# Austin Wintory speaks up against union blockage of Game recordings



## G.E. (Jun 9, 2014)

What do you guys make of this ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvraGNfKVY


----------



## JohnG (Jun 9, 2014)

It is incredibly sad.

Had the AFM set out with the express intention to destroy live recording in the USA, they could scarcely have done a more effective job. Major stages, formerly booked solid, have closed in Los Angeles and knowledgeable people say more will follow.

The union's position forces otherwise-loyal union members to work on dark dates, it drives recording outside the US, and more or less trains composers and producers to avoid recording under union auspices.

London has a (very expensive) buyout rate that is sanctioned by the union there. Many other places also have it. I would be glad to pay any reasonable premium (1/3 or 1/2?) to access a buyout contract for games and library music so I can use the union players I like and admire.

Experienced US-based union players have told me they earn 1/3 of their income from the ancillary payments (such as Special Payments) for their film work. Fine. A 50% up-front bonus rate for a buyout would make them whole for lost back-end payments and actually be a better deal because:

1. They wouldn't have to work on dark (i.e. "cash" -- non-union) dates;

2. They would receive their pension / health and welfare contributions and increase their tally of hours of recording under union auspices necessary to earn heath and other benefits; 

3. They could record in the best studios instead of sneaking off to secondary, out-of-the-way places; and

4. They would get more work.

How many of Los Angeles' stages will have to close before the union realizes what has happened? All of them?

I fear that's where we are headed. And this affects a lot of other jobs, not just players. Within the union, it's copyists, orchestrators, and others. Outside the musicians' union it affects engineers and their assistants, cable-makers, maintenance people, restaurants and all kinds of other folk whose livelihood depends to some extent on the flow of live recording.


----------



## Farkle (Jun 9, 2014)

G.E. @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> What do you guys make of this ?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvraGNfKVY



I'm good friends with Austin, we went to NYU together. He is one of the most passionate supporters of hiring live musicians, esp. in LA, and paying them appropriately for their time. He is constantly working with his game dev studio clients to budget properly to pay these people, to get them work, and to show them (the studios and the musicians union) that the game industry is a fertile creative ground for new sources of employment and income for musicians.

That the AF of M has crucified one of their potentially strongest supporters is sickening. Austin is a very genuine, very nice person, who just wants to continue to work with great musicians and put them into great game scores.

Makes me glad I'm not in LA AF of M, I'll tell you that much.

Mike


----------



## José Herring (Jun 9, 2014)

Practically guarantees that musicians will be losing out to samples until the union pulls its head out of its ass.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 9, 2014)

josejherring @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> Practically guarantees that musicians will be losing out to samples until the union pulls its head out of its ass.


By then it will be too late. It probably is already.

D


----------



## Madrigal (Jun 9, 2014)

Unions as we know them are on the verge of extinction and this kind of last resort will do nothing to help their cause. :|


----------



## José Herring (Jun 9, 2014)

Daryl @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> josejherring @ Mon Jun 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Practically guarantees that musicians will be losing out to samples until the union pulls its head out of its ass.
> ...



Not really. We could be booming again if the union would give up its silly instance on the secondary market fund. Makes no sense these days.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jun 9, 2014)

Ray Hair said:


> I dont think anyone gives you anything b/c they like you; in the union business they give you things b/c of they are afraid of what you are going to do to them.



There is the crux of the problem. It's the mentality.


----------



## jeffc (Jun 9, 2014)

RiffWraith @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> Ray Hair said:
> 
> 
> > I dont think anyone gives you anything b/c they like you; in the union business they give you things b/c of they are afraid of what you are going to do to them.



Agreed. If it's not obvious to the union already, there is nothing that they can do to punish the studios/producers. They have already shown that they already have a viable cheaper option so it's really no big deal to them. 

The union execs need to quit the hard line stance - which seems an impossibility at this point unless of a leadership change. They have no cards to play. If they cared at all about the welfare of their newer members, not the old school players who made a fortune on residuals (which is great for them, but like recording artists who made a fortune from album sales - those days are gone). They need to think forward, not backward, or they will unfortunately end up like the dinosaur record companies.

And going after the composers is so nuts, like we have any choice at all in where we record. I've received threatening calls from union execs while while doing a few films about union players. And I have no idea what they think I can do about it.

Where is the Elon Musk of union leaders....

J


----------



## José Herring (Jun 9, 2014)

Madrigal @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> Unions as we know them are on the verge of extinction and this kind of last resort will do nothing to help their cause. :|



The problem is that they're taking down a whole industry on their way out. One that won't likely recover after they've done their damage.

Another problem is that musicians are mild people by nature. If other unions were pulling the kinds of things that this union pulls you'd never find the graves of the union leadership.

But, they pull this stuff with very little in the way of backlash besides a few people complaining on Facebook.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 9, 2014)

josejherring @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> Daryl @ Mon Jun 09 said:
> 
> 
> > josejherring @ Mon Jun 09 said:
> ...


