effect came out exactly as planned, but some of them seem slow to adjust and take those deviations into account as they are finishing the film. At that stage in the creative process, some of the time it's up to the composer and editor to help the director realise what the film _is_, which might be somewhat different from what originally was planned. 

Filmmaking can be a carefully controlled process or a chaotic one. Some films are "authored;" by contrast, some are happy stews of collaboration. While many of my favourite movies are more in the "art film" mould, with directors who are treated as artists, in my view, the cinema, more than any other art form, can flourish equally with a collaborative approach.


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 19, 2009)

Well stated, John.

For every director who THINKS he is at the creative level of a Jean-Luc Godard or Milos Forman or Guillermo del Toro or even Robert Zemeckis, and actually is, there are a ton of arrogant jerks who think they are but in fact, are most definitely not.


----------



## kid-surf (Apr 19, 2009)

Brian Ralston @ Sun Apr 19 said:


> kid-surf @ Sat Apr 18 said:
> 
> 
> > The bottom line (in my view) is that you appear to think like a studio exec and I think like a passionate director. The point is, I know what the rules are but.........
> ...



Oh...is that what our impasse was? :mrgreen: I've known what the rules are, I merely seek ways to circumvent the ones I don't agree with.  

But I'll take you up on that beer and supply one in return. Matter of fact, if you and Heather feel like dropping by our summer bash we can get drunk on some good shit.  o-[][]-o


----------



## kid-surf (Apr 19, 2009)

Jay--

I believe when we think of the top guys we all think of a specific voice - for better or worse. JW always sounds like himself, Elfman, Hans, JNH, etc. Thomas Newman is one of my favorite composers, though his "voice" is in everything he composes - to the point that I've heard folks claim that he can't escape it. Not that I believe he should. And...I believe that there are films each are better suited for than the next guy.

Credible is a tricky word. 

The point is that; everyone has a "sweet spot", once one veers from that, the work will invariably become less and less authentic - and we'll start to approach, IMO, "credible", which, for me, is not ideal.

I would say it's obvious that the most sought after guys have built careers around their "sweet spot". 



> For every director who THINKS he is at the creative level of a Jean-Luc Godard or Milos Forman or Guillermo del Toro or even Robert Zemeckis, and actually is, there are a ton of arrogant jerks who think they are but in fact, are most definitely not.



The same is true of composers.


----------



## kid-surf (Apr 19, 2009)

> The image conjured by your posts of a kind of whiz-kid director who is the auteur is something we see once in a while, but there are plenty of movies (comedies especially, in my view) where there's some extra magic that either happens or it doesn't and it's hard to plan in detail ahead of time. Doing so risks missed opportunities, or, at worst, strangulation.
> 
> Your portrait of the successful, all-knowing director who conceives every last element of his product, apart from being a rare being, risks two problems.



Hold up! 

That image is not what I expressed, implied nor meant to imply. I think we're going to extremes here and confusing semantics. 

In my view an "all knowing" director is a guy steps away from failing (the film, himself, and those around him). Knowing what you want and being able to articulate it is not one and the same as stringently controlling every aspect of the score (etc.), whereby you've locked out any possibility of collaboration. That stranglehold approach is, to me, the antithesis of what fimmaking is all about.

Now I'll finish reading...:D

Ok, finished reading.

The only element I disagree with is: The idea of a director finding his film AFTER it's in the can. That, to me, is a poor director who didn't have enough foresight to thoroughly decipher what the film _is_ on the page and thereby found himself altogether, lost. Although, now we get into development and such, maybe not the scope of this thread. So...in my view, a strong director knows what their film is before it's shot and creates a map with which to get it there. Not only open to ideas and collaborating, but absolutely seeking it...WHILE...steering the ship to the particular port he was aiming at. Happy accidents, I believe, are a very rare occurrence in film. That is, once shooting begins. On the page? Sure. In fact, it's the very reason I hate doing (thorough) outlines, they are, for me, far too stringent and don't allow one to find the story organically. I've never written a script in which story elements did NOT suddenly occur to me out of the thin air that could not have been planned for.

Then again, far too many newer directors are in a rush to direct their film. Me personally? I'm not in a rush to direct my scripts. I'd rather sit on them (the one's that aren't for sale and were written for myself to direct) long enough to be sure the story is solid (despite a general enthusiastic reception of the material by industry professionals). 

My approach is; if not enough high-end industry folks feel my particular script is top-shelf, I don't want to direct it, I'd rather go write something that is top-shelf (in regards to quality). Despite good numbers, I'm in no rush. Particularly becasue I'm not a "all eggs in one basket" kind of guy. Too many newer writer/directors live and die by one script and don't have anythig else goig on should. Three years later they're still deaig with the same one script. But I'm going OT. So...

BACK TO SCENE:

That's another issue, IMO, particularly true of the Indie world. Send the script around town and gauge the temperature, are respected industry folks loving the script (regardless if they wish to make it, they likely don't)? Too few writer/directors test their material that way and it shows. Even though it may be perfectly obvious that the film is Indie, Hollywood is still a great barometer in regards to quality, or the lack of. Point? Point is that the guy who doesn't do that is far less likely to be open to ideas, the script is his baby and THAT'S THAT!!!

Which is one reason I've stated that this would be one of my question for a writer/director if I were a composer: What's the word around town? Or, I would ask around town to see what the world was, if anyone was talking about this script. That way I'd know if anyone was tracking this film/director.

Did I go OT again?



> If the director knows all, sees all, it doesn't leave a lot of room for the composer or other contributors to leave a stamp.



I personally don't care whether people feel like they've gotten to leave a stamp if I'm directing. Reason being. I don't care if "I" got to leave a stamp. Perhaps not in the way you'd think. I feel it's OUR film if I'm directing. Not about compartmentalized aggrandizement, it's about everyone serving OUR film so that we can ALL stand back and say "Great work everyone...WE did it!". That is the climate I would seek to promote. Which is the very reason I'd reject a "film by" credit, even though I'd be the writer/director. It's an arrogant, self-serving, offensive credit, in my view. Having said that, sure, I suppose if I sensed someone really needed to be singled out and praised I would do that. Whatever makes people inspired, is all.

Most importantly, even though I wrote the thing -- it ain't about me, it's about the film unto itself.



> I know, one is there to serve the film, but that doesn't mean acting as a yes-man at every turn.



Agreed! Who want's to work with THAT guy? Not me. I like people who have strong intelligent opinions. I respond best to passionate, talented people who never take things personally.



> It's one thing if the director is Jean-Luc Godard or Milos Forman or Guillermo del Toro or even Robert Zemeckis, directors with very clear concepts of what they are doing and a developed artistic vision, but of course not all directors reach such a level.



Agreed. Take notice that all of those guys know how to WRITE. Often times the dudes with the specific creative vision (particularly on smaller art films) also wrote the film. Those types are the individuals I respect and relate to the most. And/or the "screenwriter first" guys like Tony Gilroy etc. I believe one stands a far better chance of knowing what the film _is_ if they are, in general, intimately knowledgeable with the obstacles of creating "story".



> more than any other art form, can flourish equally with a collaborative approach.



I would say that it is mandatory...So I don't know how far at odds we truly are.


----------



## kid-surf (Apr 19, 2009)

John -- Meant to comment on this...



> By contrast, some still ask -- in a serious drama, mind you -- for "a tune for every character" like Peter and the Wolf, or some equally dated or inappropriate or hackneyed concept. It's not that the latter tribe of directors aren't artists in their own right, but that they lack nuance and sophistication and will sometimes put forward what amounts to a layman's approach in music -- musical ideas too obvious or too blatantly manipulative or too dated or otherwise clumsy to support the otherwise high level of artistic vision they have created. So that's bad, in my view.



See...it's scenarios like that where I apply my idea "it's their job to know". It's their job to know how inappropriate and hackneyed that approach is. For as many books as directors (should) read, an up to date book on film composing and its purpose should be mandatory reading for anyone calling themselves a director. I say "calling themselves", because I feel one should be familiar "enough" with the concept of one of the key EMOTIONAL elements of the film in order to not make novice (sorry - no offense) stupid comments - which may lead to stuffing novice decisions into their film. It's lazy, to say the least. Particularly if it's someone else's money financing it. (which, IMO, means it's never truly "their" film).

I feel it's a director's job to understand the key element of filmmaking: They should have some experience acting, they should have experience on-set (studio film), they should know something about cinematography, they should know something about film composing, they should most of all know how to write a GREAT screenplay.


But that's only my opinion.


----------



## Brian Ralston (Apr 19, 2009)

kid-surf @ Sun Apr 19 said:


> But I'll take you up on that beer and supply one in return. Matter of fact, if you and Heather feel like dropping by our summer bash we can get drunk on some good shit.  o-[][]-o



Thanks Jay. We would love to. Let me know when and where and as long as we are in town...we would love to drop by. 
o-[][]-o


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 20, 2009)

kid-surf @ Sun Apr 19 said:


> Jay--
> 
> I believe when we think of the top guys we all think of a specific voice - for better or worse. JW always sounds like himself, Elfman, Hans, JNH, etc. Thomas Newman is one of my favorite composers, though his "voice" is in everything he composes - to the point that I've heard folks claim that he can't escape it. Not that I believe he should. And...I believe that there are films each are better suited for than the next guy.
> 
> ...



