# Why make music for free?



## southnorth (May 20, 2010)

Many producers of indie films say they can't pay. However, the truth is: they know there are so many composers that make music for free, so they utilise the situation. No surprise here. My point is: isn't this practice a little bad? Music does at least 50% of a film. If a composer makes great music for a film she/he should get paid. Making scores are a lot of work. Most film producers are not poor people and can afford to pay at least a symbolic sum.

I know how the scoring business is over-saturated with composers, how film credits work good on the CV, etc. Nevertheless, why work for free on a boring, amateurish film just for a credit? Of course, it would be a different case if the film project is interesting or of high quality (and how often is that?). Why isn't this free-music approach triggering the conscience among film producers? I mean, wouldn't it be rewarding to honor a composer's effort with a payment? (Hehe, sounded a bit strange.) And, how much is a credit on an amateurish film actually worth?

I think film makers must get used to pay for quality music.


----------



## nikolas (May 20, 2010)

There are quite a few issue in your post.

For once, while I live, breathe and shite music I won't accept that music does at least 50% of a film! 

Secondly, it largely depends on the kind of film. A shity student film, won't produce any money and it's good experience, so why get paid? I've done a few freeware computer games, for example and documentaries for a media course. No harm done there, I think.

And it's the opposite of what you're saying. If the film is interesting or of high quality, then it would also be commercialized in which case the composer SHOULD ask for money, but otherwise it's just for experience, for meeting people, networking, credits, etc...

Lastly, the film makers must get used to pay for quality music, but who's to say that everything out there is 'quality music''? I'm so sorry to say this but tons of music out there is vastly away from 'quality music' of any sort. It just seems this way superficially with the availability of stunning tools!


----------



## Narval (May 20, 2010)

"Why make music for free?"

Because that's what you think your music is worth.


----------



## jlb (May 20, 2010)

I can see the point you are making, people are going to take advantage, but that is the way it seems to work. Let's face it the whole thing stinks really. Just keep on learning, keep on improving the music and your skills, and hope for a bit of luck.

Whether music is 50% depends on how good the music is. Is anyone seriously suggesting that say Vangelis Bladerunner is less than 50% of the film, I would say more like 70% of the film.

jlb


----------



## midphase (May 20, 2010)

I'll chime in with my usual nonsense:

Just the other day I had a meeting with a director friend of mine who's been trying me to score his films. The biggest hurdle is that the production company which he works for (and which produces about a feature a month) is only willing to pay $2k for wall to wall orchestral music. I took him through the process, and calculated that at that rate, the music was being paid about $25/minute. I told him that if we factor all of the time spent on the film (meetings, spotting, composing, tweaks and rewrites, mixing, stemming out, delivery, etc.), that there is no way that less than 4 hours are spent on each of those minutes of music....minimum. That comes out to about $6/hour (best case scenario). FYI, as of January 2008, California's minimum wage is $8/hour.

The movies until now have been in the $300k and below range, some even as low as $100k (and yes, those are movies you have heard about and you have probably seen on SyFy Channel).

The reason why I decided to reopen the discussion is because recently, some of their budgets have been creeping up in the over $1.5mil range. One would think that as their overall budget goes up, so does the music right? Nope....music budget on a $1.5mil movie is still $2k believe it or not!

Wanna know why? Because they have a composer who is actually decent who is willing to work for that. If that wasn't the case, they would be forced to up their music budget...simple as that.

So the reason why I bring this up is because we (composers) are excellent at fucking ourselves over by agreeing to do something for free or next to nothing without having a clear understanding of how that affects the bigger picture.

I don't know how desperate one needs to be to work below minimum wage while having specific skills and equipment...my guess is pretty damn desperate. The guy who is doing all these films for dirt cheap is not doing himself any favors either when it comes to his career. Years after he tackled the first one of these films, he's still doing the same crappy low budget films.

One could make the argument that he's getting compensated with PRO checks down the line....unfortunately with this company there really is no guarantee that the films will all end up on the air, in most cases they don't. Plus between finishing a film and getting a check from ASCAP or BMI, over a year could go by....that's a long time to feed on Ramen Noodles and tuna cans!

I it's time we all wise up and stop agreeing to do crap for free or next to nothing...if you gotta work for free....go shoot your own movie! I'm sure you'll find plenty of wanna be directors, editors and DP's willing to work for you for bagels and pizza!


