# Streaming Might be the End of Hollywood Musicians



## JJP (Sep 26, 2019)

This column explains musician pay better than almost any I have seen.

Column: How the rise of streaming might turn Hollywood musicians into an endangered species - Los Angeles Times


----------



## X-Bassist (Sep 26, 2019)

Good article, thanks. I think the point was to get the word out to support a change when negotiations start in October to change this.

“Under the existing AFM contract, which expires Nov. 14, no residual provisions apply to direct-to-streaming productions — unlike the contracts of the Screen Actors, Screen Writers and Directors guilds, which provide for back-end payments based variously on how long a production remains available on a service and the service’s subscriber tally.”

Obviously streaming is now huge, and all the streaming services will have to pay residuals as they already do with writers and actors. It’s up to the union to negotiate what is fair to them, and not short change it’s members. Hope they are up to the task, because companies like Netflix knows this is coming (and in fact overdue) as they are no longer “just trying to make the model work”. The article title is actually click-bait, as the profits and proliferation of streaming is clear, they expect the unions to renegotiate this. The only question is will they be smart enough to make it retro active. Those shows that have gone by scott free yet are still running should pay those players the backend they deserve.


----------



## JJP (Sep 26, 2019)

Actually, the "click-bait" title is the truth. Musicians are looking at a loss of 50-75% of their income as distribution shifts to streaming unless the studios and networks agree to a fair contract. If that happens musicians will be reduced to poverty wages. You can't expect to maintain professional-level talent when people can't make a living doing it. That's why the LA Times took an interest and a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist wrote the article.

I've been at these negotiations. In some cases the networks and studios have been unwilling to even entertain a discussion about residuals for streaming. That's why musicians are getting the word out and putting pressure on the studios. We're fighting for our careers, and the studios' short-sighted thinking has ramifications for the whole film and TV industry.

It also mirrors what composers are facing as streaming companies like Netflix ask them to sign over royalties when composing for their shows.

The campaign has a website and you can read more about what has been happening and see the public support from both the actors and the writers. 

http://www.bandtogetherafm.org (BandTogetherAFM.org)


----------



## X-Bassist (Sep 26, 2019)

JJP said:


> Musicians are looking at a loss of 50-75% of their income as distribution shifts to streaming unless the studios and networks agree to a fair contract


Yes, but my point is the networks AND netflix are expecting to renegotiate this, that was always in the cards, even back at the writers strike of 2008.

The only question is how well the musician’s union will negotiate the terms. NO ONE working in LA, including producers and executives, expect the current status to be left as is, especially considering the market share, profits, and awards that streaming is bringing in. All of this is known data so TBH, the unions have a lot more solid info to go on than they did 10 years ago. I hope they can start to realize it’s in their best interest to go into negotiations fully loaded with stats and a plan that will raise pay for musicians and be workable for these streaming services. In LA (where many of the production jobs pop up from Netflix and Amazon) it’s know that they have been making good money (and spending it) since 2019. They have been outbidding networks for almost two years now. So there should be easier negotiations for the unions, if they are prepared to make the new roadmap, rather than beg for a compromise.


----------



## JJP (Sep 26, 2019)

I wish it were as cut-and-dried as you make it sound. Unfortunately the negotiations have been ongoing for years because the studios have dug in their heels and refused to meaningfully negotiate streaming. The musicians agreed to an extension of their contracts to give more time, but now that time is running out.

The musicians have been coming in to negotiations with world-class lawyers and negotiators and a lot of good information and data. (Much of that data is not available to the public.) The studios' answer has been essentially, "No, we won't negotiate that". It's been bewildering and frustrating, but the studios seem to be saying, "What are you going to do about it?"

That's why we've been left with no choice but to find ways to put pressure on the studios to make a fair deal. You can't negotiate intellectually with someone who doesn't care about the data, just says "no", and refuses to have a meaningful conversation; so musicians have started taking their fight to the streets. Too much is at stake here to hope that it can be talked out when that's clearly not working.

FYI, Netflix is not a part of the upcoming negotiations because they are not part of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP). Netflix has chosen to go its own path and separate itself from the rest of the industry. However the major studios and networks all will have their own streaming services within a year (Disney+, Hulu, WarnerMedia/HBO Go, Peacock, CBS All Access, et al). That means they will be pulling most of their content from Netflix. This has already started and will change the calculus for Nexflix's position in the industry.


----------



## rgames (Sep 27, 2019)

Here's where I always have trouble when these discussions come up: doesn't the market have the right to determine what it's willing to pay?

A seller who enters a market should have a right to set his price wherever he wants. And buyers in that market should have a right not to pay it. That's how free markets work. I see expensive stuff all the time. I generallly don't buy it if there's a cheaper alternative that meets my needs. I'd be pissed if someone forced me to buy the more expensive item when the cheaper one is good enough.

If the studios have customers that are fine with the products from lower-paid musicians then why does the AFM get to dictate that they cannot use them? We're not talking about exploitation here: nobody has a fundamental right to make money as a musician any more than as a basketball player. If you can't make it work, do something else. Again, that's how free markets work.

I certainly want to support my fellow musicians but that argument always causes me tremendous cognitive dissonance because it makes a lot of sense.

rgames


----------



## tsk (Sep 27, 2019)

If we think a bunch of composers and publishers have any chance at all negotiating against the lobbying power of google, netflix, hulu, amazon, fox, time warner, disney and apple, then we must be insane.

Streaming is the end of most music being a worthwhile career. I know very well established composers who are looking at 90% cuts to their royalties. I'm considering looking for jobs at the moment.


----------



## sinkd (Sep 27, 2019)

rgames said:


> Here's where I always have trouble when these discussions come up: doesn't the market have the right to determine what it's willing to pay?
> rgames


Sounds fine until you substitute the obvious: "big business" (for "the market") and append "to the workers" at the end. 

You are arguing against the necessary re-balancing that collective bargaining and negotiation HAS to bring to the equation in order for things to come out remotely square for the ones who don't come to the party with lots of money in the first place.


----------



## rgames (Sep 27, 2019)

sinkd said:


> Sounds fine until you substitute the obvious: "big business" (for "the market") and append "to the workers" at the end.


I don't see how that changes the argument:

Doesn't big business have the right to determine what it's willing to pay to the workers?

Yes, seems like they should have that right as long as they're not crossing the threshold of forced labor like in a third-world country sweatshop. If you're concerned about minimum wage then there are laws for that. If they hire you they have to pay at least minimum wage. But there's no law that says they have to hire you.

The cognitive dissonance remains.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Sep 27, 2019)

tsk said:


> Streaming is the end of most music being a worthwhile career.


Only if you stick with the royalty model. 99.9% of other industries don't use that model and they do just fine. Get paid up front like plumbers and electricians and lawyers and doctors and engineers and teachers and accountants and and and.... If the pay is not good enough for you, don't take the gig.