Simply not true in many cases IMHO. Jerry Goldsmith, Elmer Bernstein, and many others were/are so incredibly versatile and comfortable in so many styles that I guarantee you I could play you scores of theirs that were excellent and you would never guess that it was them. And would you really have known JFK was a John Williams score if you did not know? There is aƒæ   j­ñÔ   ¾q   j®ñÖ   ¾æ   j¯ñÖ   ¿W   j°ñ×   ¿Ä   j±ñØ   À5   j²ñØ   À¦   j³ñÙ   Á_   j´ñÛ   Áˆ   jµñÛ   Áù   j¶ñÛ   Âj   j·ñÜ   ÂÛ   j¸ñÝ   ÃL   j¹ñß   Ãé   jºñà   ÄZ   j»ñâ   Ãs   j¼ñã   Å   j½ñã   Å   j¾ñä   Åò   j¿ñæ   Æc   jÀñè   ÆÔ   jÁñë   ÇE   jÂñî   ÇÌ   jÃñð   È=   jÄñó   È®   jÅñô   É!   jÆñô   É’   jÇñô   Ê   jÈñô   Êt   jÉñö   Êå   jÊñö   ËV   jËñù   ËÇ   jÌñþ   Ì8   jÍò   Ì©   jÎò   Í   jÏò   Í‹   jÐò   Íü   jÑò   Îm   jÒò
   ÎÞ   jÓò   ÏO   jÔò   ÏÀ   jÕò   Ð1   jÖò   Ð¢   j×ò   Ñ   jØò   Ñ„   jÙò   Ñõ   jÚò   Òf   jÛò   Ò×   jÜò   ÓH   jÝò   Ó¹   jÞò   Ô*   jßò"   Ô›   jàò'   Õ   jáò+   Õ}   jâò,   Õî


----------



## JohnG (Apr 20, 2009)

Hey Kid -- enjoying the discussion!

There's an inherent contradiction in leading any creative process and our exchange touches on it: On the one hand, a good director must make decisions about and give directions on performance, lighting, costumes, editing, colour correction, music etc. etc. etc. based on a very clear, deeply thought out set of principles, artistic and philosophical and craft-driven, that he or she has developed before shooting starts, _but remain prepared to alter or even discard many of those preconceptions in actually making the movie_. He or she must be ready to reconsider nearly every preconception because of those "facts on the ground" that can upend plans laid ahead of time -- the cast, the composer, the release schedule, the distributor's demands, even the weather. For composers, it's the budget, time, discovering on the stage that the producer hates electric guitars, that your fourth French Horn can't play all that well, or whatever.

It would be great if the director knew a lot about each area, just as it could be great if each composer or conductor could play each instrument well, knew its literature, and understood what has already been done with that instrument or section or form of music (and by extension, what is truly original). But that knowledge, in order to transform the director (or conductor) from a pedant to a great leader, has to be coupled with a personality that is rare -- someone who rejoices in the fun and creations of another, while teasing out an "even better" performance. It is this last quality -- the joy of collaboration -- that makes a director (or a composer or writer or producer) truly delightful to work with.

Some of my favourite movies are made by directors who clearly know everything about what they are doing; every choice seems cohesive and conscious: Ingmar Bergman might be an example. And then there are the guys who deliberately cede or never even ask for control -- some of those are fantastic too: Mike Leigh's films are among the best (and, on the subject of loss of control but another happy accident, maybe worth noting the total fiasco that surrounded "Apocalypse Now" before it became the awesome exploration that it ended up being).


----------



## kid-surf (Apr 22, 2009)

Brian -- it'll be at our place, don't know exactly when yet, probably late June. I'll let you know when we set a date so I can get your addy for invites. Should be a good time. o-[][]-o


----------



## kid-surf (Apr 22, 2009)

Jay --



> Simply not true in many cases IMHO. Jerry Goldsmith, Elmer Bernstein, and many others were/are so incredibly versatile and comfortable in so many styles that I guarantee you I could play you scores of theirs that were excellent and you would never guess that it was them.



While I agree with you about those composers, I feel that time has passed, for the most part, same as the time has passed for very original stories. I believe there was far more leeway for everyone 'back in the day'. Now a days, it seems to me that the most sought after composers are booked because of their sound.



> And Elmer Bernstein commented that he went through periods in his career when he would have a huge commercial success where he was "the Jazz Guy", then "The Comedy Guy", then the"Epic Classical" guy and that he thought no one could get a handle on what he was as a composer as a result.



Sure. But try and have a successful career doing that at the studio level in today's climate. I'm not sure that's possible.



> I am still not sure that you could necessarily blind identify a Thomas Newman score necessarily. I know I could not.



I'm almost certain I could. I know his 'voice' very well. For example, Jarhead was somewhat of a departure for him, yet, to me, it sounds like Thomas Newman. It's like there is always a poignancy just below the surface.



> Anyway, in most cases, directors should mostly trust the composer they hire to do what is right musically for the film. If not, either they have hired the wrong guy or are blinded by their ego.



I agree. A director should "mostly" trust the composer to do the job. But this doesn't therefore mean that a good director comes to the composer without clearly thought out ideas about what the film needs. My belief is that you hire a composer for their "voice", their "identity", their "POV", etc. BECAUSE you understand your own film. From there, your job as director is to make sure they understand the story and tonality, etc. 

As for me personally -- I've scored before, and I've written music since I was 13 years old. It just makes sense to my brain to know what I'd want from a score. I can't imagine a composer coming to me with ideas that are a complete departure from what I've spent months and years envisioning and it being right. Then again, I'd be open minded enough to consider anything. Because, after all, I would have hired this guy for his POV.


----------



## kid-surf (Apr 22, 2009)

Hey John -- enjoying the discussion myself. Sorry I had to bail out abruptly, just finished my new script (man, I'm beat up, but typing "TO BLACK:" is such a great feeling -- although, now is the time I become very insecure about what I've written. :D )



> There's an inherent contradiction in leading any creative process and our exchange touches on it: On the one hand, a good director must make decisions about and give directions on performance, lighting, costumes, editing, colour correction, music etc. etc. etc. based on a very clear, deeply thought out set of principles, artistic and philosophical and craft-driven, that he or she has developed before shooting starts, but remain prepared to alter or even discard many of those preconceptions in actually making the movie. He or she must be ready to reconsider nearly every preconception because of those "facts on the ground" that can upend plans laid ahead of time -- the cast, the composer, the release schedule, the distributor's demands, even the weather. For composers, it's the budget, time, discovering on the stage that the producer hates electric guitars, that your fourth French Horn can't play all that well, or whatever.



100% agree. Which is the very reason it may seem that I am constantly contradicting myself. Fact is, I am, and for those very reasons. Yes, what you've expressed there is the nucleus of my creative beliefs.



> It would be great if the director knew a lot about each area, just as it could be great if each composer or conductor could play each instrument well, knew its literature, and understood what has already been done with that instrument or section or form of music (and by extension, what is truly original). But that knowledge, in order to transform the director (or conductor) from a pedant to a great leader, has to be coupled with a personality that is rare -- someone who rejoices in the fun and creations of another, while teasing out an "even better" performance. It is this last quality -- the joy of collaboration -- that makes a director (or a composer or writer or producer) truly delightful to work with.



100% agree. I think we may be confusing my general feelings on coming to the table prepared with the way I collaborate. They are two separate but equally important ideas for me - The reason I brought up semantics.



> Some of my favourite movies are made by directors who clearly know everything about what they are doing



But let's be clear that I said "should know _something_ about", which is different than saying "should know everything about". My gripe is aimed at those directors who clearly have not studied any aspects of film score. We're talking guys doing some fairly decent budget indie films at times. Not that it's everyone, it's not. But I feel it's far too many. I feel it's often the reason why (Indie) directors request these hackneyed concepts. Wouldn't you rather they all come more equipped? I don't see that as an unreasonable philosophy.



> and, on the subject of loss of control but another happy accident, maybe worth noting the total fiasco that surrounded "Apocalypse Now" before it became the awesome exploration that it ended up being.



If you could quickly remind me what happened.

From what I remember - Coppola, in the middle of shooting it, said to his wife one night "I'm making the worst film ever made and I don't know how to fix it".

I don't know the entire story, but, could it have been artistic insecurities driving these feelings? Meaning, he was so close to it that he could not perceive what others might, and did. It couldn't have been the train wreck he swore it was and then suddenly "work" on screen. I believe that to be a somewhat normal aspect of being a creative. You are so sure you are about to create a masterpiece (otherwise, why do this?), somewhere along the way insecurities set in, you push through and finish the work.


----------



## Synesthesia (Apr 22, 2009)

kid-surf @ Wed Apr 22 said:


> If you could quickly remind me what happened.
> 
> From what I remember - Coppola in the middle of shooting it, said to his wife one night "I'm making the worst film ever made and I don't know how to fix it".
> 
> I don't know the entire story, but, could it have been artistic insecurities driving these feelings? Meaning, he was so close to it that he could not perceive what others might, and did. It couldn't have been the train wreck he swore it was and then suddenly "work" on screen.



Kid - rent 'Hearts Of Darkness'. (The film of the filming of AN.)