----------



## madbulk (May 20, 2010)

I have my own bit of nonsense on this front that I've spouted before.
If there's only two composers in the world, and the first of them is 2k and the other can't get the guy to unionize, then the second had better hope he works himself to death. In the meantime however, don't blame the production company.
(Kays didn't.)
But personally, I don't blame the first either. His price is his price. He doesn't owe the second anything. That's competition. The first just needs to be a happy man at 2k whether it's by being independently wealthy or by eaten ramen, or by being crazy. 

Wal-Mart put the mom and pops out of business. Lots of nice people, lots of legacy, lots of grandpa's sweat. Lots of poetry. Tough tarts.

The value of music in aggregate is headed toward zero.


----------



## madbulk (May 20, 2010)

And don't tell me the value of GOOD music will remain high. Number of good musicians and composers may remain constant, but better and better tools and internet flattened market exposure lead to greater supply and that is the end of the argument, subtleties aside.

edit: Okay, well, not mine to tell you what to tell me. Tell me whatever you want.


----------



## José Herring (May 20, 2010)

Dunno guys. Times are crazy these days and I've taken some things that I wouldn't have even dreamed of taking before. Not only that but the competition I've gotten goes right straight up to people that have composed and/or orchestrated on major major films.

It's a tough market right now for composers. Got to be smart about it these days and find what you can offer that's different than the next guy. Because you'll be utterly, utterly shocked at who's hangin' around b films these days. Especially since those b films are getting really, really good. Who wouldn't want to score the next District 9, or the next Paranormal Activity.

The times they are a changin'.

Jose


----------



## P.T. (May 20, 2010)

I'm not so certain that the average person hears the difference between good music and not so good music and the producers know that.

There is also the competition from a fairly large number of reasonably talented people who now have access to the tools.

Then there is the fact of the global market. You are not just competing with people in your local are or Country.
A talented composer from China or India or Vietnam can work on a film over the internet for $5-10 per day.
Until global economies are equalized or tarifed this will be a problem.


----------



## midphase (May 20, 2010)

Well, regarding the quality of the music, I think it does depend on the film. Films which are more subtle or have a strong emotional flow need a score which operates on a deeper level than your generic monster eating humans flick.

Regarding the global thing, I still find that directors feel more comfortable dealing with someone in the vicinity. There are always exceptions of course, but I don't know many directors who would feel comfortable dealing with a composer only by phone or e-mail and having to manage time zones differences.


----------



## gsilbers (May 20, 2010)

Still don't know why we aren't getting good royalties from web plays/streaming.


Btw and just to play devils advocate... 
Maybe our music isn't worth that much to begin with :-0

when in history has musicians , exept for a very small few, gotten good money for their work? 

Maybe the music industry bubble broke, a bubble from the 1950s on till mp3s and now with iTunes telling us that our songs are worth about 2 cans of coke. 
Except of course for top selling artists that appear in MTV cribs and letting the world knows musicians don't need money .> :-0


----------



## southnorth (May 20, 2010)

midphase @ Thu May 20 said:


> Wanna know why? Because they have a composer who is actually decent who is willing to work for that. If that wasn't the case, they would be forced to up their music budget...simple as that.
> 
> So the reason why I bring this up is because we (composers) are excellent at fucking ourselves over by agreeing to do something for free or next to nothing without having a clear understanding of how that affects the bigger picture.
> 
> I don't know how desperate one needs to be to work below minimum wage while having specific skills and equipment...my guess is pretty damn desperate. The guy who is doing all these films for dirt cheap is not doing himself any favors either when it comes to his career. Years after he tackled the first one of these films, he's still doing the same crappy low budget films.



This sums it all up. I don't claim that every piece of music made for films is great. On the contrary, I think most isn't that good. However, for those who manage to create high quality scores, why shouldn't they be able to get a decent payment for the job. I know there is a lot of competition, etc. I understand why things are the way they are. That doesn't change the fact that it doesn't seem fair.

Could someone please shed some light on how much a credit in a small student film is worth, considering the music is very good? Because to justify the equation, it should be worth a lot!


----------



## midphase (May 20, 2010)

"Btw and just to play devils advocate... 
Maybe our music isn't worth that much to begin with :-0"

You could make an argument that the music itself is not worth anything. However the time needed to create it is worth something. If a movie producer decides to use library music for a film, they still need an editor of some sort to spend time and make it work. A decent editor will fetch between $50-100/hour and will take between 20-40 serious hours to edit something resembling a score (with lots of compromises). 