The royalty model is archaic and no longer necessary. It causes a lot of hassle for everyone and takes power away from composers and musicians. Imagine if you had to keep track of every time you flush your toilet so you can pay your plumber. Seems absurd, doesn't it? Well, that's exactly what the royalty model is.

These discussions have been going on here on this forum for more than a decade and elsewhere for longer than that. The move away from the royalty model has been going on that entire time and we keep clinging to it. Let it go and establish the sort of business model used by 99.9% of the rest of the world.

The non-royalty model already exists in Hollywood: do VFX artists get paid every time their work appears on screen? Do they have PROs? I don't know but I've never heard of that. As far as I know they get paid up front and then are done with it, like 99.9% of other professions. Musicians can do the same.

Again, I support the musicians in their fight but we need to inject a dose of reality. We can't argue for the status quo just because it's the status quo. We might make more progress if we find alternatives. Huge reductions in royalties? Fine. Up-front rates are higher. But if the studios don't like the deal they have the right to reject it and find an alternative.

Of course, music is a second source of income for me and I'm not in the LA scene so maybe there's a bunch of nuance that I'm missing. But after decades of having this discussion I still don't get it. Maybe I'm just dense...

rgames


----------



## patrick76 (Sep 27, 2019)

rgames said:


> Only if you stick with the royalty model. 99.9% of other industries don't use that model and they do just fine. Get paid up front like plumbers and electricians and lawyers and doctors and engineers and teachers and accountants and and and.... If the pay is not good enough for you, don't take the gig.
> 
> The royalty model is archaic and no longer necessary. It causes a lot of hassle for everyone and takes power away from composers and musicians. Imagine if you had to keep track of every time you flush your toilet so you can pay your plumber. Seems absurd, doesn't it? Well, that's exactly what the royalty model is.
> 
> ...


"Free market" is just another concept or buzz word that breaks down if you care about people and their safe working conditions, their ability to make a liveable wage, healthcare, right to not work in sweatshops, etc. It's just bullshit. In a vacuum maybe it's great, but in reality it needs to be just one part of a more complicated equation. Same with socialism ( I assume it will be brought up soon, lol). Just a word. Real life should be a combination of any ideas that benefit humanity. Just my opinion, but I don't feel compelled to hold rigidly to any concept when I can plainly see it is doing more damage than good.


----------



## JJP (Sep 27, 2019)

rgames said:


> If the studios have customers that are fine with the products from lower-paid musicians then why does the AFM get to dictate that they cannot use them?



It's a mistake to think that the AFM dictates terms for what the studios can and can not do. The AFM collectively represents the musicians who do this work and the AMPTP collectively represents the studios and networks. These two groups come into negotiations with a list of proposals and then negotiate an agreement to which both sides must agree. Negotiating this way is far more efficient than trying to negotiate every project individually with every single musician and every single producer.

Labor negotiations are governed by federal labor law. That's because it's universally accepted that employers have an inherent advantage over labor because employees rely on their job to eat and care for their families. Those laws mean that employers can't just walk away and refuse to negotiate if they don't like the way the deal is coming together. There has to be good-faith bargaining under the law. The same applies to the unions. In fact, unions have more stringent restrictions than corporations under the law to ensure they are properly representing their members.

Royalties and residuals are still an important part of the entertainment industry because creative work has the ability to be repeatedly exploited for great value over the course of its life. When it does so, our society has generally agreed that the creator of that work should be able to benefit from the value he or she creates. That's different from the way value is generated by a toilet in your home or a business.

In terms of musician, actor, director, writer, and other residuals, this is also a way that producers have been able to keep front-end costs down when budgets are tight and the success of a project may still be unknown. The creative people agree to take on part of the risk of the project in return for sharing in the profits when the project does eventually make money.

So, taking away residual income results in a de-facto pay cut, in this case a 50-75% cut for musicians, at a time when the studios are making record profits. Studios can't get away with making billions by sticking it to musicians. It's up to us to stand up for ourselves and call it out for what it is: greed and injustice.

That's why I'm proud to be working with musicians across the country to push for what is right and fair and also to protect a professional industry that produces the best film and TV music on the planet for these studios. Professional musicians create immense value for these studios and all we are asking is to be paid fairly just like every other creative trade working on the same project. We have the numbers and know the value we create. We're not asking for anything that will put studios out of business.


----------



## rgames (Sep 27, 2019)

patrick76 said:


> It's just bullshit.


It's not BS - countries where workers have the highest standards of living have much freer markets than those where the markets are more tightly controlled by governments (or mafias...). There's an entire planet's worth of countries that demonstrate that fact.


----------



## rgames (Sep 27, 2019)

JJP said:


> Negotiating this way is far more efficient than trying to negotiate every project individually with every single musician and every single producer.


OK - but using the VFX artists as an example, why is that not an issue for them? They get paid, right? My day job is in engineering and we do this all the time - we put together groups of people to provide products and services that our customers need. We don't have unions for that. The engineering firm provides that coordination.



JJP said:


> That's because it's universally accepted that employers have an inherent advantage over labor because employees rely on their job to eat and care for their families.


I disagree there - that's only true in markets where labor doesn't have alternatives (e.g. in third-world countries). I've never met a musician who can't make a living doing something else, therefore they have the option to quit and do something else. As long as that option exists the market should be free to let that happen.

I'm not trying to be argumentative - I've just been having these discussions for decades and I've never been able to reconcile my feelings about them.

Note, though, that I have spent spent many decades dealing with unions other than the AFM. The same arguments apply. Unions came from the days when people didn't have options (e.g. the midwest meat packers). But those days are gone in countries with developed economies. Developed economies are diverse enough and people's skillsets are diverse enough that (nearly) everyone has options. And for those who don't we have government programs to help them into other options. Third world countries are, of course, a different story and need different protections. I'm in LA about once a month and LA is defintely not a third-world country.

rgames


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Sep 27, 2019)

rgames said:


> It's not BS - countries where workers have the highest standards of living have much freer markets than those where the markets are more tightly controlled by governments (or mafias...). There's an entire planet's worth of countries that demonstrate that fact.



Not to veer too far into Drama Zone territory, but this statement needs a lot of asterisks. Yes, dictatorships are generally not going to produce countries with high quality of life. That being said, the correlation between economic freedom and overall human development / standard of living is often loose at best.

Let's look at the Heritage/WSJ-created Index of Economic Freedom vs. Human Development Index, which amalgamates income per person with health + education to determine overall standard of living.









List of sovereign states by economic freedom - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org












List of countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





You said higher standards of living correlate to freer markets, so let's look at the top 5 highest HDI rankings.

