# "a new model for film music"- NY Times (re: composer & score-recording budgets)



## poseur (Feb 1, 2011)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31score.html?_r=1&ref=media

whaddya think about this?

*NB:
my last film-score was bought-&-paid-for by "cutting edge", the group featured in the article.
*
dt


----------



## jamwerks (Feb 1, 2011)

interesting


----------



## poseur (Feb 1, 2011)

jamwerks @ Tue Feb 01 said:


> interesting


indeed,
maybe it is _potentially_ not so different from the french model,
where recording companies have been funding many scores for quite some time.....
sometimes, in conjunction w/cultural "grants" from government, ¿non?

except, of course, that _*cutting edge*_ is meant to be looking
for aftermarket profits from licensing & etc.,
deeply, intensively & w/a presumed _long-term view_.

dt / spltrcl


----------



## Hannes_F (Feb 1, 2011)

That looks good, a siver stripe of hope on the horizon of quality music production :-P


----------



## germancomponist (Feb 1, 2011)

Interesting!


----------



## poseur (Feb 1, 2011)

it may be notable that a few interesting new things might ensue, from thisall:

if the "deal" is made between the production company & a 3rd (funding) party,
then 
1) the amount of the budget _passed on to the composer_ is @ the producer's discretion,
unless otherwise specifically noted in the agreement between those 2 parties,
and

2) on independent films for which such deals are made, it may be
a) impossible for the composer to control the Masters, and/or
b) increasingly unlikely for the composer to negotiate for a % of music publishing rights.

..... just some further food-for-thought, there, re: a potentially complex environment.....

dt


----------



## Hannes_F (Feb 1, 2011)

Best would actually be if the composer were the funding party or have the funding party in his back, no?


----------



## rgames (Feb 1, 2011)

I'm not sure why this is considered a new model - it's basically the music production/supervision house keeping the rights to the music so the film can reduce its costs.

Isn't that the standard for a lot of low-budget projects (I've done it myself)?

I guess what's new is that more larger-budget films are starting to use the same model, but that's not really surprising.

rgames


----------



## midphase (Feb 1, 2011)

Richard,

It's a bit different than what you're thinking of. Essentially the way it works is that this company comes to the table of movie productions who have run out of money (or have way too limited money for a proper score). There is an evaluation board which decides who gets how much (if anything), depending on the movie's potential for success and/or the type of score.

After the score is recorded, the company owns it outright (buy-out with 100% publisher's share), not the production company, not the studio. This is quite different from the previous model where the studios generally owned the score. It was in the studio's best interest to carefully monitor the exploitation of the music through careful placement (if any).

In this particular instance, the company cited is very motivated to fully exploit their newly acquired music to the max in just about everything and anything they can place it in. So let's say that the score for King's Speech wins an Oscar...now they can license that very Oscar-winning score to a slew of commercials or whatever they wish for. Will Oscar-winning Alexandre Desplat get a cut of the licensing fees? Most likely no. Will he get some royalties to boot? In the case of commercials...no. 

I doubt that if a studio owned the music, that they would be trying to exploit an Oscar winning score in cheap commercials...I don't think it would reflect well on them and it would diminish the prestige of the work. But in this case, I have to wonder if this company has the same concerns (probably not).

They're getting a good deal out of it...think about it this way: If you contacted Alexandre Desplat and asked him how much it would cost for him to compose, orchestrate, conduct, and fully produce (including the orchestra fees and recording studio fees) 40+ minutes of buy-out music so that you can sell it around the planet to whoever you wish and don't even have to give him a cut of the licensing fees....assuming that he would agree to it, how much do you think he'd charge you? My guess is a hell of a lot more than what these guys are paying out to the production company.

I see this as just another evolution of the exploitation of composers, and even though the up-front deal might not change much, the back end surely does.

Last but not least, I have to wonder how much control of the decision-making process will this company exercise to agree to fund the film's score? Will they have a say over which composer gets hired? Will they have a say over what type of music they would prefer to be done for the film? I also don't think that this company has much interest in operating at the lowest budget level...if they do their funding would probably lower to match their expectations of their future earnings from the score...which could result in just a few thousand dollars (definitely not enough for an orchestra or even a lonely player).

P.S.
This btw is not news, this company has been operating for a while now, and I personally know a couple of composers who were hired after the production company inked a deal with them.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 1, 2011)

I'm still trying to figure out what the composer gets out of this, and if this affects the 99% of us who will never see 200 grand+ music contracts?