I don't think so. Once the producers have found somewhere else to get their scores recorded, it will be very difficult to get the work back.

D


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 9, 2014)

josejherring @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> Daryl @ Mon Jun 09 said:
> 
> 
> > josejherring @ Mon Jun 09 said:
> ...



Unless I am misunderstanding the issue after a quick reda, the fact that so many see this as "it makes no sense these days" just illustrates to me how much composers and musicians have been willing to bend over and take it up the you know where.

All performing musicians should be entitled to make money for reuse whether it is film, TV, or a video game.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 9, 2014)

Daryl @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> josejherring @ Mon Jun 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Mon Jun 09 said:
> ...



Not entirely true. Though I see how it may appear that way. But there isn't a producer that I've talked to that doesn't want to record here in LA with live players. It's just impossible to do so with the current union rules.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 9, 2014)

The way I see this, just to expand, is that practically everyone has bought into the idea that producers are entitled to make as much money as they can and composers and musicians should be so grateful just to have wok that they will happily accept whatever crumbs are thrown to them and give up whatever they have to.

We have never been treated with that much respect but now it is getting worse than ever because so many will go along with that. Sad IMHO.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 9, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> josejherring @ Mon Jun 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Mon Jun 09 said:
> ...



Not really. The problem is infinitely more complicated than that.

With countries like the UK offering buyouts and the internet making it easier to record over seas, there needs to be a new business model.

When the secondary market fund was set up in the '70ies it made total sense. Recording overseas was hard to do requiring that everybody fly to London, expensive, and there were no other overseas options. Also, there were no samples and live musicians were the only game in town.

So the union could take the union thug mentality and leverage players against the studio system, because there really wasn't any other option. And studios were the only ones making film and television. Also it was set up when studios had their own orchestras, ect...

Things have changed a lot since then.

Now there are way too many options and making it harder to record with live musicians doesn't make any sense.

I know musicians that are doing non union stuff, and charging $1000/hr. No joke.

The union needs to be restructured to meet the current and future demands of a new industry. Charging a large upfront fee and having a better system of tiered payments based on the cost of the film production would be a good start.

In my mind even a premium service of films that cost more than $100,000,000 to make can still include a secondary market payment. As those films for the most part are studio films and the studios don't seem to have much of a problem with special payments.

There are just a lot more factors involved than the sec. market fund had envisioned and so you have a union that's trying to impose an old system on a new market place.

So it's not about bending over backwards, it's about realistically assessing a new market place and being competitive in it. Allowing for more flexibility in the system and realizing that the studios aren't the only game in town. There are more ways to make money and the old way of doing it is only one way. 

That's how I see it.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 9, 2014)

What do you want to bet that the "new business model" will lead to producers continuing to do well and musicians doing more poorly than before?

All justified by "because they can".


----------



## José Herring (Jun 9, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> What do you want to bet that the "new business model" will lead to producers continuing to do well and musicians doing more poorly than before?
> 
> All justified by "because they can".



So the other options is as Richard Kraft says, "we'll keep on not working for you if you keep on not hiring us". :lol: 

But if navigated successfully, there could be a lot more money for all. Right now, things are just shutting down. Not good for anybody.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 9, 2014)

josejherring @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 09 said:
> 
> 
> > What do you want to bet that the "new business model" will lead to producers continuing to do well and musicians doing more poorly than before?
> ...



This is just one more step in the devaluing of professionals. It is headed inexorably down, I recognize that, but I for one will not be standing and applauding it and doing what I can to help it on its journey, down, down. down.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Jun 9, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> josejherring @ Mon Jun 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Mon Jun 09 said:
> ...




I agree with you Jay, but in the majority of cases there are no royalties in the Game music world.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 9, 2014)

And that was maybe OK when the Game music world was a small entity but in 10 years it will be bigger and more profitable than TV.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 9, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> josejherring @ Mon Jun 09 said:
> 
> 
> > EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 09 said:
> ...



Right now, it's just going down, down, down with the help of the union.

It's just a limited view of what could potential happen. 

It could go up, up, up and musicians could be making more than special payments allow, if negotiated differently.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 9, 2014)

Please tell me your plan of how this new business model could be implemented in a way that professional musicians profit as much relative to the producers as thirty years ago. I truly want to know.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 9, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> Please tell me your plan of how this new business model could be implemented in a way that professional musicians profit as much relative to the producers as thirty years ago. I truly want to know.



It would take a while to explain, but their are many good options on the table. I even came up with a few when I was invovled in the facebook group, but they stopped letting me post in the facebook group, so I dropped out of the discussion. Simultaneously vowing to never be friends with any of the moderators ever again. The ultimate facebook punishment. :lol: 

Late tonight I will write a few down.