It is a really incredible documentary - almost as good a watch as AN itself!

Cheers,

Paul o-[][]-o


----------



## kid-surf (Apr 22, 2009)

Will do! Thanks, Paul... o-[][]-o


----------



## Brian Ralston (Apr 22, 2009)

You might want to check this out Jay. It ran in Variety today.

Notice how most all of their comments were not about a unique voice. Many were about their professionalism and reputations they have build for quality and dependable work. And when they were...the unique voice was about being unique for a particular show...but also being able to change it up and be completely different for another show. It is the versatility they are commenting on here...not just their compositional style. 

____________


> *Music for Screens: Spring '09*
> Posted: Mon., Apr. 20, 2009, 4:17pm PTTV: _Music execs pick five big talents
> These composers make the smallscreen sing_
> By MELINDA NEWMAN
> ...


----------



## JohnG (Apr 22, 2009)

in an interview, Coppola said he ended up $50 million in debt from the film and that it was a total fiasco. Tons and tons of footage with very little idea about what to do with it all, from what I remember.

I don't think it was some kind of normal insecurity; more like blind panic, from the tone he used in the interview, and, from what he said, with good reason.

I never saw the doc, though, on the "making of," which I'd heard was great -- thanks for the reminder, Paul.


----------



## kid-surf (May 6, 2009)

Sorry I'm late again to the party...friggn slammed.

Brian, I believe a good portion is semantics. I don't know if you feel I'm saying that one not need be dependable, professional, etc.?? But I assure you that is not my POV. After all, how could I expect to circumvent that issue myself? It's not possible. And well, it's unprofessional...green.

What I'm saying is that a perceived "unique voice" is what gets one's ball rolling on the highest levels, and that this perceived unique voice is what folks "buy" over and over once folks reach the top. After all, in a general sense, there is nobody professional and dependable enough to circumvent the primary obstacle (landing a studio gig) by dependably and professionally delivering "typical or generic" work. 

The article says to me that their "voice" is what got them there and is what will keep them there and/or enable them to soar higher.

Versatility -- Well, I believe one's voice comes through in whatever they create. I'm not intending to imply that being a one trick pony is the way to go. In my own work I have material from a small dark family drama, to a gritty and violent mexican inspired, just finished a more sophisticated The Departed/Chinatown styling, etc. I'm in the process of developing a couple TV shows (both have dark qualities). At first glance the material may seem different enough, or very different. The point is, there is a clear throughline (IMO) with all my work - It all leans dark-er-ish. My BRAND is darker stuff. 

I believe if you look at any very successful artist in film you'll find a throughline that is in MOST of their work. Certainly in all of their BEST work. Go through your top list of composers, directors, writers. The article supports my ideas as well. The ones that aren't semantics.

What I'm getting at is this idea...in order of importance:

Dependability before Brand = lower budget.

Brand before Dependability = higher budget.


----------



## kid-surf (May 6, 2009)

John -- thanks for the info.


----------



## Brian Ralston (May 6, 2009)

kid-surf @ Wed May 06 said:


> What I'm getting at is this idea...in order of importance:
> 
> Dependability before Brand = lower budget.
> 
> Brand before Dependability = higher budget.



mmmm...those qualities are not really mutually exclusive Jay. I don't know anyone working on big stuff that has only one or the other. Your arguments seem to point to situations where a composer might get hired on a film because they have a "unique voice" (which of course is only an individual opinion from person to person)...and yet if that voice is unique enough...everything else will fall in line and no attention will be paid to whether they have the skills to actually score to film and deliver or not. 

Sorry...doesn't work that way. 

No one will even get to the higher budget stuff you are talking about if they do not have a reputation for professional quality work... likable demeanor...trustworthy work ethic, etc...And by the time you get to the higher budgeted stuff...your dependability is pretty much already proven at that point...so maybe a director can focus on other qualities. But to a producer, who can always override the director on this hire...I assure you, that producer won't overlook their track record.

And as I have said before, composers develop their voice over time on various projects. Something that takes years to acquire in the first place to even have the opportunity to develop a unique voice. I wouldn't care how unique anyone's compositional voice is, if they have never been in charge of the music of a multi-million dollar film, they have not shown their ability to manage that situation. You don't put your film and reputation as a filmmaker at risk with all that money on the line. You simply don't. That is why composers have to build up a credit list with many projects getting bigger and bigger. You score a $1M indie...that leads to a $5M indie....that leads to a $10M indie....that leads to your first $20M studio film from a director you have worked with before....that film is a hit...it leads to another film with the same team, this time at $30M, etc....Repeat.

It is a long road. 

Should a composer develop a unique voice? Yes. Will that unique voice be the sole reason they get hired....NO. 

There are actual lists at studios of composers who are pre-approved to score their films should a production be looking for someone. I guarantee you the list is not called "These are the people who have a voice unique enough to score one of our films." It is more like..."these are the composers with a credit history and proven track record big enough to not screw up our multi-million dollar baby."


----------



## kid-surf (May 6, 2009)

Like I mentioned previously. When we discuss in black and white extremes...that's when we lose sight of semantics.

You misunderstood the comment you quoted. Key word was "before" not "in place of". So, much of what you've stated is, again, semantics. Though, I'm not sure you recognize it as such. So, of course those qualities aren't mutually exclusive. I didn't state, nor imply, nor suggest they were. 

I'll now do some line by line to help you decipher my POV. :D



> I don't know anyone working on big stuff that has only one or the other.



Neither do I. 



> and yet if that voice is unique enough...everything else will fall in line and no attention will be paid to whether they have the skills to actually score to film and deliver or not.
> 
> Sorry...doesn't work that way.



Then we agree on something. 



> No one will even get to the higher budget stuff you are talking about if they do not have a reputation for professional quality work... likable demeanor...trustworthy work ethic, etc.



THERE is our impasse. My philosophy is that one will never arrive at the higher budget stuff without convincing someone important that they are a unique voice in some form (right -- obviously this attribute is 100% subjective. Then again...who can argue the A-lists uniqueness? Without sounding foolish, I mean...)



> And by the time you get to the higher budgeted stuff...your dependability is pretty much already proven at that point...so maybe a director can focus on other qualities.



Right. Now you're starting to sound like me. :D Yes, the other attributes are a given at that point. They are standard fare. Nothing anyone is going to pat us on the back for, it is expected. So, now what? How is this guy's BRAND? What am I "buying"? I can buy "reputation/personality" from any number of guys, so why book this guy? Is this about the film being good, or are we having a tea party? 



> But to a producer, who can always override the director on this hire...I assure you, that producer won't overlook their track record.



I get that. I also get that many producers do NOT listen to reels, that they simply look at a dudes credits. But it's like anything else. The more pull a director has, the more folks back off because they don't want to be responsible for F-ing up the film. Those directors are choosing guys based on their Brand. Agreed, a Brand that took years to cultivate. Same as the director's Brand.




> I wouldn't care how unique anyone's compositional voice is, if they have never been in charge of the music of a multi-million dollar film, they have not shown their ability to manage that situation. You don't put your film and reputation as a filmmaker at risk with all that money on the line. You simply don't.



Who suggested folks should? Wait, are we talking Studio or Indie? Because if we're talking Indie I (me personally) would absolutely risk that, then again I know how to write music and score to picture. Indie film 'should be' all about taking risks. Absolutely! 

Studio film? Well then I agree with you, mostly, as it is a totally different beast.

*Then again, if we adhere to this hard a fast rule of "having credits before we have them" none of us would be allowed to progress. Like it or not, someone took a risk on all of us. And we'll need folks to continue taking risks on us so that we may further ascend. Just the way it is...



> That is why composers have to build up a credit list with many projects getting bigger and bigger. You score a $1M indie...that leads to a $5M indie....that leads to a $10M indie....that leads to your first $20M studio film from a director you have worked with before....that film is a hit...it leads to another film with the same team, this time at $30M, etc....Repeat.



Right. Each step is a new level of risk. Obviously, some more defined than others (i.e. the step from Short to Feature Indie. The step from Indie to Studio)



> Should a composer develop a unique voice? Yes. Will that unique voice be the sole reason they get hired....NO.



Of course not. But now that you put it that way, I find it somewhat hilarious that you assume that to be my position. 




> There are actual lists at studios of composers who are pre-approved to score their films should a production be looking for someone. I guarantee you the list is not called "These are the people who have a voice unique enough to score one of our films." It is more like..."these are the composers with a credit history and proven track record big enough to not screw up our multi-million dollar baby."



Of course. Same as there are identical lists for writers and directors. The "Go to Guys" and "The Closers".

Though, I still feel you are missing the point: Now have a listen to each of the composer's music catalog. You will notice that each composer is Branded. You'll notice that each director is Branded, and each writer, Branded. This is THE way to arrive on that list, it is the paramount obstacle that precludes -- i.e. creating something nobody else can create AS WELL.

This goes back to my reasons for splitting from composing. It became clear to me that I would have a very difficult time branding (expressing) my voice from underneath folks I didn't particularly agree with as to what constituted "quality". Then again, I've never truly had a composer sensibility, I obviously didn't neatly fit into that role.

Mark my words...those of us who can't figure out how to Brand will not reach the heights we aspire to. Regardless of how well we are liked, etc.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 9, 2009)

IMHO the "branding" has little to do with the musical "voice" and everything to do with commercial success.