#1 Norway: #31 in the Index of Economic Freedom
#2 Switzerland: #5 in the Index
#3 Australia: #3 in the Index
#4 Ireland: #11 in the Index
#5 Germany: #19 in the Index

I don't think that's the strongest case. Sure, countries like Switzerland and Australia happen to have a high standard of living and relatively free economies (_side note: despite having universal health care!_) but the other three have much higher HDI than their economic freedom would indicate, if your statement were correct.

There are quite a few other "outliers" if you continue look at both lists. For example, Chile is #7 in economic freedom, but #44 in HDI. Mauritius is #8 in EF, #65 in HDI. Bahrain is #12 in EF (just under America!), #43 in HDI.

Point being... it's not a slam dunk correlation at all.


----------



## Dex (Sep 27, 2019)

rgames said:


> Here's where I always have trouble when these discussions come up: doesn't the market have the right to determine what it's willing to pay?



Sure, if you let the market of individual musicians and individual companies dictate everything, eventually a stable equilibrium will be found.

There will be a lot of pain along the way, though.

FWIW I agree with you that the royalty model is terrible and needs to die.


----------



## JJP (Sep 27, 2019)

rgames said:


> I've never met a musician who can't make a living doing something else, therefore they have the option to quit and do something else. As long as that option exists the market should be free to let that happen.



As the LA Times article hinted, John Williams, Randy Newman, and Dianne Warren don't see this the same way.

I and most of the people I know don't want to see Hollywood musicians and the quality of work they create disappear because they are forced to do different jobs. Even those of us who don't do this professionally, or haven't gotten there yet, want that standard to be there. It inspires us. It gives us a goal. It reminds us just how great we can be.

The bottom line is that we have to decide what kind of world in which we want to live. We can't have professional film musicians without professional wages. If any of us are willing to see our careers, those of our colleagues, a thriving industry, and perhaps even our dreams be destroyed because of some short-sighted business trend; we all have the option to sit on our hands and passively watch the free market take its course.

Instead musicians are exercising their collective power within that market to push for fair wages commensurate with the value we create. The is nothing anti-free-market about demanding proper pay. That's exactly how the market works, and that's what we musicians are doing. We are doing this for ourselves and our colleagues. The initial petition that started this was signed by over half the working studio musicians in Hollywood in just the first few weeks.

As I've mentioned above, there is a website for this campaign, http://www.bandtogetherafm.org (#BandTogether). I ask anyone who believes in Hollywood musicians to check out the site, and sign up for emails or watch the site for more info. There are some big announcements coming on this front. There will even be opportunities to come out and actively take part in some actions.

If you are wondering what you can do now to exercise your power within this market, you can start by being informed and spreading the news about what's going on (share, post, tweet, discuss). Heck, now you can even put a #BandTogether frame on your Facebook photo to raise awareness.

Support the music and musicians that cause most of us to be in this forum in the first place, and make sure that music is there in the future. Be an active part of the market and shape its future. That's the future market in which we will all create, work, and dream.


----------



## JJP (Sep 27, 2019)

rgames said:


> OK - but using the VFX artists as an example, why is that not an issue for them? They get paid, right?



Oh my, you obviously haven't followed the horrible situation that has developed in the VFX world with people being overworked, underpaid, VFX houses shutting down after unknowingly being pitted against each other by studios, and more. It's been a bit of a bloodbath over the last several years.

Definitely not something we want replicated in the music end of things.


----------



## Ivan M. (Sep 28, 2019)

zircon_st said:


> Human Development Index



Looking at the index of my country, and knowing how it really is, makes this metric laughable (and tragic at the same time).



zircon_st said:


> it's not a slam dunk correlation at all.



It is. It's a historical fact. Without money, all this ,,satisfaction" index thing goes out the window.
Controlling the market certainly does make some people happy now, but that doesn't mean it's good in the long run.

I also find it ironic that people complain about losing money, and then expect rules to make other people lose money.

I know it's frustrating, but huge supply equals low prices, that's the law of nature, and that's just how it is.


----------



## sinkd (Sep 28, 2019)

rgames said:


> The cognitive dissonance remains.
> 
> rgames



I agree.

Part of this fight is about fair, ongoing, residual compensation for work already produced. How is it about forcing anyone to hire someone else? I think you are veering off into a different argument, but with that said, I don't think that anyone in the business should be obligated to provide a career for someone just because they say that they want it.

The streaming platform will provide ongoing income for the producers of content foreseeable future and everyone whose work contributed to that and whose original interest included residuals should continue to enjoy that at a fair and comparable rate.

Also, since you do not seem to be fundamentally opposed to minimum wage laws in principle as a balancing force, then you understand that the free market, unrestrained, eventually leads to exploitation of those with little power by those with lots of money already.

DS


----------



## AEF (Sep 28, 2019)

Composers create a type intellectual property that can last for decades. Every time Avengers is on TV we hear said IP, and Clorox and Verizon and on and on pay for the right to play it.

The money paid out, in part, should go to those who created the intellectual property. 

Comparing this to a plumber is asinine, and instead should be compared to a patent holder for a piece of plumbing equipment. There can be no argument made that composers should be earning residual payments for their original creations.

The session musicians, however, could be given a significantly higher up front fee, in exchange for residuals. I say this bc the networks ultimately try to stiff us anyway. I’m currently two years off of a tv show that NBC refuses to pay late penalties on. But we are talking huge up front increases.

Im sorry but if someone feels it’s ok for passive mouse clicking shareholders to get higher dividend payments at the expense of musicians, what are you really pursuing music for?


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 28, 2019)

JJP said:


> The bottom line is that we have to decide what kind of world in which we want to live. We can't have professional film musicians without professional wages. If any of us are willing to see our careers, those of our colleagues, a thriving industry, and perhaps even our dreams be destroyed because of some short-sighted business trend; we all have the option to sit on our hands and passively watch the free market take its course.


This is the crux of the issue. It’s certainly fair to look analytically at markets and business/labor relations et.al., but this is a giant cultural issue. It won’t just potentially result in lesser quality music but will reach down into music education as well. When a job market declines, so does the numbers of people who would prepare themselves for it educationally. In the case of the orchestral player, this would be a loss not just to music industries, but also cities, towns, schools and the family home. Parents could go from encouraging to discouraging serious study if the job market narrows to just symphony orchestras. Smaller, local orchestras would also be affected by a smaller pool of experts to draw from as well. There could also be an untold cascading effect in other areas: mentoring of young musicians by film professionals (which is abundant) for example. Many film players teach outright also. It would be a tremendous loss to the community to be without them.

Indeed, we have to decide as a society whether we love the rich sound of the modern opera that is film, or whether we’re done with it. And not just that but even the local high school orchestra, if the conscious and subconscious of parents and children is no longer going to be fed the rich diet that is still being piped through tv’s and ear buds.

I don’t think this is a weather-able storm. Losing a high level art form that is a daily part of a nation’s experience should be responded to as the crisis that it really is.