----------



## poseur (Feb 1, 2011)

midphase @ Tue Feb 01 said:


> Richard,
> 
> It's a bit different than what you're thinking of. Essentially the way it works is that this company comes to the table of movie productions who have run out of money (or have way too limited money for a proper score). There is an evaluation board which decides who gets how much (if anything), depending on the movie's potential for success and/or the type of score.
> 
> After the score is recorded, the company owns it outright (buy-out with 100% publisher's share), not the production company, not the studio. This is quite different from the previous model where the studios generally owned the score.



yes; it's different.
in my case, though?
the 3rd party "score producer" was willing to negotiate publishing %'s,
(directly with my agent, after the "deal" was settled w/the production company).




midphase @ Tue Feb 01 said:


> It was in the studio's best interest to carefully monitor the exploitation of the music through careful placement (if any).



in a perfect world, the way it's sposedta be, a world where business is done well,
with vigor & critical diligence?
yes.
in reality?
i don't think so;
leastwise, i've seen massive fuckups & generally ignorant behaviors
from both studios & "larger" independents, in my little career.




midphase @ Tue Feb 01 said:


> In this particular instance, the company cited is very motivated to fully exploit their newly acquired music to the max in just about everything and anything they can place it in. So let's say that the score for King's Speech wins an Oscar...now they can license that very Oscar-winning score to a slew of commercials or whatever they wish for. Will Oscar-winning Alexandre Desplat get a cut of the licensing fees? Most likely no.



most likely, "yes".
he's the author of the work;
no license can rightfully occur without payment to him.

certainly, that's how it flies w/my own contract w/a 3rd party "score producer".




midphase @ Tue Feb 01 said:


> Will he get some royalties to boot? In the case of commercials...no.



he will, if AFM contracts were filed for the original sessions;
as well, any performance royalties due will still flow-through to the originating author(s).....
though, that usually doesn't amount to much, vis à vis tv-commercials in the US of A,
afaict & ime.



midphase @ Tue Feb 01 said:


> I doubt that if a studio owned the music, that they would be trying to exploit an Oscar winning score in cheap commercials...I don't think it would reflect well on them and it would diminish the prestige of the work. But in this case, I have to wonder if this company has the same concerns (probably not).



me,
i suspect that some agreed-to hold-back period is specified, re: 2ndary usages,
within the agreement between production & the funding "score-producers".




midphase @ Tue Feb 01 said:


> They're getting a good deal out of it...think about it this way: If you contacted Alexandre Desplat and asked him how much it would cost for him to compose, orchestrate, conduct, and fully produce (including the orchestra fees and recording studio fees) 40+ minutes of buy-out music so that you can sell it around the planet to whoever you wish and don't even have to give him a cut of the licensing fees....assuming that he would agree to it, how much do you think he'd charge you? My guess is a hell of a lot more than what these guys are paying out to the production company.



i doubt very much that this is "buy-out" music, in the way i understand that term;
my contract w/a 3rd party "music producer" was definitely *not* a buy-out.....
and i clearly do NOT have anything like the nature of alexandre's clout, obviously.




midphase @ Tue Feb 01 said:


> I see this as just another evolution of the exploitation of composers, and even though the up-front deal might not change much, the back end surely does.



please re-read my earlier posts, midphase;
i think it's clear that the upfront deal is def capable of changing.




midphase @ Tue Feb 01 said:


> Last but not least, I have to wonder how much control of the decision-making process will this company exercise to agree to fund the film's score? Will they have a say over which composer gets hired? Will they have a say over what type of music they would prefer to be done for the film?



in my case:
i met the director, saw the film.
he chose me out of a group of composers, as per the norm.
he said: "you're hired".
memo-deal made w/production company.
then, !BOOM!:
contract negotiations began & ended with the 3rd party "score producer", completely.

as well:
this 3rd party had no input to the creative direction that the score would & did take, _at all_:
zero. zip. zilch. nada.
and: no involvement on the dubbing stage, either:
zero representation from them, there.




midphase @ Tue Feb 01 said:


> I also don't think that this company has much interest in operating at the lowest budget level...if they do their funding would probably lower to match their expectations of their future earnings from the score...which could result in just a few thousand dollars (definitely not enough for an orchestra or even a lonely player).



they seem to be functioning w/very varied budget-levels;
the film i scored, wherein a 3rd party "score producer" bankrolled the music,
had an approx. $8m film-budget.



midphase @ Tue Feb 01 said:


> This btw is not news, this company has been operating for a while now, and I personally know a couple of composers who were hired after the production company inked a deal with them.



yes, it's not news..... and, yet?
it is news to many;
so, i posted the NYT article for those who were not aware, to date,
of this manner of goings-on.

dt / spltrcl


----------



## rgames (Feb 1, 2011)

midphase @ Tue Feb 01 said:


> Richard,
> 
> It's a bit different than what you're thinking of...


OK - I think I see the distinction. So the film's not putting up any money.