Elmer Bernstein used to laughingly comment on how perceptions of his work changed. He would do a jazz score for a film that became a huge hit and he suddenly was a "go to" for jazz scoring. A few years later, he would do a classical score for a film that became a huge hit and he suddenly was a "go to" for epic scoring. A few years later, he would do a score for a comedic film that became a huge hit and he suddenly was a "go to" for comedy scoring. 

Anyone here who claims that if they did not know it was the same composer and listened to i.e. "To Kill A Mockingbird", "The Great Escape", "Animal House", and "The Man With the Golden Arm", and heard a consistent "voice" is kidding himself. What they heard was a consistent level of skill and craftmanship that could be applied to an amazing number of styles.

I guarantee you, one could write some very good scores with a unique "voice" and then do a lousy one for another film, but if the film that has a lousy score becomes a huge hit, THAT music will become your branding.

There have indeed been successful composers who I would consider "voice" composers, like Danny Elfman, Randy Newman, etc. but there have been just as many, if not more, craftsman who are chameleons.

I will say that since now we have a generation of film directors/producers ascending to power who have grown up with rigidly demographically targeted radio stations, and audience tested demographically targeted TV shows, films, etc. that the "voice"composer may be more commonly sought after and as a result, the overall quality will continue to get lower.


----------



## kid-surf (May 9, 2009)

One more thing:

The folks in Hollywood interested in (and currently) working with me have never said "We love your craftsmanship". They comment on the voice, the authenticity, the sincerity.

Having said that, they don't want to MAKE those earlier scripts.  (Although, let's see what happens with the new one, it's commercial, though still somewhat risky. Think: The Departed, etc). These people want to make the SURE THING. Ok, fine. I understand the game. I'm playing the game. But, I split my time. Some of the time I'm conceiving "sure thing" (bigger/studio) ideas. The rest of the time I'm conceiving what "I" feel is good, what I feel "should" get made. When I do this I'm not thinking in terms of marketability, only quality.

Why? Because I believe it's ass-backwards to target an audience by trying to mimic other successful concepts. We find that audiences are accepting of ideas so long as they are compelling. I feel it's a writer's job to compel an audience to watch something they've not quite seen done quite this way. We're curious creatures...

Ironically (maybe not?), my most "out there" ideas have been for TV. I have an utterly controversial idea for an HBO-ish one hour drama. Agent feels there is a "chance in hell". So, do I expend the time to write it, it's a risk? It would never sell as a pitch, sounds too dark w/o just reading it (Hi Dexter... Hi Six Feet Under). But maybe once it's written it won't seem SO dark. It's these sorts of obstacles I deal with, putting my money were my mouth is, so to speak. Believe me, it would be a hell of a lot easier to not be true to myself and conceive neat and easy material that someone could just go sell/make (film or TV). But that would feel wrong in my gut. 

Someone has got to fight for what they (creatively) believe in. Otherwise art will not progress. It is the artists' job (IMO) to see to it that the artistic community progresses. The overwhelming majority of hits (aside from franchisee built in stuff) are huge risks, on paper. Only later, in hindsight, do they look like the sure thing. These ideas are nothing a suit person would concern themselves with. But these ideas go hand in hand with my idea that too many creatives are brainwashed at present into thinking just like a suit person.

Goes back to "voice/POV" and committing to who one truly is, despite the overwhelming odds... 

Perhaps it's only semantics, but on the surface, I find the idea of calling ANY creative a "craftsman" (composer, writer, director, etc), I find that to be a 'suit' philosophy. A creative is not a "service person". We are talking, some of the most talented "artists" in the world.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 9, 2009)

This is indeed generational. I come from a generation that held craft in high esteem. You rarely would have heard filmmakers or composers use the term "art" in earlier years, they would talk about the craft, and yet, by and large the films and the scores were better than this era, with all its artistic pretensions, because of the lack of craft.

When I hear people in Hollywood start to talk about "art" I have an enormous urge to worship the porcelain goddess. And I have never heard a director/producer say to a composer, "I love your vision" or "I love your craft." What I hear is "I love your music" or "I heard some things on your reel that make me think you can do this picture" or most commonly, "What have you done that I know?"

Henry Mancini is pretty much a consensus choice as one of the great film scorers. Read his book, if you can get a hold of it, "Did They Mention the Music?" See how many times he mentions the word "art" and how many times "craft."

And I do not accept for a nanosecond the notion that Bernstein would not have scored "Saw" as well or better than Charlie, and that is no disrespect to Charlie.


----------



## madbulk (May 9, 2009)

kid-surf @ Sat May 09 said:


> > Secondly, why is a composer so enamored with the title "craftsman"? From my POV, this title is demeaning. There are plenty of creators relying on "craft" that have very little "voice" and/or "passion", and/or "je ne sais quoi". By that I mean, there are plenty who have the training/craft and little more.



In my bones I know (if perhaps crazily) that this is completely backwards. Just invert every point, reverse the roles of craftsman vs passionate artists and you'll have the greater truth.

And why am I so enamored with craft? Cuz of GarageBand, that's how come!
GarageBand, and Bob Dylan.


----------



## midphase (May 10, 2009)

Between this thread, and the Hans Zimmer one...I just feel like crawling into a ball and crying.
(nevermind the fact that I met a bigshot composer agent today and it depressed the crap out of me).


----------



## midphase (May 10, 2009)

2000! Finally!!!

(ok...I'm feeling a bit better now)


----------



## choc0thrax (May 10, 2009)

4000!! I am twice the man you are.

(how are you feeling now) o/~


----------



## Stevie (May 10, 2009)

I feel shitty, I'm about 1/10 of you…


----------



## kid-surf (May 10, 2009)

Jay--

I think you missed the part where I mentioned being born in the wrong era.  Generally the films I hold in highest regard are from the mid 70's, story/character and no CGI. I'm not sure it's so much a generational aspect as much a situational aspect. In other words, it depends on what the film calls for musically. And...some stories 'should' be told despite not being obviously iconic. Naturally, the score to that type of film may not call for what we typically think of as "craft". Again, it all depends on the film. Out of the three I'm dealing with only one calls for a composer with significant craft. That film, not so ironically, is the most iconic and mythical in structure, and was written for studio folks. If that film gets made it will go to a composer with a sea of studio credits and plenty of craft. Potentially a composer you highly admire.



> This is indeed generational. I come from a generation that held craft in high esteem. You rarely would have heard filmmakers or composers use the term "art" in earlier years, they would talk about the craft, and yet, by and large the films and the scores were better than this era, with all its artistic pretensions, because of the lack of craft.



Not sure what artistic pretentiousness you're referring to, as I rarely hear the word "Art" tossed around Hollywood. So, if you are pointing at me, well, you've never read my work so it would be odd to presume a lack of craft in my work, sight unseen.

Having said that: Craft is a word that rubs me the wrong way. Perhaps this is a generational aspect, but the word strikes me as far more presumptuous and less organic than simply labeling something "art". Part of the problem with today's films is that the word [craft] is taken far too literally, to the point that the suit people feel there is a literal template to create these works. Perhaps these concepts help to establish my aversion to words that, for me, feel rigid and counter intuitive/creative.



> When I hear people in Hollywood start to talk about "art" I have an enormous urge to worship the porcelain goddess.



If I heard people in Hollywood talk about films as art I would be in the stall adjacent yours. Thing is, I don't hear talk of art. So...? Maybe you know different people that I. The only person I know talking about art is me, and that keeps me sane. I need a reason to do this other than money or meaningless awards.



> And I have never heard a director/producer say to a composer, "I love your vision" or "I love your craft." What I hear is "I love your music" or "I heard some things on your reel that make me think you can do this picture" or most commonly, "What have you done that I know?"



Exactly. Which is why I split. I had to go after my own vision. I had to, deep need in my gut.



> Henry Mancini is pretty much a consensus choice as one of the great film scorers. Read his book, if you can get a hold of it, "Did They Mention the Music?" See how many times he mentions the word "art" and how many times "craft."



If I had more free time I'd read it. Here's the thing: Back in the day they didn't have a motivation to declare one's work "art", it was assumed that "art" is what they were intending to make. No need to declare the mission. In today's climate I feel the word "craft" is far too easily misused. I'm sorry, but I find it to be a bit of a ridiculous notion to hear a guy tell me about all the craft that went into writing, or directing, or scoring some "sure thing" POS that will be meaningless ten minutes after it goes to video. Some template film with a template score. I absolutely agree with you that THAT is not art. Which is the primary reason I have little interest in seeking out that sort of career.



> And I do not accept for a nanosecond the notion that Bernstein would not have scored "Saw" as well or better than Charlie, and that is no disrespect to Charlie.



Again, I feel that first of all, it's a taste issue. Secondly, Bernstien would not have been able to get that "dirty/sadistic" with the score. I do not accept for a nanosecond that he could have, it's not him. So, clearly it would have been a different score. For me, if I were the director of SAW, that sort of score simply would not have been what I was after. Would I have felt Bernstien's music was phenomenal in it's own right. Absolutely, that is probably obvious. But that doesn't change the fact that his sensibilities wouldn't match the sensibility of the film. Nothing personal, is what it is. Said another way, sure, perhaps he's too good for that film. I don't mind that philosophy. 