----------



## rgames (Sep 28, 2019)

JJP said:


> Oh my, you obviously haven't followed the horrible situation that has developed in the VFX world with people being overworked, underpaid, VFX houses shutting down after unknowingly being pitted against each other by studios, and more. It's been a bit of a bloodbath over the last several years.


No I'm not familir with the goings-on in the VFX world but what you're describing sounds like "competition.'' Which is perfectly fine. Boeing and Airbus do the same along with their customers like Delta and American Airlines. No industry has the right to be protected from competition and failure (most businesses fail), so long as it is fair. But that's the issue I have with the union: it's not a fair market.

To wit: I gigged all through my 20s and early 30s but I couldn't get many gigs because they were controlled by the union. I had the chops, so shouldn't I have the opportunity to play those gigs? The asnwer was "no - join the union." That's anti-competitive. It's a mafia.

Certainly musicians have every right to organize themselves however they see fit. But the fundamental issue is that I think they've abdicated too much power to the union. As I said, I've lived in both the music world and the engineering world and one of the fundamental differences is the fact that musicians rely too much on other people to represent their interests. Engineers don't have a union. Nor do doctors or lawyers or any number of high-paying jobs. In those professions there is nobody else to look after you, and yet they're highly paid. The AFM argument always seems to be that such a situation cannot exist - well, it does. A musician is as much a professional as a doctor or lawyer or engineer, so why does a musician need an entirely different approach to the labor market?

As long as we keep educating musicians that they need to rely on the AFM and not themselves then we're continuing the cycle of dependency. The AFM loves that, I'm sure, but I'm not convinced it's the best thing for musicians. It probably was 50 years ago. But times have changed.

Again - I'm emotionally with my fellow musicians. But I can't match that emotoin with logic. When I discuss with someone and that argument comes up I have to capitulate that I don't have a good answer. And even after decades of discussion I still haven't seen one. Hence the continued cognitive dissonance...

rgames


----------



## rgames (Sep 28, 2019)

AEF said:


> Composers create a type intellectual property that can last for decades.


So do VFX artists. Do VFX artists get royalties?

I go to art museums all the time. Do I need to drop a quarter in a slot every time I look at a painting?

There are plenty of examples of artists who generate IP that lasts for decades but who do not collect royalties. Musicians can do the same.

And very few patent holders get royalties - it goes to the people who pay their salaries. If you work at Apple or Google or Boeing or wherever the company owns the IP you generate. They pay you up front in exchange for the IP you generate. Musicians can do the same.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Sep 28, 2019)

Dave Connor said:


> lesser quality music


This is another part of the argument I struggle with - who gets to decide what "quality" is? My guess is that mine is in line with yours. But does that mean we should force our preferences on everyone else? No, I don't think so.

The studios sell a product to their consumers. If those consumers are fine with the product that is produced using lesser musicians, then isn't that OK? I certainly wish that weren't the case, but what if it is? Again, should anyone have the right to dictate "quality" in music? Or should we just let people decide for themselves?

rgames


----------



## JJP (Sep 28, 2019)

rgames said:


> A musician is as much a professional as a doctor or lawyer or engineer, so why does a musician need an entirely different approach to the labor market?



Your question and some of your positions are based on assumptions that incorrectly simplify how employment works in the film and TV industry. They also ignore some points of the explanations I gave earlier such as the efficiency of collective bargaining. I don't want to derail this thread by engaging in circular discussion. If you'd like to PM me we could take this up when I have time for a discussion that would undoubtedly have to be VERY complex and technical.


----------



## rgames (Sep 28, 2019)

JJP said:


> Your question and some of your positions are based on assumptions that incorrectly simplify how employment works in the film and TV industry. They also ignore some points of the explanations I gave earlier such as the efficiency of collective bargaining. I don't want to derail this thread by engaging in circular discussion. If you'd like to PM me we could take this up when I have time for a discussion that would undoubtedly have to be VERY complex and technical.


Apologies if I missed something - I don't think I did. But this is how the conversation ends every time I have it: "It's too complicated."

But that's part of the issue: I still don't understand why the musicians' labor market is any more complicated than any other labor market. I deal with labor all the time, both on scales similiar to what musicians and studios deal with and on scales vastly larger. But the musicians' labor market is always too complicated for me to understand...!

Alas.

rgames


----------



## AEF (Sep 28, 2019)

rgames said:


> So do VFX artists. Do VFX artists get royalties?
> 
> I go to art museums all the time. Do I need to drop a quarter in a slot every time I look at a painting?
> 
> ...



VFX artists dont create the concept or content. The director and writers do. And those people get royalties. They order what is needed and the VFX folks brilliantly make it come to life. Its an incredible skill.

The director and writers however do not tell composers what chord to use, what melody to play, what tempo and time signature.


----------



## Greg (Sep 28, 2019)

tsk said:


> Streaming is the end of most music being a worthwhile career. I know very well established composers who are looking at 90% cuts to their royalties. I'm considering looking for jobs at the moment.



Streaming can also create careers out of thin air. I would be nowhere near where I am today without Youtube.


----------



## dgburns (Sep 28, 2019)

@rgames I can respect your opinion, but I have to respectfully disagree. You have no idea just how strongly I disagree with your position. Partly because I made a living writing music for broadcast and the resids were always a big part of my motivation.

peace out bros'


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Sep 28, 2019)

Ivan M. said:


> It is. It's a historical fact. Without money, all this ,,satisfaction" index thing goes out the window.
> Controlling the market certainly does make some people happy now, but that doesn't mean it's good in the long run.



Other indexes show the same thing, for example indexes of life expectancy, average education, etc. Even if you JUST look at pure per-capita GDP, it still frequently does not match with economic freedom.









List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





e.g. Norway is #3 in per-capita GDP, #31 in economic freedom.
Iceland is #5 in per-capita GDP, #23 in economic freedom.
Qatar is #6 in per-capita GDP, #27 in economic freedom.
Hong Kong is #15 in per-capita GDP, but #1 in economic freedom.

See what I mean?


----------



## Ivan M. (Sep 29, 2019)

zircon_st said:


> Other indexes show the same thing, for example indexes of life expectancy, average education, etc. Even if you JUST look at pure per-capita GDP, it still frequently does not match with economic freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All those are in the top percentile of economic freedom and GDP.

You gave Norway as an example - 31 (economic freedom) / 195 (countries in the world) = 0.16, that's top 16% of the whole world.





__





Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom


Country rankings based on economic freedom. World and global economy rankings from the Index of Economic Freedom are published by The Heritage Foundation.




www.heritage.org


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Sep 29, 2019)

Again, obviously countries with despots, monarchs, dictatorships are not going to fare well no matter what. But you can't honestly be suggesting the economy and government of a country like Norway is similar to Hong Kong? HK is about as free market as you can possibly get, while Norway (and other Nordic countries) has an enormous social safety net, welfare, subsidized education etc.