I was thinking there are basically two parties: the film and the composer/supervisor/music producer. But there's a third party that fronts the money to the composer/supervisor/music producer and, in return, keeps the rights.
 
Sort of like a musical venture capitalist, though I gather they get a lot more ownership than a normal venture capitalist.

It might not be such a bad deal for the composer if he fills the roles of both venture capitalist and composer/producer. Even if not, the composer can always negotiate some portion of the ownership that the film gives up.

rgames


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 1, 2011)

So, in a world of dwindling moneys for us, we get... a middle man?


----------



## jeffc (Feb 1, 2011)

It's kind of an interesting concept, and to be honest I've worked on many films where the producers had no idea what publishing/owernership of the music really meant to them in the long term, as far as income potential.

One potential problem I see is that it may allow some lower budget films to afford a bigger 'name' composer that they would if independently financed. If the 3rd party increases the music budget enough to afford a higher-tier type composer, this can take away potential good films from guys doing the more indie type of thing. Granted this still happens now, where a great indie with great director, hype, cast, but bad money for music, but you get an A-list guy who can afford to do it for nothing because he thinks it's a good gamble. Always sucks, but such is Hollywood I suppose and it's always a dog eat dog game in many ways. So I guess the more resilient of us will still figure out a way to exist if this thing becomes the norm. Who knows?

Never a dull moment, that's for sure.

J


----------



## rgames (Feb 1, 2011)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Tue Feb 01 said:


> So, in a world of dwindling moneys for us, we get... a middle man?


Yes, but that's actually a good thing, I think.

Now we have someone willing to front the cash to pay composers when the film is out of money. So, in theory, there should be *more* work for composers if this model takes off.

The catch is that the composer basically loses some or all of the back end. So from the composer's standpoint, it's just another work-for-hire gig. The difference is the money isn't coming from the film, it's coming from a third party.

Again, I could see this working out well for composers.

rgames


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 1, 2011)

Then that makes it simple for me to take a negative position: I love the back end (no jokes, please!) too much, it's saved my ass more than once when gigs were nowhere to be found (as in this past year).


----------



## rgames (Feb 1, 2011)

It doesn't have to mean no back end for the composer, it just means that the negotiations happen with the thrid party, not the film. However, it stands to reason that the third party would be less willing to give up as much as the film.

Still, though, if it works it should mean more gigs, so less time between them. In that case the back end shouldn't matter as much, right?

rgames


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 1, 2011)

I was going by what you wrote:


rgames @ 1/2/2011 said:


> The catch is that the composer basically loses some or all of the back end.



My view about royalties is based on experiences like this one: I wrote the soundtrack to a series in 1998, and the company folded before I got my final payment, 7 grand. I was pissed, to say the least. However, the series went on to earn me 70 grand in royalties. How was I supposed to know how much it was going to earn for me 10 years down the line? I couldn't know, and therefore wouldn't bargain it away, sorry. You never know how often some piece-of-crap show you did will play, somewhere in the world, over a decade. Of course, the middle men understand all about owning 'content' (music) that grows over the long haul.


----------



## midphase (Feb 1, 2011)

I'm curious if this company leads to more companies springing up and following their lead. I have seen so much erosion in the way composers are treated that it's very difficult to see a silver lining anywhere.

If Poseurs' statements are correct, it would appear then that there is no real difference to the composers...I still would conclude though that the people who are in charge of approving which movies get the money and which don't are bound to be very picky about their choices which means that a big chunk of the indie projects going on are probably not going to be benefitting.


----------



## poseur (Feb 3, 2011)

maybe my own posts weren't clear, here:

the 3rd party "score producer" did *not* buy my score, outright:
i was the composer of the score;
i retain 100% of the writer's royalties.
they control the Masters.

my agent negotiated w/the 3rd party for box-office bumps & publishing etc,
& the 3rd party proved to be amenable to such negotiation.
i was paid --- another "all-in" budget, a "package"-deal --- as agreed, & on time.

so, to re-cap.....
my own experiences, in regards to retaining "back-end" & etc, were fine;
i was not expected to become some kinda musical bitchslave/manservant to the 3rd party,
and indeed they acted out of sincere interest in finding an equitable agreement,
and quickly.

dt


----------



## José Herring (Feb 3, 2011)

This is not new. Library companies in the 1990's use to make these kind of deals on b films all the time. I haven't heard of it since then, but I'm glad it's back.

The deal use to be that the film company would sell the publishing rights to the library company who would then fund the score, say put up $50,000 or something. The composer would keep his writers share. And, the library company would have the rights to use the cues in their library.

Back then even a bfilm with cable play would make back more than the initial investment pretty quickly and library music wasn't as defined as it is now, so it was a good deal for everybody. But the b film companies in LA all but folded up in the early 2000's and the cable deals changed so it became not very lucrative to invest in lower budget films.