As with some scripts I've written. Some very fine scores (unto themselves) would be too much for the film and therefore would ruin it. First and foremost it is about the film, the story...everything else is there to support it.


----------



## kid-surf (May 10, 2009)

madbulk @ Sat May 09 said:


> kid-surf @ Sat May 09 said:
> 
> 
> > > Secondly, why is a composer so enamored with the title "craftsman"? From my POV, this title is demeaning. There are plenty of creators relying on "craft" that have very little "voice" and/or "passion", and/or "je ne sais quoi". By that I mean, there are plenty who have the training/craft and little more.
> ...



GarageBand doesn't even register with me...how can one consider that to be in any way "voice/POV"?


----------



## kid-surf (May 10, 2009)

midphase @ Sat May 09 said:


> Between this thread, and the Hans Zimmer one...I just feel like crawling into a ball and crying.
> (nevermind the fact that I met a bigshot composer agent today and it depressed the crap out of me).



Why do you feel like crawling into a ball and crying over this and the other thread? And why was the agent meeting depressing? You've got me curious...

This Bud's for you. o-[][]-o Keep your chin up. And congrats on the 2k!


----------



## midphase (May 10, 2009)

Because in both instances, I am reminded that this business doesn't really operate on a "merit-based" system like other businesses.

Don't get me wrong, I know that even in other businesses, politics can play a role...but never to the absurd degree as in the entertainment world.

So it's really now how creative or unique or blahblahblahblah whatever you are, it's really who you know...and most importantly...who knows you!

Mr. Asher...please spare me the lecture on the amazing talent that populates the top tier of the composer pantheon, I simply don't agree.

I just watched a "tentpole" movie this week-end, which was scored by a composer repped by the above-mentioned agency (if your IQ is above 50 you can figure out both), and I thought it was one of the most mediocre and bland scores I've heard in quite some time.

So yeah...I'm depressed when I hear all these industry-people describe the above-mentioned composer as a "genius" or an "amazing talent" or whatever, when I am convinced that the only reason why they say such things is not because of the music that he has done, but because of the project that he has worked on...and because people in the media are starfuckers.

I know without doubt that a good chunk of guys who inhabit this forum can compose circles around some of these top guys. These VI guys that I'm referring to are dependable, personable, experienced, have a great network of orchestrators, editors and musicians that they rely on, and are simply more creative and talented. Unfortunately...it don't mean diddly-squat. As long as they are "unknown" (ie. the films that they work on are unknown) then they are destined to keep on slumming it despite their superior talent.

This depresses me to no end, and if I ever am in a position to change thing (ie. have enough influence and finances), I will make it my goal to create a merit-based system for composers to get a break in this world.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 10, 2009)

midphase @ Sun May 10 said:


> Because in both instances, I am reminded that this business doesn't really operate on a "merit-based" system like other businesses.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I know that even in other businesses, politics can play a role...but never to the absurd degree as in the entertainment world.
> 
> ...



Let me put it bluntly and paraphrase Sen. Lloyd Bensten in his debate with Dan Quayle:

"I knew Elmer Bernstein. He was a friend of mine. You sir, are no Elmer Bernstein."

While I do not comment on the work submitted here as a matter of policy, I DO listen to it. There are some very talented people here, but as a whole I have heard little that convinces me that they are better or more talented than Messrs. Horner, Shore, Desplat, Newton Howard, and Newman and many other top tier guys, IMHO. And of course, I haven't even seen if their music works to picture, which is job # 1, job #2, and job #3-10.

You are entitled to disagree.


----------



## midphase (May 10, 2009)

But surely you must agree that having someone like Conrad Pope orchestrate your music, and having someone like YoYoMa perform the lead, and having someone like Shawn Murphy mix your recording will have an impact which will elevate the end product quite a few notches above what someone like Jay Bacal or Thomas J have access to...no?

I just don't think it's fair to compare the end product that you hear on this web site vs. the end product that you hear on a Varese Sarabande CD and think that you're comparing apples to apples.

(John Williams is a genius...he deserves that title...but other people who have access to the same support team do not necessarily).


----------



## midphase (May 10, 2009)

PS.

How much I would love to spend 30 minutes with Jack Hayes...and have a totally "off the record" conversation with the guy...I bet he who have some stories to tell!


----------



## Ashermusic (May 10, 2009)

midphase @ Sun May 10 said:


> PS.
> 
> How much I would love to spend 30 minutes with Jack Hayes...and have a totally "off the record" conversation with the guy...I bet he who have some stories to tell!



I haven't done so with Jack, but I did many times with the late great Albert Harris when I was studying orchestration with and he did have some great stories to tell. 

But he also used to say that the overall level of craft and talent and even intellect among the composers he orchestrated and conducted for was considerably higher than the producers and directors they worked for.


----------



## choc0thrax (May 10, 2009)

Imagine what Stargate would've sounded like if David Arnold had to orchestrate the whole thing himself. o-[][]-o


----------



## Ashermusic (May 10, 2009)

midphase @ Sun May 10 said:


> But surely you must agree that having someone like Conrad Pope orchestrate your music, and having someone like YoYoMa perform the lead, and having someone like Shawn Murphy mix your recording will have an impact which will elevate the end product quite a few notches above what someone like Jay Bacal or Thomas J have access to...no?
> 
> I just don't think it's fair to compare the end product that you hear on this web site vs. the end product that you hear on a Varese Sarabande CD and think that you're comparing apples to apples.
> 
> (John Williams is a genius...he deserves that title...but other people who have access to the same support team do not necessarily).



Absolutely, but I am talking about my perception of the compositional value of the music, not necessarily the mix, orchestration, and certainly not the MIDI mockup capability, which largely disinterests me. Also, since we are talking about film composition, not concert hall work, we have to see the music to picture to judge it fairly and Jay and TJ really just have not done enough of that for us to make a fair assessment. 

I am not taking anything away from the talent here but guys like Elmer Bernstein, Hank Mancini, Jerry Goldsmith, John Williams, Bernard Herrmann, etc. reached a level that strictly statistically speaking, it would be an anomaly if more than 1 or 2 here ever reached. I know I never will, and I'm not that bad

Kays, maybe YOU will be one and if so, more power to you. I am rooting for you.


----------



## madbulk (May 10, 2009)

kid-surf @ Sun May 10 said:


> madbulk @ Sat May 09 said:
> 
> 
> > kid-surf @ Sat May 09 said:
> ...



That part was a joke, Kiddo. The preceding bit, not.


----------



## midphase (May 10, 2009)

Hold on a sec Jay...hold on.

You just threw out there a list of the best film composers who have ever existed. You will get no disagreement from me there...these guys are (were) amazing geniuses and will perhaps never again be matched in skill and artistry by anyone else (they are the Mozarts and Shakespeares of our industry).

Unfortunately, they're part of a world which I (or you or anyone else) no longer inhabits. Only 1 of them still survives, and I don't see J.J. Abrams or Michael Bay running over to him for music.

I am not that old...but I suspect that success in this business used to be merit-based in the old-days. But since these massive agencies and studio systems have taken over, I am convinced that is no longer the case.

I have to agree with Kid...I feel like I was born in the wrong era!


----------



## Ashermusic (May 10, 2009)

midphase @ Sun May 10 said:


> Hold on a sec Jay...hold on.
> 
> You just threw out there a list of the best film composers who have ever existed. You will get no disagreement from me there...these guys are (were) amazing geniuses and will perhaps never again be matched in skill and artistry by anyone else (they are the Mozarts and Shakespeares of our industry).
> 
> ...



And here we have finally reached near total agreement. Many of them however, were not necessarily geniuses but hard working craftsman who learned from other hard working craftsman in the apprenticeship gigs that existed in those days and always continued to improve. 

That said, I also threw out some contemporary composers that I think are pretty darned good. Most of the A level guys are A level for reasons other than just politics. You do not stay A level if you do not deliver.


----------



## midphase (May 10, 2009)

Speaking of Herrmann and Williams, I am reminded of a story I heard Williams tell once.


Apparently Spielberg has always been a huge fan of Bernard Herrmann, so John Williams arranged for the two to meet (a few years before Herrmann passed away). In the meeting Spielberg said:

"Mr. Herrmann, it is such an honor to meet you, I love your music, you are my favorite film composer and I am a huge fan."

Herrmann looked Spielberg straight in the eyes, and after a brief pause replied:

"So tell me, why do you keep hiring Johnny instead of me?"


----------



## Ashermusic (May 10, 2009)

midphase @ Sun May 10 said:


> Speaking of Herrmann and Williams, I am reminded of a story I heard Williams tell once.
> 
> 
> Apparently Spielberg has always been a huge fan of Bernard Herrmann, so John Williams arranged for the two to meet (a few years before Herrmann passed away). In the meeting Spielberg said:
> ...



ROTFL!


----------



## midphase (May 10, 2009)

"You do not stay A level if you do not deliver."

I agree...the majority of them are not hacks...no doubt. A hack couldn't cut it for very long no matter how connected he was.

However, there are a good solid 10-15 guys (from around here and in my circle) who are not hacks, and who could deliver on the same level as some of the A-listers. The only reason why they're stuck in direct-to-DVD world or doing library cues is because they lack the connections (and the "hype" that comes with the connections).