My point in bringing this up is to say that there isn't an inherent natural law that all regulation is always bad, and all free markets are always good. Clearly the Nordic countries are a good example, as they have ample government programs that touch many parts of citizens' lives, and yet their quality of life / standard of living is extremely high.


----------



## Ivan M. (Sep 29, 2019)

zircon_st said:


> Again, obviously countries with despots, monarchs, dictatorships are not going to fare well no matter what. But you can't honestly be suggesting the economy and government of a country like Norway is similar to Hong Kong? HK is about as free market as you can possibly get, while Norway (and other Nordic countries) has an enormous social safety net, welfare, subsidized education etc.
> 
> My point in bringing this up is to say that there isn't an inherent natural law that all regulation is always bad, and all free markets are always good. Clearly the Nordic countries are a good example, as they have ample government programs that touch many parts of citizens' lives, and yet their quality of life / standard of living is extremely high.



Nordic countries have a free market capitalist economies. Their economies were overly regulated in the past, and that's when they were poor. Now, given a healthy economy, they can afford social programs. They are also rich in natural resources, oil and gas.

No one said just any regulation is bad, obviously for anything to work you need to have life, property and contracts respected and need a judiciary system. When we say free market, we mean free from government intervention, because gvt management is always inefficient. Also, economic coercion is immoral. It's only natural and fair to be able to do business and collaborate with other people, without a 3rd party interfering and forcing you into it's own agenda.

--- 

Not to derail the thread any further, it's great if professional musicians can push for higher prices, that's completely between them and the client paying them. But I doubt that will happen, simply given the huge supply. The supply seems much greater than the demand, and so prices go down.

You need to put yourself into a position where you are able to deliver a better product, a better service (think soft skills) AND be known for it. Not an easy task, at all, with so much talent around.
In case you are, you don't even have to ask for more money, people just give it to you.


----------



## rgames (Sep 29, 2019)

zircon_st said:


> Clearly the Nordic countries are a good example, as they have ample government programs that touch many parts of citizens' lives


OT - but, yes, they have large social safety nets, but they're still very much capitalist (even the Prime Minister of Denmark corrected Bernie Sanders when Sanders said Denmark is socialist). You can have both. Government is an option in any market. But if it becomes the only option then that's not capitalism - it's a monopoly or dictatorship (depending on how you look at it).




Also, the Nordic countries have extremely high low- and middle-class tax rates. Many in the middle class pay the government for a lot of services. And that's fine. If people find good value in paying the government to do that then that's great. But it should never be the only option. As soon as government is the only option you lose the benefit of competition and things get worse (as has been demonstrated countless times over the course of human history). (To bring it back on topic - that's also the issue with the AFM - they pressure everyone to make themselves the only option).

As another side note, American politicians who tout the Nordic countries always forget that part about extremely high taxes for the middle class. In the US it's "We'll give you the Nordic way of life but you don't have to pay for it." That's a recipe for economic disaster.



rgames


----------



## InLight-Tone (Sep 29, 2019)

"He knows changes aren't permanent, but CHANGE is!", those who can SURF will find a WAY/WAVE to survive...


----------



## rgames (Sep 29, 2019)

dgburns said:


> @rgames I can respect your opinion, but I have to respectfully disagree. You have no idea just how strongly I disagree with your position. Partly because I made a living writing music for broadcast and the resids were always a big part of my motivation.


Yeah I get it. Residuals are *one* way to make money. But they're not the *only* way. In fact, for most professions, they are *not* the way and I still have never seen a convincing argument that explains why they are required to make a living as a musician and/or composer.

I certainly understand the resistance to changing a way of getting paid - it affects incomes and families and retirements and nearly all aspects of life. But I think the sooner we do it the better. 

Better to shape the future than fight for the past.

rgames


----------



## patrick76 (Sep 29, 2019)

InLight-Tone said:


> "He knows changes aren't permanent, but CHANGE is!", those who can SURF will find a WAY/WAVE to survive...


I don't know if I agree with or fully understand the implications of your quote in this context, but, as a Rush fan, just wanted to note I got your reference!


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Sep 29, 2019)

@Ivan M. and @rgames - You guys are moving the goalposts. @rgames originally wrote that countries with "much freer" markets have a much higher standard of living. I pointed out, clearly and with statistics, that it's not even close to a 1:1 correlation and in fact there are countries with very free markets but comparatively low or middling standards of living. Likewise there are countries with extremely high standards of living, but who are comparatively not nearly as free as others (and not even in the top 20). Those are the facts. 

This is relevant here because if your only argument against unions is that they're "anti free market", well, that sort of falls apart if it's provable that free markets aren't inherently good and that there are many ways we might modify them to produce an overall better result for the country.

Note how the Nordic model also has much higher union membership than the US does.



> Yeah I get it. Residuals are *one* way to make money. But they're not the *only* way. In fact, for most professions, they are *not* the way and I still have never seen a convincing argument that explains why they are required to make a living as a musician and/or composer.



I think the argument is that there is extensive historical precedent for musicians being paid royalties when working on feature projects, the infrastructure for gathering, calculating, and paying them is well-established, and they are extraordinarily valuable in sustaining a career that generally does not involve salaries or 40-hour workweeks. Royalties are also extremely common throughout the music industry - not just in situations like this - but for artists, performers on records, publishers, songwriters, etc etc etc. So to me, it's obvious why people are fighting for them.

With all that said, my view is that the AFM will have to make a compelling marketing/sales pitch for why their musicians and their services are *so good *that they are worth hiring over, say, musicians in London, Vienna, Berlin, Sidney, etc., where (to my understanding) royalties are not common.

This also does circle back to the topic of safety nets. One might say that musicians in other countries are effectively subsidized (to a degree) by government because of those safety nets. Here, we have to worry far more about things like health care, higher education, child care, and transportation costs than musicians in other countries might.


----------



## dgburns (Sep 29, 2019)

rgames said:


> Yeah I get it. Residuals are *one* way to make money. But they're not the *only* way. In fact, for most professions, they are *not* the way and I still have never seen a convincing argument that explains why they are required to make a living as a musician and/or composer.
> 
> I certainly understand the resistance to changing a way of getting paid - it affects incomes and families and retirements and nearly all aspects of life. But I think the sooner we do it the better.
> 
> ...



@rgames So the thing is, the whole film/tv industry is built on financial and legal structures that go back quite far. New models of distribution are slowly being factored into the language, and it’s been a case of the legal aspects trying to keep up.
The issue with the music rights is troubling because everyone else (producers, writers, actors, unions) seem to have managed to successfully navigate the recent disruptions mostly intact. 
Actors, especially lead performers will often have their resids offered to them upfront as a fee ‘top up’ in their contracts. Obviously, they don’t collect any new ones until the advance in fully recouped. Point being that the idea of resids is alive and well for actors and writers. Some times, a lead actor will be offered Executive Producer title, as a means of gaining a percentage of profit. These monies can be long lived and lucrative given the right production.