So at some point it's not as much of an issue of how much the music is worth, but more how much is the guy who's going to be managing that part of the film worth?

A movie is nothing more than a collection of headaches for a producer. Everything from actors to food is a headache that at some point needs to be addressed by someone. A composer's primary job is to get rid of the music headache for the producer, and that's what he gets primarily paid for. The quality/subtlety/artistic content portion of it is secondary.

So to go back to my original post about the guy who's scoring 80 minutes of music for $2k....I think he's getting paid very low even if all he was doing was editing together library music.


----------



## lux (May 20, 2010)

> "Btw and just to play devils advocate...
> Maybe our music isn't worth that much to begin with :-0"



i share that. 

but at the same time...

80 mins for 2k is ridicolous. But i have a doubt about the guy being "actually decent". Decent in the sense that can play pads? that can manage his finger to play a key from Evolve or Rmx? I think defining the meaning of "decent" in this case is mandatory to paint the picture.

So, how much a 2k/80mins guy is decent?


----------



## Hannes_F (May 20, 2010)

midphase @ Thu May 20 said:


> Just the other day I had a meeting with a director friend of mine who's been trying me to score his films. The biggest hurdle is that the production company which he works for (and which produces about a feature a month) is only willing to pay $2k for wall to wall orchestral music.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



Yeah this is really damaging the art and the business.

I think what composers as a group would need MOST (!!!) nowadays would be a marketing course called "How I can get deals but not by the cheapest price".

Even I could talk a week about that topic, let alone a noted expert. This sort of knowledge should be spread among aspiring composers as wide as any composing technique or sample talk.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (May 20, 2010)

midphase @ 20/5/2010 said:


> Well, regarding the quality of the music, I think it does depend on the film. Films which are more subtle or have a strong emotional flow need a score which operates on a deeper level than your generic monster eating humans flick.



The funny part is that, in my experience at least, the former pay less than half what the later do.


----------



## rgames (May 20, 2010)

Two words: "supply" and "demand"

Same thing happened in the photography world over the last 10 years. Everybody is a photographer now because it takes no special skill to produce the quality that most people demand.

The problem will not go away until the supply dwindles or audiences start to demand better quality.

I don't see anything to be gained by "educating" those who work for free - they already know they COULD get paid. They choose not to - no amount of PR (via a union or otherwise) is going to change that fact.

There are only two ways to solve this problem:

1. *Increase demand*: figure out how to make audiences demand higher-quality music. That will feed back to the producers who will then be willing to pay better wages for better composers.

2. *Reduce the supply*: Ummm.... well, I won't say any more on that one 

The solution lies with audiences, not the composers. I don't understand why we keep devising solutions that "educate" composers. Educate the friggin' audiences!

rgames


----------



## madbulk (May 20, 2010)

rgames @ Thu May 20 said:


> Two words: "supply" and "demand"
> 
> Same thing happened in the photography world over the last 10 years. Everybody is a photographer now because it takes no special skill to produce the quality that most people demand.
> 
> ...



yup. and good luck.


----------



## gsilbers (May 20, 2010)

rgames @ Thu May 20 said:


> Two words: "supply" and "demand"
> 
> Same thing happened in the photography world over the last 10 years. Everybody is a photographer now because it takes no special skill to produce the quality that most people demand.
> 
> ...


----------



## midphase (May 20, 2010)

I dont think that nobody cares, I think it's a complex task that needs to be handled by big boys like ASCAP and BMI and their legal teams. YouTube won't easily turn over money for the sake of being nice...it will take some legal wrangling.

If YouTube gets strong armed into paying out for streaming (besides the ad revenue), studios will have first dibs, then unions, and finally composers.


----------



## gsilbers (May 21, 2010)

midphase @ Thu May 20 said:


> I dont think that nobody cares, I think it's a complex task that needs to be handled by big boys like ASCAP and BMI and their legal teams. YouTube won't easily turn over money for the sake of being nice...it will take some legal wrangling.
> 
> If YouTube gets strong armed into paying out for streaming (besides the ad revenue), studios will have first dibs, then unions, and finally composers.



true.. well right now there is that whole viacom vs youtube lawsuit going on. 


but still, the music side has been very slow....

how long it took the RIAA to take down limewire in court.. 10 years too late!! 
while they sued kids to create terror (and bad press)

all the marketing campaign was done by the big artists.. which backlashed immediately with cartoons of lars ulritch in his mansion pool. 

but i agree that it should be bmi and ascap and the big corporate media companies that should fight it. 
but at the same time, why would sony really invest in fighting it if consumers are buying their hardware (which s more profitable) thanks to illegal sharing and "free" web content. 
for them some money falls one side, but way more is coming in the other side.