But, the basis is that the union exist to benefit the whole rather than play to the few. That's the whole purpose of the union. From that some specifics can occur that can actually keep the current system in place for those that benefit from it, but then also opens up a new areas for musicians to expand and grow.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 9, 2014)

josejherring @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Please tell me your plan of how this new business model could be implemented in a way that professional musicians profit as much relative to the producers as thirty years ago. I truly want to know.
> ...



The primary purpose of ANY professional union. like #47 which defines itself as a "professional " union, is to see to it that professionals are protected.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 9, 2014)

Also, notice that the union is preying on the weak. They're fining Austin, but I hear no mention of them fining Hans Zimmer or JNH or Williams for recording in London. Hans has even done game music.

So, the union is just proving again that they're just a bunch of thugs preying on people that can't really fight back.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 9, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> josejherring @ Mon Jun 09 said:
> 
> 
> > EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 09 said:
> ...



They're not protecting anybody but a 150 or so players that are lucky enough to be at the top. 

Imo, they aren't being professional at all. There are 2500 other professionals that aren't so lucky. But even the chosen few in private are starting to complain. At least to me. One top flight player said that if he wasn't doing non union work under the table he'd not be playing but once or twice a year. Pitiful. Not serving anybody and certainly not protecting professionals.

And btw, he makes more going non union than union.


----------



## JJP (Jun 9, 2014)

This article paints a more balanced picture of the situation given the information that is publicly available:
http://variety.com/2014/biz/news/vi...tion-charges-amid-contract-strife-1201216439/

It does make me a little suspicious of motives when the article states he was notified in January, but then decides to launch a media blitz about the issue six months later during the week of E3 where he's promoting the game.

I'd highly recommend any AFM members in Los Angeles attend the meeting at the local on Thursday night. There is so much going on behind the scenes in this area out of the public eye. Things are indeed bad, but there is significant work being done.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 9, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ 9th June 2014 said:


> The primary purpose of ANY professional union. like #47 which defines itself as a "professional " union, is to see to it that professionals are protected.



Who are they protecting? The few who play on the largest-budget films, that's who. I don't see them protecting new members, unless you count protecting them from doing any work. And, as Jose pointed out, they don't go after the big guns.

When I record on a dark date, it hurts the union. When I record overseas, it hurts the union. Local union rules give me no choice -- none -- when scoring a video game or for a library.

With regret, I left the union a long time ago. The mantra then was still, "we're the best so they have to work with us." 

Sadly, that's the same thing all the grips and electricians and set-builders thought when production began moving to Canada. More than a decade later, some Canadian crews have more experience -- a lot more -- than many in Los Angeles. So it's cheaper _and_ better. Why return?

The same goes for musicians. Give people enough experience and they improve. Eastern Europe used to produce sluggish strings, sharp brass -- all kinds of musical problems. Not anymore.

There's a buyout rate and a game contract in London, expensive, but it's there and a lot of music is recorded under it. We need one here as soon as possible.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 9, 2014)

Fine guys, continue to fight for the crumbs while the producers continue to get rich. Yes, there needs to be a realistic "Game" scale, but no, game producers should NOT be exempt from paying reuse in my view.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 9, 2014)

That world is long gone, Jay. It's not coming back.


----------



## rpaillot (Jun 9, 2014)

Agree with JohnG. It's way too late.
Things should have been clear since the beginning. You cant ask now Electronic Arts
to pay royalties to composers and musicians.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 9, 2014)

Well, apparently you can: ) I guess we will see how it shakes out. I am past the age where it will affect me but I am really glad that back in the day when I played piano on a lot of toy commercials the Musician's Union made sure I got my reuse checks.


----------



## jeffc (Jun 9, 2014)

Jay, no offense, but your logic seems backward thinking. The reuse is already gone for the vast majority of things - just because it used to be doesn't mean it will come back. If the biggest of the big are satisfied with London, why would they ever come back here? Because they feel bad? And again, they pay a lot of money to record there, more than LA, so don't the players stand to possibly make more than enough to compensate for the lost reuse? 

It's the same mentality that the record business took and look how that's turning out.

Everyone always longs for the good old days. But the people who really succeed will think of new (possibly more profitable ways) to move forward.

Look, I think it's nuts that video games don't get performance royalties. And they are great on tv. But let's be honest, more and more things are streaming now and I'm sure it will keep moving that way more and more. So, do I think that the current performance royalty scenario will be the same in 10 years? Definitely not. They might go away all together, or they might be something new. But if you follow Ascap and their dealings with the government, they are looking into the future and trying to make changes that move with the times and change with the times. And for that I am grateful.

But the union is taking the exact opposite result, and if history and the fates of other businesses tell us (automotive, tech outsourcing, manufacturing) the good old days do not come back. They change, always have always will.

So acting like we're all just supporting this race to the bottom makes is total nonsense, and to be honest, offensive. . We don't choose what's going on now, but it happens regardless. I would say people who will succeed see it more as a race to the future, not the bottom....