So what is the difference? 

Well, imho, the difference is leverage, and musicians simply don’t have any. 

Hence the frustration at the present situation. 

The notion of music as a service with no residual value is denouncing the intrinsic value of music from a legal sense. The legal precedence that music indeed has intrinsic value worth residual revenue comes from a time when musicians were considered authoring and adding to the value of the production in such a significant way as to be included in the profit from the production’s success.

I realize I’m not going to convince you or sway you in any way about this. I suspect you never made much from resids, so it may not be a position you are very sympathetic with. In my case, I made far more from the back end then I did upfront, and that framed my thinking when approaching future projects. So much so that I would carefully gauge the back end prospects of a potential show while assessing fee and expenses associated with that show.
It is not uncommon for composers to pitch for larger projects and invest sometimes fairly large amounts in a bid to gain the gig. The upfront fee may be ‘ok’, but the real prize is in the backend. With this aspect reduced or gone, unless ownership profit percentage or some other means of ‘skin in the game’ consideration, my motivation is reduced to simply walking away (because everyone one else ‘above the line’ is walking away with wealth)

peace out again brother


----------



## cmillar (Sep 29, 2019)

A solution?

Hey...destroy all computers and sound/sample/VI libraries in the world.

Create a situation in which you have to use real living humans to create music.
Maybe only hardware synths allowed.. no soft synths or loop/‘paint-by-number’ libraries.

What’s the matter with humans being as musically proficient as possible and pushing the boundaries of instrumental performance to help celebrate what humans are capable of doing?

What’s the matter with having composers create NEW art music for film...a medium with so much potential to help foster creativity and peace and brotherhood throughout the world? (...really...look at the shit coming out of Hollywood)

Oh yeah...the problem is greed... corporate bean counters who wouldn’t know art or music if it hit them in the nose... uneducated “producers” who have grown up with stuff like GarageBand and FruityLoops and think they’re artists...consumers around the world who these days don’t even know what live music sounds like....lack of music in the school systems for most students in major “western world” countries....

It’s a sad state of affairs. And sadly, you could replace most generic sounding film soundtracks these days with orchestral sample libraries and NO ONE in the audience will know the difference.

Studio musicians in LA are the elite of the elite. Amazing humans. They should be celebrated for being elite...for representing what we’re capable of doing as musicians and instrumentalists.

What an f#&@%* - up situation we’ve all help create...we’re all complicit.

But, yeah... musicians and composers should get paid more upfront money (in light of it really is the end of residuals for the future starting now)

The eternal struggle never ends.


----------



## C.R. Rivera (Sep 30, 2019)

cmillar said:


> A solution?
> 
> Hey...destroy all computers and sound/sample/VI libraries in the world.



Other occupations can then say the same thing about the industries: Print Newspapers, Buggy Whip makers, Phone Operators, Taxi Drivers, etc., etc, and who were at one a dynamic component of society. Who actually makes authentic stone-age tools these days? I can imagine Cavemen and women make the same complainf today, if they were still alive. But, I am certain your comment was tongue in cheek, right?


----------



## Robert Kooijman (Sep 30, 2019)

zircon_st said:


> Note how the Nordic model also has much higher union membership than the US does.





zircon_st said:


> Clearly the Nordic countries are a good example, as they have ample government programs that touch many parts of citizens' lives, and yet their quality of life / standard of living is extremely high.



I'm sorry to rain on anyone's parade, but as someone who lived and worked in many countries, and for the last few years in "Nordic" Sweden, this last statement is sadly no longer valid. Things are going downhill here very fast.

More on topic: we have 3 kids from 15-22. If their view on music, streaming, ownership and willingness to pay is anything to go by, one wouldn't want to be or stay in this business...


----------



## JJP (Sep 30, 2019)

Well this veered quite remarkably off topic.


----------



## cmillar (Sep 30, 2019)

JJP said:


> Well this veered quite remarkably off topic.



Perhaps... but that may be due to the fact that will be no good outcome for the future of our premiere film recording musicians. 

Many ‘big picture’ thoughts naturally come to mind.

Looks like the end of an era, sadly.


----------



## Nova (Sep 30, 2019)

Robert Kooijman said:


> More on topic: we have 3 kids from 15-22. If their view on music, streaming, ownership and willingness to pay is anything to go by, one wouldn't want to be or stay in this business...



This is a huge issue and it rarely enters the conversation. Ease of access leads to a perception of lower value and the next generation has this in spades.


----------



## JJP (Sep 30, 2019)

cmillar said:


> Perhaps... but that may be due to the fact that will be no good outcome for the future of our premiere film recording musicians.
> 
> Many ‘big picture’ thoughts naturally come to mind.
> 
> Looks like the end of an era, sadly.



As someone who participates in the negotiations and is in the room working with the lawyers to make a deal, I don't see doom as an unavoidable conclusion. If the studios do agree to deal with a residual structure for musicians, then there is a bright future. 

Note that the studios have already agreed to a residual structure with the writers, actors, and directors that is similar to what musicians need. The studios also regularly seek to bring other parts of the musicians' agreements in line with those other guilds. This shows that there is a roadmap for a mutually profitable future with the studios. Musicians aren't demanding something unique in the streaming industry. Musicians also aren't demanding anything that will undermine studios' excellent profits in streaming.

So far the studios have been uniquely obstinate and unreasonable with musicians. Perhaps they see the musicians as weaker, and they can use musicians as a way to set a pattern for bargaining with other guilds. Perhaps it's because they are only thinking short-term and not looking at the potential long-term problems for the industry as a whole. Whatever the motivation, this is why musicians need to apply pressure in the marketplace to gain leverage at the bargaining table. We don't want to see our careers die and have a ripple affect across the industry. The loss of professional wages for musicians would likely impact composers as well. We can easily see how this also could undermine other parts of the film industry.

It's a dire situation, and the existence of professional studio musicians is in peril. (Within the music community it's being described as an "existential threat" and an "extinction-level event".) However, the conclusion has yet to be written. What that conclusion will be depends on how all of us, musicians, composers, and others, make it clear that our existence as professionals is not something we are willing see disappear.


----------



## vgamer1982 (Sep 30, 2019)

It has to be said, only the existence of _Los Angeles_ professional studio musicians is in peril. London is almost impossible to book right now, it's so busy. And the studios are being equally obstinate with editors and other parts of post and have been for a while.


----------



## vgamer1982 (Sep 30, 2019)

That's not to say LA musicians aren't worth it or great, they are stunning, but the AFM's weakness is overestimating its position, and really changing nothing whilst every other recording location has upped their game.