But, now that some of these more artsy type films are making a big comeback and have star power attached it might behoove us all to start proposing this as a deal point to film and library companies.

I'd keep this article on your harddrive.

best,

Jose


----------



## midphase (Feb 3, 2011)

I guess what I'm curious about is...how does this 3rd party determine which scores they want to fund and which they don't?

How does the process work exactly? Do the producers of the film contact them, or do they contact the producers? Is the overall budget of the film a factor? Is the usage of a real orchestra a factor? Is the name of the composer a factor? Is there a minimum film budget limit below which those guys won't touch?

Could little ol' me get these guys to finance my next score on behalf of producers who would only allot a pittance to the music budget?


----------



## José Herring (Feb 3, 2011)

midphase @ Thu Feb 03 said:


> I guess what I'm curious about is...how does this 3rd party determine which scores they want to fund and which they don't?
> 
> How does the process work exactly? Do the producers of the film contact them, or do they contact the producers? Is the overall budget of the film a factor? Is the usage of a real orchestra a factor? Is the name of the composer a factor? Is there a minimum film budget limit below which those guys won't touch?
> 
> Could little ol' me get these guys to finance my next score on behalf of producers who would only allot a pittance to the music budget?



It depends on the project and it's perceived value in the market place. I don't think that the composer has anything to do with it. Put it this way if John Williams did a student film, i don't think that a library would be falling all over themselves just because it's John Williams even though the score would be fantastic. I think that the project and it's perceived return would be more the motivating factors than any other consideration.

I think in order to make this work we have to think more like them than more like us.  

So let's say that you're doing an indie film starring kate Winslet or somebody and Focus Features decided to do a negative pick up on it. I'm pretty sure that you could get some investors if the indie film company were willing to sell the publishing rights.

But, and this is a big but, the market isn't the same as it was 10 or 15 years ago. Library music has become somewhat of a specialized field in which not many types of film scores would be accepted as library music, so that's another consideration if the library intends to sell the score as say trailer music.

i just think that business wise this is another tool in the tool box and if we think creatively business wise this could be a great thing. It's also something that some music supervisors might get into. Music sups generally tend to see no back end from their work and this could be a way for them to get publishing so you might get the music sup on your side to get the film company to give up publishing. Which quite frankly if the film is successful then publishing would be peanuts for their millions in foreign market, cable and possible box office revenue.

But on the indie films I worked on the film company was all too willing to give me publishing. The problem was in me getting a music library interested in the project I was working on. :cry: I was more than happy to give them the publishing in exchange for some cash!


----------



## Synesthesia (Feb 3, 2011)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed Feb 02 said:


> I was going by what you wrote:
> 
> 
> rgames @ 1/2/2011 said:
> ...




I just want to flag up this wisdom from Ned.

I would happily play my own financier (in fact I have done, recently) in return for the publishing. We need to value our product - if they are going to make money from it then so can we.


----------



## Synesthesia (Feb 3, 2011)

josejherring @ Thu Feb 03 said:


> But, and this is a big but, the market isn't the same as it was 10 or 15 years ago. Library music has become somewhat of a specialized field in which not many types of film scores would be accepted as library music, so that's another consideration if the library intends to sell the score as say trailer music.



More wisdom here from Jose..

IMHO this 50% of the business plan is fundamentally flawed.


----------



## poseur (Feb 3, 2011)

midphase @ Thu Feb 03 said:


> I guess what I'm curious about is...how does this 3rd party determine which scores they want to fund and which they don't?


from what i've seen
--- which is, granted, only one film ---
like any funding producer, it was based solely on their view of the film:
the 3rd party music producers made a deal w/the production
well before any composers were considered.




midphase @ Thu Feb 03 said:


> How does the process work exactly? Do the producers of the film contact them, or do they contact the producers? Is the overall budget of the film a factor?


dunno, mp.





midphase @ Thu Feb 03 said:


> Is the usage of a real orchestra a factor? Is the name of the composer a factor?


no, and
--- in my case? --- 
no, i don't believe they were in any way involved in the selection process.




midphase @ Thu Feb 03 said:


> Is there a minimum film budget limit below which those guys won't touch?


dunno; surely, though, it would differ for different groups.




midphase @ Thu Feb 03 said:


> Could little ol' me get these guys to finance my next score on behalf of producers who would only allot a pittance to the music budget?


weeeeelllll.....
try it, and please tell us what happens;
maybe engage yr agent to facilitate?

dt


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Apr 20, 2011)

Have any of you heard of Golden Break Music in the UK? I'm wondering what their deal/relationship is with composers - are they OK?


----------