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 9, 2014)

Can we agree Jeff, on the following:

1. The record business is worse for artists and composers who may not reach the top but who actually want to make a decent living, not just pursue it part time? (And I would argue the music is worse as a result, but that is a different discussion.)

2. It will continue to get worse because all of us, me included, gave them the shovels to dig our own grave?

3. The fact that something will go a certain way does not mean that we all have to just say, "OK, I guess that's just the way it is" even if ultimately it makes no difference other than our feeling we stood up for the right thing?"

Welcome to the Walmart-ization of the entertainment industry. Just for the record (pun intended) i don't shop at Walmart even though it is cheaper.

Just backward, I guess.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 9, 2014)

No, Jay, it's not "just" backward. It has drastic, pernicious consequences.

Clinging to the olden days has seriously undermined the ability of thousands of people in Los Angeles to make a living so that a tiny number of people in the RMA can go on as if the world has not altered since sampling, since the Internet, and since people in countries outside the US decided they had to compete.

Only here do people seem to think they _don't_ need to compete. Everywhere else, they are eating our lunch.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 9, 2014)

JohnG @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> No, Jay, it's not "just" backward. It has drastic, pernicious consequences.
> 
> Clinging to the olden days has seriously undermined the ability of thousands of people in Los Angeles to make a living so that a tiny number of people in the RMA can go on as if the world has not altered since sampling, since the Internet, and since people in countries outside the US decided they had to compete.
> 
> Only here do people seem to think they _don't_ need to compete. Everywhere else, they are eating our lunch.



Yep that is the Walmart argument. It doesn't matter they have crummy jobs, low paying with no benefits, at least they have jobs. so they are fortunate.

Also, do you really believe that if they capitulate, there will be a flood of them hiring musicians in studios in LA instead of hiring guys in project studios with sample libraries? Because I do not.

Oh, and feel free to address the points I raised to Jeff.

I am open to having my mind changed in the face of good arguments but so far it seems to me the choices are: a) capitulate and watch middle class musicians incomes go downhill at 40 mph or b) don't capitulate and watch them go downhill at rate for 60 mph.

I guess because I was a musician long before I was composer, I still see things first from that POV.


----------



## jamwerks (Jun 9, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> Yep that is the Walmart argument. It doesn't matter they have crummy jobs, low paying with no benefits, at least they have jobs. so they are fortunate.


Not sure I'd say that the guys in London have crummy jobs.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 9, 2014)

jamwerks @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Yep that is the Walmart argument. It doesn't matter they have crummy jobs, low paying with no benefits, at least they have jobs. so they are fortunate.
> ...



i don't know as I have never lived there.

Here is my criteria for assessing it:

1 Can they do it for a living with no other job other than perhaps teaching music?

2. Can they afford a modest but decent home and car without waking up every morning in fear they cannot pay their bills?

If the answer to either of those is "no", then they have crummy jobs.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 9, 2014)

Jay, ask yourself, when was the last time anyone hired you for a session? Your experience is prehistoric.

I hire musicians regularly and I am telling you that, as a producer, I would happily pay a 50% premium, which would instantly recoup for them all the backend payments they might otherwise earn, to use great players in town. That's not WalMart.

London is MORE expensive, but everyone's going there.

Maybe when Eastwood closes, maybe Fox? 

We're at death's door and you're mouthing shibboleths that were out of date 20 years ago. You think you're some impish wag and the Voice of Experience? It's insulting, frankly, to those of us actually trying to hire people here.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 9, 2014)

JohnG @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> Jay, ask yourself, when was the last time anyone hired you for a session? Your experience is prehistoric.
> 
> I hire musicians regularly and I am telling you that, as a producer, I would happily pay a 50% premium, which would instantly recoup for them all the backend payments they might otherwise earn, to use great players in town. That's not WalMart.
> 
> ...



Actually because London is so expensive, more and more started going to Prague. And then the argument I started hearing was "Prague is too expensive" so now they are going to Moscow. What's next, Zambia?" Do you not see the pattern?

I am not talking about guys like you as "producers". I am talking abut the guys who produce a movie TV show, video game, etc. who stand to get rich when they succeed but still begrudge reuse payments because they don't believe that the players had an important role in their success.


----------



## jeffc (Jun 9, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> Can we agree Jeff, on the following:
> 
> 1. The record business is worse for artists and composers who may not reach the top but who actually want to make a decent living, not just pursue it part time? (And I would argue the music is worse as a result, but that is a different discussion.)
> 
> ...



Actually Jay, just to try and address your points, because I'm not one to argue around here. 