----------



## JJP (Sep 30, 2019)

vgamer1982 said:


> It has to be said, only the existence of _Los Angeles_ professional studio musicians is in peril. London is almost impossible to book right now, it's so busy. And the studios are being equally obstinate with editors and other parts of post and have been for a while.
> 
> ...the AFM's weakness is overestimating its position, and really changing nothing whilst every other recording location has upped their game.



Actually, this affects film and TV musicians in NYC, Nashville, and across the USA. If the system is gutted here, it will put significant downward pressure on wages in London, where I believe musicians on average already make less than their LA counterparts.

However, this isn't about work that is going overseas. The studios have already agreed that work covered by this agreement has to be scored in the USA. This is about doing the exact same domestic work we are doing now, but being paid 50%-75% less money for that same work.

What's different about the actions this time around is that the musicians themselves who make up the AFM are driving the campaign because we see what's at stake and understand that we are not being unreasonable in our demands. Even though the situation is dire, it's exciting and uplifting to see musicians across the country working together in a way that hasn't happened in decades.

*To get an idea of what musicians are facing under the current pay system for streaming, here is an example:*

40 instrumentalists and a 40-person choir record a 4-hour session in the USA for a high-budget made-for-streaming show to be shown on a major subscription streaming platform (Hulu, Disney+, etc). The recording all happens in the same studio on the same tracks for the same project using the same score by the same orchestrator and parts prepared by the same copyists. In other words, the only difference is that some musicians in the room are holding instruments and some are singing.

If this project remains on the streaming platform for 8 years, because of the lack of residuals the total pay for each instrumentalist on that session will be a little under 19% of what each of the choir singers are paid. One person in the room will be paid less than one fifth the pay of another person for the same work on the same day on the same project in the same studio.

That's why this is unsustainable and why the fight is happening. This isn't about anyone overplaying their hand. It's about maintaining the ability for instrumental musicians to sustain this as a profession.


----------



## rgames (Sep 30, 2019)

JJP said:


> One person in the room will be paid less than one fifth the pay of another person for the same work on the same day on the same project in the same studio.


Compensation is not proportional to effort in a free market, and that's a good thing because it drives efficiencies into products and services. Likewise, free markets allow the market to express the value it places on other factors - like a preference for vocal music over instrumental music.

I probably spend as much time on a track as, say, Katy Perry. But she gets paid a lot more (a LOT more) because the market has a much stronger preference for her product. The market has every right to express that preference and it does so by voting with its dollars. That's why capitalism and democracy go together so well.

And, at the risk of repeating myself, this is one of the problems I've always had with the AFM, particularly in LA: a lot of their arguments are "You should pay us X just because." That argument only works when you prevent any competition from entering the market (which is their approach, at least it was back when I paid attention - are there still "Black Dates"?).

And I think that's why you see such a different attitude towards the AFM: are the other unions using anti-competitive approaches to maintaining market share? If so then I completely understand the studios' position.

Again, I've been out of the gigging world for a while so maybe my comments are uninformed and way off base. But they're based on experience, both personal and as collected from others.

rgames


----------



## cmillar (Sep 30, 2019)

JJP said:


> As someone who participates in the negotiations and is in the room working with the lawyers to make a deal, I don't see doom as an unavoidable conclusion.



Go man go! I'm with you....(me being a trombone player whose principal teacher had once been a top LA studio cat way back in the day...and as one who has always held the LA brass players in the highest esteem, I've been playing and gigging all these years out here "in the trenches", but trying to always play at high professional standards that are entrenched in my musical DNA from growing up listening to the 'LA sound' my whole life.)

Being a composer/producer as well, I'm always so conflicted about using sample libraries for projects that need to sound a certain way but can't afford to use a studio full of musicians. 

Nothing can replace real people playing instruments....nothing.

It is sad that a lot of libraries though CAN replace a lot of todays heavy, ostinato-laden, 'epic-sounding', film soundtracks that are mostly buried over by sound effects and sound design. 

My plea for all of our futures....

...for those of us composers that are not exclusively doing film/studio/media music, let us all please try to create some art music (in any genre) that will help keep our fellow human beings who play instruments alive and busy.

And we need to educate, sustain, and create more audiences for all our future musical endeavours.

Live music IS life...real breathing human beings ARE life.... real musicians bring life to film scores....

There is a vibrant live music scene in Los Angeles (...and London, Germany, etc. etc. etc) all with amazing musicians playing classical, jazz, theater, rock, etc. music.

Once you get outside a large city, or any relatively large smaller city (especially here in the USA and Canada) there is an incredible lack of live music and culture. Many people in North America have little or zero exposure to any live music (except for some single guitar/songwriters and maybe hearing their own local church choirs or something). 

And in many places there are strong conservative-minded forces that think it's a wise idea to cut music and arts education out of public schools. Sad but absolutely true.

Things are dire, and for those of us that believe that music should be part of our lives (especially here in North America) there is no time to waste. We all have to get busy getting more live music out before the public....paid or unpaid....playing for less than we'd like to make....probably playing for less people than we would like to see come out....

Once you're outside a major center, things are dire. All people want to do is sit at home and watch Netflix or some other streaming channel instead of going out.

We have to want to make them come out somehow.

Or else....


----------



## JJP (Oct 1, 2019)

Official statements of support for musicians and the campaign for streaming residuals have now been released from:

John Williams
Lalo Schifrin
Justin Hurwitz
Richard Bellis
Nan Schwartz
Gernot Wolfgang
There are more on the way. It's exciting to see current composers and legends of the industry coming together.

Statements can be found here: http://www.bandtogetherafm.org/supporters/ (#BandTogether - Supporters)


----------



## dgburns (Oct 1, 2019)

@rgames Well, we’re all in this together whether we like it or not.

But one thing to keep in mind is that deals in film/tv do not reflect the general market force ideology ( as you so eloquently elaborate ). Value is sought from a different perspective, one where attaching an individual to a production increases the profit (potential) of that production. The issue with Hollywood musicians is that they provide a service, are mostly absent from the public eye, and as a result are exposed. Celebrities bring value, and also risk their brand value when they attach themselves to a production. It’s really not free market forces at work. This is a whole different game.

I have really no brand value, so I don’t add value to a production when I’m attached. Not so for some celebrity composers, but mostly composers remain a sideline attraction. The real arena is the stars and sometimes the director and writers. Everyone else had better have a good agent/lawyer or be part of a damn good union if you want to make enough to survive.

imho as always


----------



## JJP (Oct 1, 2019)

The momentum with musicians is continuing to build. Randy Newman now has a wonderful statement of praise and support on the site, and Pinar Toprak is supporting the campaign as well. 

http://www.bandtogetherafm.org/supporters/


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Oct 4, 2019)

@rgames I have a hard time understanding why you think the AFM is "anti-competitive", or otherwise anti-free market. The AFM is saying if you want to work with _these_ musicians, you have to abide by certain terms. The free market absolutely does not entitle employers to work with specific people, and certainly not under whatever terms the employer wants.