----------



## Dan Selby (May 21, 2010)

Youtube does pay to PRS. When their licence was up for renewal recently Google did play hardball, there was a standoff and Youtube stopped showing a load of stuff in the UK (I'm hazy on the details)... but the two sides did come together and negotiate terms on a new licence.



midphase @ Fri May 21 said:


> I dont think that nobody cares, I think it's a complex task that needs to be handled by big boys like ASCAP and BMI and their legal teams. YouTube won't easily turn over money for the sake of being nice...it will take some legal wrangling.
> 
> If YouTube gets strong armed into paying out for streaming (besides the ad revenue), studios will have first dibs, then unions, and finally composers.


----------



## southnorth (May 21, 2010)

gsilbers @ Fri May 21 said:


> (8+years experience)



Puh, I'm in the club. Why eight years? To be a member in my club it's 10+! Hehe.

To the topic; obviously supply and demand are key concepts, but since the quality people want (as you pointed out) is so readily available this only goes one way: music becomes cheaper and cheaper (even free as we see). This is not fair since most of the time it's really hard work to create anything worthy of listening to. And, I assume most here aspire to make quality, not one minute of music in 15 minutes (though not stating any explicit inverse correlation between quality and production time).

My primary occupation is software development. However, I'm currently focusing entirely on music (most for the fun of it)...three more months and it's back to "making" money within the software industry again. I earn so little on music that you guys probably would laugh if I told you (so I won't because this is a serious thread and we can't have humour here, seriously, no jokes). However, I have skills and I think it would be a good thing to make a decent sum if I manage to pull good music up from the magical hat; music that inspires people and makes a difference in their lives.


----------



## adg21 (Sep 21, 2010)

Does anyone else sometimes feel like going to filmmakers forums
"GREAT FILM MAKERS OPPORTUNITY: music production company [me] seeks talented/experienced film maker to write a short film to fit composition. No payment. however this will be excellent experience. All styles welcome. We can't guarantee that we'll get back to you."

edit: "$20 submission fee"


----------



## mverta (Sep 21, 2010)

They still make and sell Ferraris and Lamborghinis. It's a more selective customer base, but the auto manufacturers don't have to make as many cars to make a handsome profit. Of course, to charge that much, you have to have an exceptional product, to attract the elite customers who value it...


_Mike


----------



## anogo (Sep 21, 2010)

I get pretty upset about musicians working for free. I keep meeting folks who "make music for ads/TV/film" who don't actually make any money from it. They all have day jobs and a dream that they'll make money once they pay their dues. Alas, when they start to ask for some $, the ad/TV/film people find other folks to get music from for free.


----------



## adg21 (Sep 21, 2010)

mverta @ Wed Sep 22 said:


> They still make and sell Ferraris and Lamborghinis. It's a more selective customer base, but the auto manufacturers don't have to make as many cars to make a handsome profit. Of course, to charge that much, you have to have an exceptional product, to attract the elite customers who value it...
> _Mike



but the question is, should the other cars be free?


----------



## MichaelL (Sep 21, 2010)

The supply issue has been mentioned several times, in the context of cheaper, high quality tools. But...what about the music schools?

I doubt that there is school, from Berklee, UCLA, and NYU on down to every State run university that doesn't offer a filmscoring curriculum. They're cranking them out without giving any consideration to demand. 

Maybe this forum should be required reading.


----------



## rgames (Sep 21, 2010)

Yes - the music schools are to blame, as well. I posted a note about an audition last week - the salaries were ridiculously low but most of the major conservatories were represented. There are so many kids coming out that they're fighting for a limited number of really crappy gigs.

I think it's a little easier for composers, though, because the quality of music expected of composers seems to be decreasing. Well, maybe a better way to say it is that there are more opportunities for crappy music to make a buck. Not so for musicians: audition repertoire is probably mostly unchanged over the last 50 years or so.