1. Actually I would disagree with you here and say that an unsigned/smaller artist has more opportunities today than existed even 10 years ago in the traditional major label system. Artists can, without touring, distribute their albums without a label(iTunes) get an easy to understand accurate accounting (Tunecore), get paid for streaming (Spotify) that didn't even exist years ago, and license directly to film/tv without a label. Most of the trash talk of the evil of Spotify has to do with artists with labels - and they are not getting a fair split. But an independent artist can actually make a substantial sum if they control the rights and collect all of the Spotify. My wife is a singer/songwriter without a label and I am amazed by her Tunecore statements every month - and a big chunk is Spotify for a few songs that got a few million plays. Real money. And she's with a licensing company and again makes legit money, with opportunities that didn't exist for an unsigned artist just a few years ago. So, again, is it the same as it used to be, NO, but people who adapt to the new model can do surprisingly well.

2. No comment. Again, I don't get up everyday and work my ass off thinking that I'm ruining my future and everyone else's. I'm trying to make it better, as most people are, except the few old fogies who just keep wishing for the good old days.

3. Nobody is saying "OK" that's how it is. The smart ones are trying to adapt and change. There are thousands of union musicians in LA that never get to play every day. Is the union's policy really doing anything of value for them, absolutely not. Isn't it better to change the policy to benefit all members, not just the select few who have enjoyed a gravy train for a long time? Because again, the work moved overseas not because of the union, but in spite of it. Times change, other orchestras got better and more competitive. Our local choice is to compete in a new way or die. And I disagree that eliminating the reuse wouldn't result in more local work. I've been on films where they would have paid more to stay here, but the deal breaker was the reuse, not the hourly musician wage. Hell, I'm grateful every time I hire players here and usually pay above union wage just to show them I appreciate it. 

Producers will always make more money, when have they not? If you want justice and fairness, then I think a musician/composer is not the most effective way for self-fulfillment....

J


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 9, 2014)

For me it is a simple equation: the fewer talented musicians, recording artists, and composers who can do that for a middle class living, the worse it is. So anything that diminishes that number I am against and will resist, even if if is quixotic. 
But Jeff is a guy whose career is on the way up while mine is on the way down so the smart money is on him.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 9, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> For me it is a simple equation: the fewer talented musicians, recording artists, and composers who can do that for a middle class living, the worse it is. So anything that diminishes that number I am against and will resist, even if if is quixotic.


Stop using samples then and hire more musicians. Simple.

D


----------



## wst3 (Jun 9, 2014)

jeffc @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> <snippity>
> Producers will always make more money, when have they not?



The sad part, looking on from the other coast, is that you are all making sense, but you don't seem to be hearing eachother.

And Jeff's quote, above, is the key.

The producer(s) of a TV show or movie or game make more than most, if not all, of the people that actually do the work - the actors, the musicians, etc. And even within that hierarchy the actors tend to make more than the musicians who (I hope it's still so) make more than the stage hands.

Thus it has always been, and I do not think it will ever change. Because the producers are the ones that (at least in theory) take on the financial risk. And for some reason we seem to think that is worthy of a reward, a big reward at that.

The same thing is true at banks, power companies, auto manufacturers, everywhere really. The guys at the top make out better than the guys at the bottom, and the rational is always that they take the bigger risk, or have the bigger responsibilities.

Funny part is, once upon a time the CEO of a major corporation, or the producer of a hit TV show made more than those who worked for them, but the ratio was not all that large. These days the ratio is off-the-charts stupid. Is a CEO or producer really worth hundreds of times what the worker bees are worth?

And that, I think, is but one root of the problem. So in that sense Jay is not that far off the mark... we need more reasonable returns on investments - because we've seen that no matter how large they get, they are never big enough.

But, there is a lot more at play here. Technology has forever changed the way creative works are rewarded. For better or worse, the internet is a game changer. Sample libraries are a game changer. Maturing musicians in foreign countries are a game changer.

The ship that says L.A. studios and musicians are the only, or at least best, game in town sailed. That does not mean that the musicians and rooms that remain are not as good as they ever were, I think they still are, and can remain so for at least a little while longer.

The union needs to take all these changes into account, and come up with a way to reward musicians for their work. I can not believe that it can not be done, and in fact I can not believe that it can not be done fairly.

I wish I'd paid more attention in Econ 101, nah, I don't really, but I do wish I could come up with an answer. Sadly I can't.

What I can do is observe that both sides want musicians to be paid fairly, and they want to see them working again, in broad daylight. The old guard (no offense intended Jay) needs to accept that reuse will probably take a back seat.

I understand why that will be distasteful, at best, to many. I have a friend who wanted to be a Broadway star. She worked a day gig, took lessons, went to auditions, etc. And as luck would have it, shot a few commercials. And she is living off those commercials. She isn't living in a castle by the sea, but that wasn't her style anyway, and she is living quite comfortably, doing something else she enjoys.

Nice story, and not at all uncommon for those that were lucky enough to work back then. So today's budding stars will have to take some of the buy-out premium and invest it for their future. Ironically, they could end up even better off. And the ones that are in between are the ones who get hurt - so the real key will be figuring out a way to protect them that doesn't endanger an entire career choice for those who have yet to set sail for LA.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Jun 9, 2014)

While I admire Mr. Wintory's courage in speaking the truth to power, I can't help but wonder about the impact this will have on his career.