You might have a point if the AFM was in charge of _all musicians_, and there were literally no other options. But that isn't true! Not only are there many non-union options outside the US and in pretty much every state, but there are plenty of non-union musicians in LA itself. I've personally worked with a number of fine non-union LA session players and negotiated equitable contracts on a individual basis. Everyone was happy.


----------



## rgames (Oct 4, 2019)

zircon_st said:


> I have a hard time understanding why you think the AFM is "anti-competitive", or otherwise anti-free market


Then you didn't read all of my earlier posts because that is exactly my experience back during my gigging days.

Again, as I also said, maybe that's not the case any longer. Maybe there are no more "Black Dates" where you have to hide your business activities from the mafia - err AFM. But there certainly were in the not-too-distant past. AFM definitely tried to keep competition out of the market.

But I'm repeating myself again... so feel free to read back through the thread.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Oct 4, 2019)

Yeah, they're still happening. And there's even a hotline:





__





Report Dark Dates | AFM Local 47







afm47.org





Read through that page. Does that sound like the AFM is trying to maintain wages by improving the quality and quantity of its services provided by its members? Or do you think that sounds more like they're creating a mafia-type scenario where they control the market?

Judge for yourself.

rgames


----------



## JJP (Oct 4, 2019)

rgames said:


> Read through that page. Does that sound like the AFM is trying to maintain wages by improving the quality and quantity of its services provided by its members? Or do you think that sounds more like they're creating a mafia-type scenario where they control the market?



The hotline allows members to report two basic situations

A "dark date" project that is already covered by an agreement the employers have signed, but they are violating that agreement. You'd probably be surprised how often that happens and the pressure it puts on musicians.
A "dark date" where AFM musicians have been engaged without a proper AFM contract. Reporting the project enables the AFM to attempt to bring the project under contract to secure proper pay and working conditions. It doesn't force the employer to do anything unless they are already obligated. (See #1)
These type of hotlines allow union workers to be able to report issues without fear of being fired. I've personally seen unsafe situations on music jobs where people were afraid to open their mouths because they didn't want to be labelled as "a problem" and jeopardize their future work. That's why they call the union.

It's a double standard to call unions a mafia when workers come together to collectively bargain for their own interests (the AFM), but call it free-market capitalism when multinational corporations do exactly the same thing (the AMPTP).

If you took some time to learn the details of how all this works, I think you would see things quite differently. However I understand you don't work in this field, so I can't blame you for not understanding the subtleties.


----------



## Mike Fox (Oct 4, 2019)

InLight-Tone said:


> "He knows changes aren't permanent, but CHANGE is!", those who can SURF will find a WAY/WAVE to survive...


I wish i was surfing right now.


----------



## rgames (Oct 4, 2019)

JJP said:


> The hotline allows members to report two basic situations
> 
> A "dark date" project that is already covered by an agreement the employers have signed, but they are violating that agreement. You'd probably be surprised how often that happens and the pressure it puts on musicians.
> A "dark date" where AFM musicians have been engaged without a proper AFM contract. Reporting the project enables the AFM to attempt to bring the project under contract to secure proper pay and working conditions. It doesn't force the employer to do anything unless they are already obligated. (See #1)



The pressure that the AFM puts on labor markets is clearly intended to extend well beyond union membership. It's not to the level of sending Rizzo down to bust your kneecaps with a tire iron, but it's not far off. As I said above, that was clearly my experience and anyone can read that web page and judge for him or herself.

Look, I get it. And I support the musicians. But the AFM needs to change its tactics if it wants to stay relevant. The fact that it's being singled out as you describe is a pretty good indicatoin that that's still not happening. Back when I used to get the IM it was a bunch of old white guys telling me whom to vote for, whom to boycott, etc. to maintain the status quo without any acknowledgement of how times were changing and how the AFM was changing with it.

The AFM needs to look in the mirror and do some legitimate self-analysis. And then change. A lot.

rgames


----------



## JJP (Oct 4, 2019)

This whole campaign has been led by contract action teams made up of the musicians doing film and TV work in NYC, LA, and Nashville. That's a very diverse group of people. Every decision has been vetted by the musicians themselves. The AFM is the musicians, and they are looking in the mirror and asking, "How do we protect our careers and preserve the future of our ndustry?"

Of course the AFM would like to make all work union work. That would mean all musicians get fair pay, good working conditions, and benefits commensurate with professional work. I don't know a single professional musician who doesn't want that. 

In fact, we musicians decided early in this campaign that we would reach out to any musician who does work in film and TV, regardless of union status, because we all will be affected by the cut in wages.


----------



## rgames (Oct 4, 2019)

JJP said:


> Of course the AFM would like to make all work union work. That would mean all musicians get fair pay, good working conditions, and benefits commensurate with professional work. I don't know a single professional musician who doesn't want that.



You're again assuming that fair pay, good working conditions, etc can only exist with the AFM in charge. We've discussed that - that position is not supported by evidence from countless other labor markets in developed economies.

50 years ago? Maybe. But not today. Again, the AFM needs to check those assumptions against current realities, not history.

rgames


----------



## NoamL (Oct 4, 2019)

rgames said:


> The AFM needs to look in the mirror and do some legitimate self-analysis. And then change. A lot.



OK... Specifically how? By disbanding? You seem to be against the entire concept of unions on the grounds that they're "anti competition" and not "free market." If you're anti-union I respect your position but don't cloak it under "The AFM needs to reform."

You also make unions sound like a mafia. To the limited extent that I understand it, the major studios have contracted with AFM in broad daylight that they will work with AFM musicians on AFM terms, and AFM members have contracted with themselves in broad daylight that they won't work gigs for a studio, record label or other contractor that doesn't have an AFM agreement. A "dark date" is just a dramatic term for a hiring situation that breaks one of those two contracts.


----------



## NoamL (Oct 4, 2019)

rgames said:


> You're again assuming that fair pay, good working conditions, etc can only exist with the AFM in charge. We've discussed that - that position is not supported by evidence from countless other labor markets in developed economies.



It seems to me that position is supported by evidence from non-union labor markets _in the same industry, in the same country, at the same moment._... isn't it the case that streaming services are asking composers to contractually forego royalties? Heard something about that...


----------



## rgames (Oct 4, 2019)

NoamL said:


> isn't it the case that streaming services are asking composers to contractually forego royalties?


Yes. We addressed that as well.


----------



## rgames (Oct 4, 2019)

NoamL said:


> You also make unions sound like a mafia.


Yes. Addressed that.


----------