Regardless, though, there are way too many music majors. Actually, I think there are too many people getting college degrees in general, but that's a separate topic.

rgames


----------



## mverta (Sep 21, 2010)

adg21 @ Tue Sep 21 said:


> but the question is, should the other cars be free?



When you're starting out, and you've got no money and no reputation to tarnish, I say do it all, do it cheap (or yes, free)... you gotta get in there. You don't yet have the on-the-job experience to merit more money, you don't yet have your in-the-trenches creative survival skills honed yet, you don't have your brilliant-on-demand toolset honed. Bottom line: you're not really worth much, yet. You may be a bright shining star of potential but you've got no real business talking about money, so live frugal and eat Ramen.


At some point, you have to know your value raises, and you have to raise your expectations of others. Remember: You don't get what you deserve. You get what you accept.

Ultimately, the only way you raise your price is to be worth it, and not accept less. Accept less than you're worth, and you have nobody to blame but yourself. The surest sign of slavery is to have a price and be bought for it. Walk away.

If somebody hires a composer with half your talent for 1/10th the money, you didn't want the gig in the first place; you don't want to work with people who don't value what you do. Creatively and logistically that's a nightmare, depressing, and takes the soul right out of the thing; takes away from it what a lifetime spent doing this can mean. Might as well work at the bank. But should you get into a bidding war to see how cheap you can work to get the gig? Trust me, word of you being a bargain-rate dude will spread quickly.

If you make a Ferrari, sell it for 100k. If you're a Hyundai, then yeah, be prepared to work for pennies and have to do 10,0000 gigs a year to make ends meet, working for people who spent their money on name-brand craft services snacks instead of the music, don't know your value, don't see your contribution as significant, and don't give a shit about quality. 

If it's a young Spielberg you've hitched up with, and he/she needs a favor, repayable in the future when they've obviously hit it big - well it'll be a lot easier to do that freebie if you're already not strapped. In that case, you take the money you've earned, and you invest it.



_Mike


----------



## Narval (Sep 21, 2010)

rgames @ Wed Sep 22 said:


> there are way too many music majors. Actually, I think there are too many people getting college degrees in general


Well, there are too many people getting the flu and then live. It's utterly unnatural.

One step further and I can even say: there are too many people, period. It devalues the man.


----------



## tslesicki (Sep 22, 2010)

Why make music for free? Because it's auto promotion. When you're not a famous composer you need to work hard to make people know you.

In regards of "crappy student films"... Before someone approaches you and says 'Hey, dude, let's score Pirates Of The Caribbean 6!" you need to get some highlight. Nobody starts from the big jobs, you need to do some smaller gigs to:

a) Let people know you
b) Gain contacts (if your student director will be happy, he'll come back. Who knows, maybe one day he will be another Brian de Palma. And if he wouldn't - you'll always have a guy to get job from)
c) Gain experience. Don't under-estimate that, I know that most of us thinks we're great, awesome and 100 times better than HZ but guess what - for some reason people approach Zimmer, not you (even though he's quite expensive, I guess) and his music actually can be listened to. It just sounds good. Don't take it personally, but 90% of compositions posted on the forums just doesn't approach this level.

Besides - not all student films are crap.

So, if I can suggest something... Swallow your pride and do your job. One day you will get payed but you must earn it first.

T.


----------



## tslesicki (Sep 22, 2010)

jlb @ Thu May 20 said:


> Whether music is 50% depends on how good the music is. Is anyone seriously suggesting that say Vangelis Bladerunner is less than 50% of the film, I would say more like 70% of the film.
> 
> jlb



Films are not made for the music - the music is made for films. It has a supportive role, not a leading one.

T.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 22, 2010)

Wow. Where to begin? There is so much on this thread that I passionately disagree with...

I feel like I want to start with jlb suggesting that 70% of the success of Blade Runner was the score. I don't think I've ever read a statement on VI control that is less in touch with reality than this, and I think it informs a lot of the attitudes on this thread. 70%?!!! The score is a classic, make no mistake, but... er... the script? The production design? The direction? The acting? I guess jlb would argue that the rest of the film would be nothing without the score, no matter how good the other elements. Well guess what - if the script were crap, the score would count for precisely zip in the final movie.

What this illustrates is that often composers have not so much an over-inflated sense of their own importance, rather they have a profound lack of appreciation of other disciplines. Perhaps its the isolation, I don't know, but it's hugely unhelpful. I will passionately argue that music can make or break a film (or TV show), that it is a crucial storyteller... but we are one (vital) pillar among many.