Clearly, he has popular support (just check Twitter and Reddit). But, does the union give a damn about what is said on Twitter? I don't think so... that only works with legitimate businesses whose reputation might actually be harmed by "bad press".

And bad press? Who cares? Because there is NOTHING any well-meaning Twitter follower can do to harm the AF of M. Nothing. And they know it. (PS - Since when does ANY union give a damn about bad press anyway?)

Time will ultimately tell, but historically speaking... most guys who stand up to power end up dead. I'm not saying it's a mob situation here, but career death is also another form of death...

Mr. Wintory has chosen to be a lightning rod for this cause, and, while I wish him well and will support him any way I can, I also know he is picking a pretty big fight. Not unlike Snowden picking a fight with the US-of-fucking-A, guys like him often find themselves on the outside (exiled?) after their big moment.

Because... the same cats who gave AW that Grammy probably also grilled out with the big-wigs of AF of M on Memorial Day. 8)

And, that's business for ya... It's not personal.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 10, 2014)

wst3 @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> Funny part is, once upon a time the CEO of a major corporation, or the producer of a hit TV show made more than those who worked for them, but the ratio was not all that large. These days the ratio is off-the-charts stupid. Is a CEO or producer really worth hundreds of times what the worker bees are worth?


This, to me, is one of the most obscene parts of a capitalist society. If you think of a greedy organisation like Apple, and compare the wages of the CEO to those of the Chinese workers they exploit, for example, the situation is ridiculous. It would be fantastic if there was a formula that linked a CEOs pay to the lowest paid worked in the organisation, so that the gap could not be too large (and I think that there is legislation in at least one European country that guarantees this), but that will never happen in the US (or the UK, for that matter), because the people in charge are so beholden to the rich minority they won't ever pass such legislation.

This is a global problem, and needs global attention. Put in that context, the actions of a Musicians' Union that only acts for a tiny minority of fairly rich, privileged orchestral players is a non-event.

D


----------



## ddplz (Jun 10, 2014)

Daryl @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> This, to me, is one of the most obscene parts of a capitalist society. If you think of a greedy organisation like Apple, and compare the wages of the CEO to those of the Chinese workers they exploit, for example, the situation is ridiculous. It would be fantastic if there was a formula that linked a CEOs pay to the lowest paid worked in the organisation, so that the gap could not be too large (and I think that there is legislation in at least one European country that guarantees this), but that will never happen in the US (or the UK, for that matter), because the people in charge are so beholden to the rich minority they won't ever pass such legislation.
> 
> This is a global problem, and needs global attention.


Why don't the Chinese workers become CEO's, so everyone earns the same?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 10, 2014)

I am rethinking my position on this. There are several questions i think it raises:

1. Does the union need to have more flexible options to allow people who want to record in LA have a realistic option?

I think we all agree, "yes."

2. Can we in any workable way sort out how to apply it to producers who need a financial break to do it as opposed to those who want the break solely because they want their share of the pie to be bigger and feel they can because they are like the neighborhood bully, too big to fuck with and with too many options to hire those who will work on the cheap.

That is the one I am most troubled by and still trying to work out in my mind. The idea that the proportions of profit of all the various people should continue to evolve more and more to only top/bottom and eliminating the middle is, as Daryl says, a global problem but we musicians and composers have to find a workable solution, unless everyone except the very few at the top are content to be someone who works a day job at something non-musical and just supplements their income with part time musical activities.

3. Legally, songwriters can give up their publishing but not their writer's royalties. I think that is right. Should performer's reuse payments be seen as similar to the publisher's share or the writer's share? Also having trouble with that one. I have always thought it more like the writer's share, but I am rethinking it.

Let this "old fogy", as Jeff correctly probably characterizes me, explain something:

Since the day I graduated college, I have made a living exclusively doing music. Not a single day doing anything else for pay. To do so I have: played and sang in clubs and parties; taught piano; played piano on recording sessions where I received reuse payments;was a staff songwriter for several companies and had songs recorded that earned both mechanical and airplay; worked as a musical director for singers; played rehearsal piano; wrote music for TV, movies, that made airplay royalties and now DVD special material that does not; became a Logic Pro accried technology consultant and author.

I was able to do all this because at least in somebody's eyes I became good enough at all these thing and it has provided me an up and down living for me and my family.

i have had many years where my gross income was theoretically pretty darned good, but gross income does not go far in LA after taxes, housing, etc. I have also had years where I made far less and really struggled.

So my question to you ALL is; for a 20 year old "Jay Asher" is there a path other than hoping to hit it big, as Jeff has, to make a living _exclusively_ doing music ,and what do we stick to and what do we negotiate away that still ensures that this remains a possibility? 

Because if the new business models we are talking about means that there is no longer such a thing as a middle class career as a professional musician/composer, well, that is a shame and I am really glad that I am not coming up in that world as a 20 year old. 