Go and listen to Colin O'Malley's score for the videogame Superman

http://www.colinomalley.com/index.php/projects/superman-returns (http://www.colinomalley.com/index.php/p ... an-returns)

or Jeff Toyne's Shadow in the Trees score:

http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZSt ... 1&s=143441

and tell me with a straight face that they don't sound as slick and top notch quality as what you hear on some of the scores of the big movies coming out by the A-listers.


----------



## midphase (May 10, 2009)

Look...I don't want to drag this conversation out. All I want to say is that being in this business can be frustrating and depressing and make you want to curl up in a ball and cry.

I guess what ultimately separates the boys from the men is the ability to uncurl after a couple of hours, dry your eyes, and keep on fighting, which is what myself and the group of guys around here who work full time in this industry do.

(is it time for a group hug?)


----------



## kid-surf (May 10, 2009)

I hear you Kays. I definitely have my moments of curling up in the fetal position and balling my eyes out (not really...but I feel like it at times). This is a tough, tough business that doesn't make any sense, no question. In fact, it's a bit goofy to hear creatives' side with the practices designed to keep themselves out/down. "Do not let me work a studio gig unless I already have a studio credit, thanks!!!" Huh? You will then attain this credit how? Magic show? Cereal box? 

A phrase I hear a lot is: "It's all perception..." 

...Regardless if you're a composer, writer, or director, it's all the same battle.

Screw it, I'll say it: I know full well that I'm a better writer than SOME folks above me. The film doesn't need to be made in order to decipher this, what is on the page...is on the page. It's all right there in black and white.

This part is for Jay and wouldn't otherwise be mentioned to clarify the last thought: Part of the reason I believe this is because respected producers have made comments to me like "Your script is the real version of _____. So-and-so has made a career of doing the put-on version". Tough words about a writer I highly respect that made me cringe. In that case I don't believe I am better than him. Then again, maybe I am? Who knows? Regardless, it's all about what gets made and therefore what establishes this all important "perception". 

General comments into the thin air:

What I find absolutely hilarious is that I get any bad rap at all on this forum. I'm a guy who struggled to find fulfillment as composer, worked my ass off to become a quality screenwriter, wrote good enough scripts that put me in the face of high level producers and such -- and now, I have the idea in my head that - WHEN - I make my films (or TV-show) I'll fight for a composer who is excellent but who needs a break. And I'm the bad guy? As Randy Jackson would say..."Dog, whaaat?"

Folks here tell me over and over how flawed my logic is, yet it is designed to help guys just like us who are talented and who may or may not need a break. So...? Where's the logic? Like I said, seems some of us applaud logic that helps to keep themselves down, which I totally don't get, and is a touch ironic. We, most of us, are looking for "bigger" breaks. 

Yep, this is a roller coaster for sure. I've been kicked in the gut so many times that I'm utterly used to this masochistic "process". At this point it is expected. I don't expect it to ever go away entirely, but I do have faith that I'm right around the corner from breaking out. Feel free to hold me to that, I really do feed on pressure and expectations. I use it as a tool to stay motivated. 

One thing I always tell myself is that these A-level guys (whom I respect) were not born into this role. They aren't super heros, they are men (mostly men) who did the work to get there. Work which I know I can match...if not now, eventually.

Eventually, meaning no longer than 2 years from now. o-[][]-o


----------



## kid-surf (May 10, 2009)

midphase @ Sun May 10 said:


> Speaking of Herrmann and Williams, I am reminded of a story I heard Williams tell once.
> 
> 
> Apparently Spielberg has always been a huge fan of Bernard Herrmann, so John Williams arranged for the two to meet (a few years before Herrmann passed away). In the meeting Spielberg said:
> ...




Funny...


----------



## kid-surf (May 10, 2009)

midphase @ Sun May 10 said:


> Hold on a sec Jay...hold on.
> 
> You just threw out there a list of the best film composers who have ever existed. You will get no disagreement from me there...these guys are (were) amazing geniuses and will perhaps never again be matched in skill and artistry by anyone else (they are the Mozarts and Shakespeares of our industry).
> 
> ...




Right...


----------



## midphase (May 10, 2009)

"One thing I always tell myself is that these A-level guys (whom I respect) were not born into this role. They aren't super heros..."


I totally agree...but to hear this one agent last night...you would have thought that she was describing a superhero (hence where it reconnects to the "perception" thing).

A friend of mine just sold a script and has become an overnight millionaire...he's a good writer don't get me wrong...but I'm sure that his agent has already used the word "genius" to describe him especially now that he's perceived as being worth millions.

A lot of it is perception...and increase people's perception of you is exactly what your agent will do for you.


----------



## kid-surf (May 10, 2009)

I hear you. Isn't it interesting how one becomes a superhero/genius to their representation, and around town, once they become bankable. Meanwhile this person was flatly rejected for how long? How did that happen to a genius? I find that hilarious...

I dunno, I have such a love hate relationship with the whole thing. But I do have it in my mind that I'm loyal to those who've stuck their neck out to validate my worth. Generally I'm cool with agents and producers. 

Yep, I believe this perception thing is deeply ingrained industry wide. There's maybe no better example of that than when a script is suddenly super hot AFTER "so-and-so" attaches, not before. THEN, all the folks who read it previously, and PASSED, suddenly they all want to read it again pretending they've never seen it. This time they absolutely love it! THEN, once so-and-so drops out, the script suddenly goes totally cold again. It's like preschool out there...

Anyway, congrats to your buddy! I'm curious what script it was but don't expect you to mention it.


BTW -- you should come to our party. Although, I don't know when it is yet,  sometime this summer. 8)


----------



## Ashermusic (May 11, 2009)

kid-surf @ Sun May 10 said:


> I hear you. Isn't it interesting how one becomes a superhero/genius to their representation, and around town, once they become bankable. Meanwhile this person was flatly rejected for how long? How did that happen to a genius? I find that hilarious...
> 
> I dunno, I have such a love hate relationship with the whole thing. But I do have it in my mind that I'm loyal to those who've stuck their neck out to validate my worth. Generally I'm cool with agents and producers.
> 
> ...



It was bound to happen sooner or later.  I totally agree with you have written here, Kid.


----------



## madbulk (May 11, 2009)

kid-surf @ Sun May 10 said:


> ...
> Craft is a word that rubs me the wrong way. Perhaps this is a generational aspect, but the word strikes me as far more presumptuous and less organic than simply labeling something "art". Part of the problem with today's films is that the word [craft] is taken far too literally, to the point that the suit people feel there is a literal template to create these works. Perhaps these concepts help to establish my aversion to words that, for me, feel rigid and counter intuitive/creative.



This tiny point continues to interest me, Kid, as it's kinda semantical and emotional. My soapbox is made of the same emotional backlash as yours. We may have just happened upon our respective positions on different days in our lives.

I hear "art" and think, "Everybody thinks they've got something to say -- that's the human condition. Well, spare me! You and your art suck. Have a little humility and go shed. Then come back and show me your art and we'll see if you really have anything beyond the very common fire in your belly or bee in your bonnet."

"Art" in my narrow experience is the part that's 90% imaginary and a scam. And while the other 10% is invaluable to us all, it's only 10%.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 11, 2009)

madbulk @ Mon May 11 said:


> kid-surf @ Sun May 10 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> > Craft is a word that rubs me the wrong way. Perhaps this is a generational aspect, but the word strikes me as far more presumptuous and less organic than simply labeling something "art". Part of the problem with today's films is that the word [craft] is taken far too literally, to the point that the suit people feel there is a literal template to create these works. Perhaps these concepts help to establish my aversion to words that, for me, feel rigid and counter intuitive/creative.



This tiny point continues to interest me, Kid, as it's kinda semantical and emotional. My soapbox is made of the same emotional backlash as yours. We may have just happened upon our respective positions on different days in our lives.

I hear "art" and think, "Everòü„    f±ü„    f²ü„    f³ü„    f´ü„    fµü„    f¶ü„    f·ü„    f¸ü„    f¹ü„    fºü„    f»ü„    f¼ü„    f½ü„    f¾ü„    f¿ü„    fÀü„    fÁü„    fÂü„    fÃü„    fÄü„    fÅü„    fÆü„    fÇü„    fÈü„    fÉü…    fÎü…    fÏü…    fÐü…    fÑü…    fÒü…    fÓü…    fÔü…    fÕü…    fÖü…    f×ü…    fØü…    fÙü…    fÚü…    fÛü…    fÜü…    fÝü…    fÞü…    fßü…    fàü…    fáü…    fâü…    fãü…    fäü…    fåü…    fæü…    fçü…    fèü…    féü…


----------



## JohnG (May 11, 2009)

I think this debate about the balance of "craft" and "voice" is extremely important for our careers, satisfaction, and may be decisive in whether or not we can reach our creative objectives.* 

I believe that you never get to sit at the Big Table without punching through, and the surest way to punch through is to be perceived as having your own voice. Notwithstanding Elmer Bernstein's emphasis on perception dominating reality and Kays' related remark about a recent tent-pole film, some sense that one's music is recognisable appears to be very important at staying at the top level. (Digression: "unique voice" = large box office?)