Realistically, very few of you are going to become a Jeff Cardoni. And just or the record, I think Jeff is a really talented cat and a nice guy to boot and deserves any and all of the success he has had and continues to have. For whatever reasons (talent, social skills, luck) I did not. Bit still, I have had a career in music for over 40 years because it was _possible_ to do so.

Anyway, my mind is truly open so feel free to school me on this. But I do NOT have any interest in "well, Jay, that is just the way things are."


----------



## jeffc (Jun 10, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> Let this "old fogy", as Jeff correctly probably characterizes me, explain something:



Jay - 

Just to clarify, because this has somehow turned into you think I'm talking about you, I am not. I'm not one to attack anyone, not my style. I meant the 'old fogy' mentality, not referring to you- of looking back at the way things were. I'm no spring chicken myself and am old enough to be aware of how it was and where we are now.

And, for whatever success you think I have or haven't had, I would consider myself "D-list" at best, surely not in the league of people that this doesn't affect directly, and frankly embarrassed that you're singling me out. This is about the greater good and trying to find a better way to tomorrow, even if yesterday might have been great while it lasted.

But as far as your number 2 point, when as it never been this way for all but the very few at the top. I think when you take the top A-list guys, Hans, Danny Elfman, etc. etc, this situation hits all of the rest in some way or another. And in those cases, a studio offers a package deal and you have to record somewhere. If here was an option - and in a lot of cases it's not because the union refuses to make any type of change - many of the middle tier guys I believe would find a way to do it here. And that would only help the local union players who right no do not get to play on ANY sessions. Producers have always and always will try and get the most for least. And that's a whole other conversation that I, to be honest, is a gigantic waste of time. I'd rather spend the time trying to think of constructive, realistic solutions that can make working within their parameters better for all of us. I naively, guess it can be done. But I will say that, having lived in the low/middle tier films for longer that I'd like to, I've been able to make package deals with full orchestra work (with a really small budget) and still be happy with the profit I am able to clear. And on many of those, I can tell you first hand that if the LA union had a new lower tier deal with no re-use, people would have considered staying here instead of Europe, even if the cost was a bit more. No doubt about it and I think that's where the union is getting it wrong. If the supposed goal of the union is to benefit all of their members, then how is sticking to the reuse helping the 95% of their members that don't make one penny from it? Wouldn't they be happier if they were playing 5 days a week making an income? And if that's what they want, shouldn't the union at least consider it?


----------



## dinerdog (Jun 10, 2014)

People ARE looking for solutions, but that IS the way it is right now, across the board:

http://inequalityforall.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9REdcxfie3M

This is a must see documentary!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 10, 2014)

Well, Jeff, whatever list level you are, understand that few here will ever have a long running hit of the magnitude of CSI Miami. Hell, few will ever have a hit the magnitude of what I had with "Zorro"  And as I said, it was NOT always that way. I have made a living without being one of the few at the top. I honestly wonder if that is possible now.

And once again, I am totally open to the "constructive, realistic solutions" approach.

And they are?


----------



## scientist (Jun 10, 2014)

JohnG @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ 9th June 2014 said:
> 
> 
> > The primary purpose of ANY professional union. like #47 which defines itself as a "professional " union, is to see to it that professionals are protected.
> ...



the lack of broad representation is one of the things that bugs me the most about the union's position. beyond film scoring, there are thousands of musicians playing in hundreds of bands playing hundreds of shows in my city (seattle) every year who could genuinely use the help of an organization to make sure they aren't exploited, yet the AFM has done absolutely nothing to protect them. i was one of these musicians for many years, making little to no money from gigs (and not knowing any better) and i only ever heard from the union when i started writing for advertising and there was some significant money to collect. the AFM loves to pillory seattle at every chance they get, yet it's 95% their fault that they have no influence here.

and i write this as someone who is 99.9% pro-union, and am very in touch with the good that they have done historically. i don't want the AFM to go away, but they really need to stop acting like assholes. there are elements of that game music contract that are patently ridiculous, and going after someone like austin wintory is just pathetic.


----------



## jeffc (Jun 10, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> And once again, I am totally open to the "constructive, realistic solutions" approach.
> 
> And they are?



I surely don't have all the answers and my problems with the union are obviously related to film scoring, but some ideas:

1. A new low budget agreement with no reuse payment for films up to 10mil. The per session fee would have to compete, but not be as low, as Prague/Budapest. I think somewhere around $50 hr plus benefits. This would get the newer/younger union people playing and making some income and pension/benefits.

2. Some type of higher end buyout option to compete with London. This would be higher $$ than the current 3 hr session fee, maybe around $400 to compensate a bit of the lost reuse.

3. An option for the higher end stuff to stay as is. As players move up from option 1 and 2 through the union (from playing, word of mouth) they can fill open spots in 3. 


4. End dark dates. Make an easy way for players to do any session without fear of the union, and do it legit, with benefit/health payments. It's kind of like illegal drug sales. Everyone knows that dark dates are happening, why go around taking license plates and trying to punish people? Why not make it easy for them to do it on the up-and-up? More money to the union coffers, which again, isn't that better than zero. I've had to sneak people into dark sessions, that big union players were totally fine with doing. Isn't that crazy?

5. The union needs to hire a tech wiz and update their whole computer operation. It's so antiquated that it's nuts. I had to orchestrate/copy on a project of mine and went to the union to fill out the paperwork. They sent me to three people, and nobody could figure out how to do it. And know what, I didn't get paid for the legit union session I did because the morons there couldn't figure out what to me seems like the most basic of union functions. They should have a fully automated website where someone hiring can login, input the hired player info, and do all the necessary paperwork online. They should also subcontract an online payroll company so people could also be paid directly from that site.

So, there are a few ideas that I think are a) doable and b) would help both the union and players. Ray Hair needs to quit the intimidation and realize that it's a negotiation. Both sides have to bend, and he doesn't seem to see it that way. But again, he's at the disadvantage because there are other viable working options now. He's got absolutely no leverage. All of the other Hollywood unions negotiate, not strong-arm. Writers guild didn't get everything they wanted but they were smart and flexible enough to know what to bend on because striking isn't the answer.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 10, 2014)

Jeff that is an extremely reasonable set of ideas to begin a discussion/negotiation. I hope you have contacts at the union to present that to.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 10, 2014)

Jay, you and I are not that far apart really. Just a few things to mention:

1) In the UK, you don't get residuals. Never have, AFAIK, so for us, any musician asking for them would not be hired. Certainly if recordings are re-used for another purpose than the original usage paid for, there would be an additional payment.
2) There is a huge disparity between a recording fee and a fee for concert use. There used to be reasons for this, but most of them do not exist any more. There is even a huge disparity between a classical recording fee and a commercial recording fee. Therefore even though people theoretically could get paid far more than they would for doing either a concert or even a classical CD, they are not allowed to do so with Union sanction. Obviously, as you point out, there is no reason to pay musicians a small fee when there is a big company involved, but often it is not for large companies, and musicians end up with no fee, rather than getting a fee that is appropriate for the job.

So my proposals would be that first of all there should be a sliding scale that is much more flexible, according to the overall budget of a project, with a minimum set at no lower than the appropriate concert fee, plus an uplift of say 20%. Or it could be done on a case by case basis. Secondly there could be a Royalty attached to the project, for when the income goes over a certain amount. in this case the musicians get paid, albeit a smaller fee, but are able to share in the success, if there is any.

There are many other things that could be done, but this is just for starters.

Edit: I see *jeffc* got there before I did...!

D


----------



## nicholificus (Jun 10, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue 10 Jun said:


> Jeff that is an extremely reasonable set of ideas to begin a discussion/negotiation. I hope you have contacts at the union to present that to.



Ultimately that's the solution to this problem: negotiation needs to start. It should have started years ago. It's easy for us here to get caught up in the all-or-nothing strawman arguments, when in reality the root of the problem is that the union has failed to negotiate.

The reality is that the union has less leverage than it used to. Producers have cheaper options that they are going to go with if both sides don't bend. The alternative is that union work ceases to exist, which doesn't benefit anyone.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 10, 2014)

jeffc @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jun 10 said:
> 
> 
> > And once again, I am totally open to the "constructive, realistic solutions" approach.
> ...



My ideas almost coincide with these ideas. Thanks for sharing, saves me the time of having to  

I would add that, on the high end, a blanket buyout fee per year similar to what ASCAP does. That way a studio can either opt to use the older agreement, or opt into a flat fee at the beginning of the year to the union for the use of union musicians.


----------



## Mr. Anxiety (Jun 16, 2014)

The only relevant comments here to help those moving forward are ones that help come up with solutions to stop the bleeding, and hopefully stabilize the situation we are currently in and with some luck, create a positive situation that can grow in due time."

Pining about the "old days"; there's no respect for musicians"; "I'm old and not affected" helps no one moving forward and absolutely does nothing to help carry the very business that supported the old guard all of these years, into the future. Be productive and help the younger composers and musicians: Give them some support so they can carve out a career, and hopefully, a living.

Mr A


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Jun 16, 2014)

I think it's very unrealistic for the union to expect or demand that musicians get paid based on unit sales of the game OR the soundtrack. Game developers with enough of a budget to hire an orchestra are very likely going to be buying out the composer's music for a reasonable WFH rate. Even soundtrack royalties are nowhere near a sure thing in the industry today, though indie games are an exception (BUT in those cases, the budgets are much smaller and live musicians much less likely).

Royalties should come into play if the composer or developer is paying an exceptionally low rate for the musicians. Plenty of game composers take royalties for indie projects to compensate for a lower upfront rate, since the budget is smaller. Again, the alternative is simply no work at all...


----------