In any event, I think -- right or wrong -- that this emphasis on "voice" uncovers a potentially perilous risk for film composers, because *originality and uniqueness are not as widely prized in the music industry as the amount of talk about them might lead one to assume. * Again, if your goal is to be a Blockbuster Movie Composer, I do think that you need voice (and craft too). However, if one can find satisfaction as a music professional _if and only if _one gets to score some future Star Trek or King Kong, one hazards one's career satisfaction on infinitesimally small odds. Comparing to other vocations, I see it as equivalent in, say, politics, to being satisfied if and only if one is going to be a Senator or President or Prime Minister; in business if and only if one can rise to the top of a Fortune 50 company. That's not to say that the Big Guys didn't have that hunger and drive -- I think they do and did -- but it does give pause to consider how many had that hunger and drive who aren't James Newton Howard and are now miserable because they can't put their children through college.

So, for the vast majority of people hoping to _make a living_ at composing, by contrast with becoming a famous AAA+ list film composer, craft is right up there and probably dominates, because *originality, overall, may not be that important to many, even most purchasers of music composition services.*

Matching One's Career Goals and One's Tool Kit

I have been increasingly struck by the divergence among different audiences of reactions to the same piece of music I am presenting. Maybe others too have had this experience? The same piece generates a bored sigh from one group and an enthusiastic "wow" from another, and this difference cannot be attributed wholly to lack of musical sophistication. 

The groups, as I'm thinking about them, fall something like this, though there is enough heterogeneity that they may be regarded only as, at best, rough categories:

-- Directors of independent films, TV pilot producers, and music editors looking for temp music

-- New composers

-- Established composers and established / experienced directors

-- Advertising / film trailer houses

-- Documentary filmmakers

I have found that these groups generally prefer different cues altogether. In fact, some of them barely care about the cues as such, and seem to care more about one's ability to deliver on time and on budget and without screwups or injecting a bunch of emotional auteur's angst into the process.

If in fact this hypothesis is true, that different groups exhibit strong differences in preferences, that would lead to fairly important implications for how we spend our time, creatively and in marketing. And this difference in response, I believe, speaks both to what Jay, Kays and kid-surf are discussing and also to what we, as composers, need to present and hone in order to get where we want to go. 


*Another issue, speed, has been left out, but is alas all too important for TV and film.

Edit: as usual, poseur cuts through a lot by saying:



poseur @ 11th May 2009 said:


> what's most important to me is not that
> others live up to my expectations,
> but that i, myself, can wake up in the morning
> to affirm that i am absolutely attempting to
> ...


----------



## midphase (May 11, 2009)

John,

You make some very valid points. I think in truth myself (and many others I suspect) are still in the process of discovering what we want to be when we grow up. 

I think as I get older (wiser?), I find that I am satisfied by being involved in things that I find creatively stimulating...and I suspect my frustration comes with not being able to have access to those projects as much as I would like to.

I understand what you're trying to say, we all have different goals and different mindsets just like the various groups that you listed will have different reactions to a piece of music. Art, craft, there is no right or wrong answer, it's really up to us to figure out which one is the right one for ourselves.


----------



## kid-surf (May 11, 2009)

I totally hear you and on a certain level...I agree.

I believe I know how to clear up what I still believe to be, and what as you suggested, may be semantics. Let me try:

I believe we are looking at this aspect from the same "vantage point" but at two different "targets". THAT, in my opinion, is where the disconnect, the impasse, resides.

General population = yes I agree with you about craft vs art.

Hollywood = I hold strong to my view of art vs craft.

Meaning, I believe most people working in Hollywood have a solid enough level of craft, but I also believe (generally) that we often begin to become brainwashed into making this primarily about what will please a studio, agents, producers, etc. I believe that in this climate we too often lose sight of the very reasons we wanted to create as children, and for me that aspect is dangerous. I don't ever want to forget why I'm doing this ---- On the other hand, the sea of fledgling folks who have little craft and plenty of entitlement syndrome, and who largely have paid little dues (film school grads would be at the top of this list, IMO) they may not be in the best position to rattle on about art. Perhaps as significantly is the lack of life experiences.

Stop reading here if you'd like because I ramble from here on out.


------------------------------------------------------



> I hear "art" and think, "Everybody thinks they've got something to say -- that's the human condition. Well, spare me! You and your art suck. Have a little humility and go shed. Then come back and show me your art and we'll see if you really have anything beyond the very common fire in your belly or bee in your bonnet."



If that were specifically in regards to myself, which I don't think it is, I'd say this:

I'm not some young kid who was in High School a couple years ago, just moved out from under mommy and daddy, and now feels they I have "something to say". I've been exercising my creative muscle since I was 12 years old. But more importantly, I've been taking in life experiences over those 20+ years. Random things like: Traveling the world, from absolute third world poverty to 5 star. Seen someone murdered point blank range in South Africa. Was almost murdered myself by a serial killer in Cali. Been in magazines and on the runway and in film and TV. Used to date a chick who was a model in Vogue Mag (etc). Done just about every drug and once OD'd on coke before a show. Had a nervous breakdown at 25 years old...etc, etc, etc.

And well, related, random, things that have effected my life, like (in no particular order): Going to an exclusive private school whereby playing golf at exclusive courses every day (Spyglass, Pebble Beach) and having extremely wealthy classmates from around the world, families with pedigree if you catch my drift. Having uppish Grandparents who regularly flew the Concord and were Mensa members, who instilled knowledge and curiosity, but who would never travel without their pet canary - who got loose everywhere they went. To being molested as a kid. To, as a boy, tagging along with my mom to Herb Alpert's house and hanging with Steve Winwood etc (who my Mom may have been "seeing"). To my Uncle being part of the surf gang who sold drugs to the band the Eagles and directly to A&M records and who wore disguises and was one of the first guys to import drugs from Afghanistan - meanwhile they never needed to do it because my grandparents were well off. Btw, my uncle rented Ricky Nelson's home and did drugs with him - this is the same home where I ran off a 100 foot cliff as a boy and landed in a palm tree (sounds made up, nope). To my dad suddenly dying when I was 15 as a result of repercussions from Agent Orange exposure. To friends of mine mimicking what my uncle's surf gang did and killing people, and who are still in prison for murder. To me spending time in Juvenile Hall. To my crew saving not one, but two kids lives on my most recent surf trip to Indonesia. To sharing girls, sexually, as a kid (at 15 years old). To getting high with the school Superintendent and going to grown up parties at 16. To two of my friends living with a gay man when they were 17, sucking the guys dick for drugs and the opportunity to drive his fancy cars and motor cycle w/o a license (promise, wasn't me, I'd admit it). To my buddy and I racing some guy (me on the back of said motorcycle, Hurricane) going 125 MPH, drunk and coked-out, down a residential street and almost dying. To steeling pot plants (17-18?) from a drug dealer while they were home. So on and so forth...really it's just the tip of the iceberg.

The point is, I've been around the block from the glamourous to the gritty. I've lived extreme highs and lows and in between and I've always been around a cashcow of unique characters. I've had experiences some young kid wouldn't know the first thing about. These experiences are likely what aided in me becoming a fairly decent writer seemingly overnight (though you wouldn't know it by my posts  ), matched with so many years of flexing my creative muscle.

I would suspect it is a lot easier to write compelling shit when you've actually lived it. There are some kids coming out of filmschool that haven't done jack but lived a very safe life under a very sheltered, one-dimensional roof. No wonder their version of art is different than mine. Theirs may be largely based on TV and Movies. When I look at my scripts I see the life experiences threaded through them, indirectly, but it's there.

Speaking of cashcow characters -- I tried to put together my uncle's life story as a TV-show (loosely based to protect the innocent - though there is already a documentary about the early years called Orange Sunshine), producer dug it, agent thought it would have a hard time against Bruckheimer's cocaine cowboys drug show. My uncle has far crazier stories than me. Oh and, as a kid I would steal drugs from him.  Btw -- he is currently literally building a Field of Dreams baseball field on his property. He is every bit the character.

Oh, and... my brother-in-law is an ex-gang member out of LBC who has plenty of stories. I've always been surrounded by "characters". From families with pedigree like the _____'s all the way down to drug dealers, gang bangers and crooked cops.

So, I agree with you on that level. If some kid is all puffed up about their one dimensional "art" I'd tell them to "go live some life kid, then try to write something compelling". Perhaps this doesn't apply to a composer, but I feel it definitely applies to a filmmaker. A filmmaker should have had life experiences aside from just filmschool. Craft is to supplement that, absolutely! Craft without living life's trials (as a filmmaker specifically) and you probably don't have much to say that is "authentic".

Anyway...that's where the heck I'm coming from, to give you some idea. 

BACK TO TOPIC: :D


----------



## kid-surf (May 11, 2009)

midphase @ Mon May 11 said:


> John,
> 
> You make some very valid points. I think in truth myself (and many others I suspect) are still in the process of discovering what we want to be when we grow up.
> 
> ...




Sorry I'm going out of order--

I agree with you about "still figuring out what we want to be/do when we grow up". I was just having this conversation with friends on Sunday. Several of us had made unexpected career changes.

Yep, that's exactly it with me too. I mean, first of all, I had an epiphany (to try writing) but otherwise it was that I didn't have access to the projects I wanted to work on. Honest to god, perhaps the short way around is to create them yourself. At least for me it seems to be going that way.

As to the figuring out what we want to be/do: That was my epiphany, I realized (after devoting my entire life to music up to that point) that I was probably better suited for, and more interested in being, a writer/director...who may or may not compose on his own stuff. 

I think my frustration is largely with the commercialism of it all...which largely feels opposed to authenticity. I would say that is my biggest gripe, battle.


----------



## midphase (May 11, 2009)

"I've been taking in life experiences over those 20+ years. Random things like: Traveling the world, from absolute third world poverty to 5 star. Seen someone murdered point blank range in South Africa. Was almost murdered myself by a serial killer in Cali. Been in magazines and on the runway and in film and TV. Used to date a chick who was a model in Vogue Mag (etc). Done just about every drug and once OD'd on coke before a show. Had a nervous breakdown at 25 years old...etc, etc, etc. "

Can I buy the rights to your life's story? Forrest Gump's got nothing on you!

PS.
Did you get the PM?


----------



## kid-surf (May 11, 2009)

John--

I hear you and largely agree. Add that, I normally like what Poseur has to say (and I like his music, too).

I agree with your overall take which seems to be that you can "voice" yourself right out of a job (home? food?) if you aren't smart about when and how to showcase it, and to whom. And I agree that a composer doesn't need to be AAA to be successful and proud...and doing quality work. I agree that not everyone can be President.

Although, in my case, there doesn't seem to be another choice. I'm right here, so let's make it happen.

I suppose my POV seems, and maybe IS severely biased. This would be because I'm (like Poseur suggested) worrying primarily about myself, and on the plate before me is not some of these clientele we're discussing. That may be one distinction with screenwriting and composing. As a screenwriter you are sort of immediately trust (if they like your work) into working in the same general arena the AAA guys are (studio). So the clientele is after the same thing from you as they would be from a AAA guy, they want a smash hit, they just don't want to pay you as much or let you adapt anything "important"...unless...unless the AAA guy is busy, they then will go down the list and, in this climate (as the studios squeeze out the mid level screenwriters in favor of new/cheap blood) a new guy may be working on a script they'd originally wanted AAA guy to write. Obviously the studio will absolutely try to get the AAA guy to do a polish , just to be absolutely sure (this goes back to perception).

So, I think in terms of being up against AAA guys right now, in the round about way I described. It's almost as if there is no "Independent" for a screen writer, it's almost as if it is the big leagues or famine. I honestly wouldn't know how to make a dime as screenwriter in the Indie world. So, if I'm playing in the big leagues I obviously want to shoot for the top. It's the same words on the page... 

Furthermore...I don't know any Indie producers I'm only dealing with studio guys. I would love to deal with Indie folks in order to try and get previous works made, but as a writer it almost seems easier to go studio. Then, after you've gotten a couple studio films made, your agent will help package the older Indie scripts (they tried with one but the dude went off to do Star Trek) now that you've got value, suddenly the scripts have more value too. Now maybe the Indie world will let you direct. I have no interest in writing for Indie producers for free, only directing what I wrote and getting paid for it -- This speaks to your comment about toolkit.

I don't mean to confuse the topic. Yet there are many parallels between the two (screenwriting/composing). You have pointed out an area where they may not. 

Speed -- I agree and this is another parallel. I don't understand how folks take a year to write a script. I've heard as much as three years with some novice screenwriters. I write a script in under two months. I've written one it two weeks. I'm hoping to bang my TV-pilot out it two weeks. I agree you gotta be quick regardless of medium.

BTW -- I'm not editing this stuff, sorry. I'm rushing to polish my script at the same time, which is a touch more important to me. :D But I do enjoy commiserating and trying to make sense of a goofy industry.


----------



## kid-surf (May 11, 2009)

midphase @ Mon May 11 said:


> "I've been taking in life experiences over those 20+ years. Random things like: Traveling the world, from absolute third world poverty to 5 star. Seen someone murdered point blank range in South Africa. Was almost murdered myself by a serial killer in Cali. Been in magazines and on the runway and in film and TV. Used to date a chick who was a model in Vogue Mag (etc). Done just about every drug and once OD'd on coke before a show. Had a nervous breakdown at 25 years old...etc, etc, etc. "
> 
> Can I buy the rights to your life's story? Forrest Gump's got nothing on you!
> 
> ...




Not sure how good the movie would be but if you can turn it into one, have at it! :D


Going to PM now...


----------



## madbulk (May 11, 2009)

kid-surf @ Mon May 11 said:


> I totally hear you and on a certain level...I agree.
> 
> I believe I know how to clear up what I still believe to be, and what as you suggested, may be semantics. Let me try:
> 
> ...



Sounds good to me.



> Stop reading here if you'd like because I ramble from here on out.



A considerable understatement.



> > I hear "art" and think, "Everybody thinks they've got something to say -- that's the human condition. Well, spare me! You and your art suck. Have a little humility and go shed. Then come back and show me your art and we'll see if you really have anything beyond the very common fire in your belly or bee in your bonnet."
> 
> 
> 
> If that were specifically in regards to myself, which I don't think it is, I'd say this:



Of course it wasn't.



> I'm not some young kid who ...
> 
> [a few screens worth removed here by Brian]
> 
> ...



Yeah yeah, everybody's got a story. 

No no. I kid, Kid. Your story is pretty darn rich. No doubt about it.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 11, 2009)

For me, it is simple, but I am old

When someone is paying me to write to picture, and likes what I am writing, and I like what I am writing, I am happy.

When they pay me very well, I am VERY happy. When they pay me modestly, I am reasonably happy. When they pay me very little, I am only slightly happy.

I do not care about fame. I do not care if I am perceived to have been an original. I do not care if anyone remembers what I have done 10 minutes after I am dead. I do care if my peers respect me and the ones I know who know my work mostly seem to.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 11, 2009)

kid-surf @ Mon May 11 said:


> Jay--
> 
> I too am not interested in fame, or peer praise, or awards, or celeb friends or...blah blah blah. Not why I'm wasting my life doing this. :D
> 
> ...



Kid, it seems like you are somewhat the ideological heir to John Cassavetes. Do you like his films?


----------



## kid-surf (May 11, 2009)

Brian -- Could be. 

Jay -- I'm not familiar with his films. What would you suggest? BTW -- you did mean John and not Nick?


----------



## Ashermusic (May 11, 2009)

kid-surf @ Mon May 11 said:


> Brian -- Could be.
> 
> Jay -- I'm not familiar with his films. What would you suggest? BTW -- you did mean John and not Nick?



LOL! Yes, John. Try "Gloria"and "A Woman Under the Influence."


----------



## kid-surf (May 12, 2009)

Ok, not Nick...LOL

Gloria: I feel like I've heard good things about that one over the years, never seen it. I'll check both out. Thanks for the reminder!


----------



## Ashermusic (May 12, 2009)

kid-surf @ Tue May 12 said:


> Ok, not Nick...LOL
> 
> Gloria: I feel like I've heard good things about that one over the years, never seen it. I'll check both out. Thanks for the reminder!



Actually, Nick is his son, I believe.


----------



## kid-surf (May 12, 2009)

Yes, I believe you're right. I suppose I like what he attempted to do with Alpha Dog, but it didn't totally work for me. Hard to recall, I feel like he did Face Off too (which wasn't for me).

The filmmakers I most admire are guys like Fincher, Mann, Nolan, Gilroy, etc. In a certain regard I see them all as risk takers who push for their vision.


----------



## Adelmo (May 13, 2009)

well, i have just lost 4 big budget films in less then a month and those are now been sent to the chosen composers ( and i know this for a fact that 3 of the 4 films are a friend of the producers and the agent know the the exe prod and so on)ll those film are temp with stuff i have done before and as a pitch the director and editor loved and ask for more, only to get kick out, hurts like a bitch, HELL YES!!... also makes you think you are not that good or original and other ten reason why i should go be a builder!!Just when you think things are changing for you and there is nothing you can do to change it with does films, so trying to pick my self up and keep doing what i do, if you asking me if i have a voice, i guess i do, my agent who have a few big names on her slate said that why she picked me and not other to feel a gap she have and i defiantly feel i moved forward then before with the kind of projects i get put on.
however today the studio system is little different to what it was once, back in the day there was a studio system and if Alfred Newman didn't like you , no work for you!!! so its still who do you know or who knows you, i have been past many time for friends of friends to see that what was done was really bad and some was good.

My girlfriend is a film director and of course she always works with me (she fell in love with me because of my music, before we even worked), she is always saying she wants to work with others, when she meet composers or she been sent reels when she work on a film and they get passed on only to see my name again, i am sure they say the same about me (friend of friend, dosn't matter if i am good or not), it is a biz that loyalty is very hard to find, i have people i work with all the time and then when they get a big gig, you get pushed out because of some 
co- production tax reason or again other people got their hand in the project, what is a successful composer in my eyes, its someone who make a decent living ( enough for house with a swimming pool and rescue farm for animals) out of it and put food on the table !!!

p.s

I heard Thomas Newman is a nightmare to work with from a director who just finished a film with him never mind his fee : )


----------



## Desire Inspires (Aug 16, 2016)

You don't have to work on big budget projects to be successful. Just work on enough small to medium projects on a regular basis that consistently make money.


----------