This is directly relevant to independent film. There is an immediate problem here in definitions. A $3m movie can be an indie, but so can a $3k movie, and there is a world of difference. Any composer has to look at the whole, and assess whether or not their own modest or zero-paid contribution is worth their time through connections / experience etc. Without question at the bottom end - where thousands of movies are churned out for thousands of bucks each - no-one will be getting paid. And again - there is nothing exalted about the composer here. Will the DP who worked for free be happy that they somehow found $10k for the score?! This actually is a thought experiment more than a real-world example... a true microbudget cannot find $10k for anyone.

I know of which I speak - I made one myself for around £4k several years ago. The attitude is simple - if it costs, you don't do it. You find another way. For most working composers, this will hold no interest. For some, for various reasons, it might. Some may think this is unethical, but even so there's nothing unique about the composer's position in the food chain.

But there's an interesting quirk to this - ironically, the composer is actually the only member of the team who just might end up with any money. If the film is a success in any sense, they will receive royalties - unlike the DP or director. Indeed, Chris Jones (who wrote the Guerilla Filmmaker's Handbook) explicitly makes this point, and he's more experienced in this area than anyone.

So - royalties. It never ceases to amaze me how these are regarded as some kind of irrelevant after-thought. Depending on the gig - especially in TV production - it's perfectly possible to earn huge multiples of even a decent original fee. I know - I'm sure we all do - of composers who have hit 10s, 100s of thousands of bucks for a modest gig that kept on and on, syndicated around the world etc.

This has had an effect beyond composing. I know of a sound dubbing company who agreed to dub an entire HUGE TV production, and score it, entirely for free. FREE. (this story, obviously, strikes fear into the hearts of dubbing companies, and with good reason). Why? Because of pre-sales and distribution agreements with the very experienced production company, and agreement to get 100% of the music royalties, they knew it would more than pay for itself. The critical issue then is one of cashflow.

So, again, it depends on the gig. Are you working for a bunch of chancers? Or are you working for a professional outfit, with actual (not phantom) deals in place where significant royalties are guaranteed down the line? How is your cashflow situation?

Mircrobudget is different to independent is different to TV is different to Hollywood. A smart composer will recognise this, and do their deals accordingly.


----------



## Narval (Sep 22, 2010)

tslesicki @ Wed Sep 22 said:


> Why make music for free? Because it's auto promotion.


Exactly. It's the best way to implant into everybody's heads these two wonderful ideas: (1) that you're the guy who works for free, and (2) that your music is worth nothing even to you.


----------



## tslesicki (Sep 22, 2010)

Narval @ Wed Sep 22 said:


> tslesicki @ Wed Sep 22 said:
> 
> 
> > Why make music for free? Because it's auto promotion.
> ...



I'm afraid I have to disagree. Obviously, nobody would score a blockbuster for free (doh!) but when it comes to student/ indie films there's nothing wrong with doing some 'charity scoring'.
I'm a DP and photographer, not a professional composer and *I'd be happy to help some students*. Free of charge. It's pure gain: you get contacts, you get knowledge and experience, you can get noticed... In short - it's worth it.


----------



## Narval (Sep 22, 2010)

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. You think they will refuse to take in those two wonderful ideas that you are promoting? You think they will disagree with those two wonderful ideas? Why would they?


----------



## wst3 (Sep 22, 2010)

Why make music for free?

Only one reason I can think of... you want to be part of the project. The project, whatever it is, is just so compelling that you want to be part of it. It might be a for-profit project, and you might get something if it is successful, but that isn't what drives your desire to be part of it. Or it might be a not-for-profit venture where no one will make a dime, and you're ok with that. It's just that cool a project!

There are hundreds of reasons NOT to work for free, and most of my favorites have already been mentioned. Keep in mind that people generally value things based at least in part on what they pay for them. Sad, but true, and true in many areas!

I have no doubt that the marketplace for original music is a mess today. I watched the exact same thing happen to the recording and live sound marketplaces a couple of decades ago.

At the time I had a pretty decent business designing and maintaining recording and broadcast facilities. I had reached the point where I could actually support myself - no mean feat! Then along came the ADAT, and suddenly studios were popping up on every street corner and in every cornfield. These people were charging $15/hour for recording time, and mostly, people were getting exactly what they paid for<G>, but they didn't care. (This was probably the beginning of the glut in the music marketplace, but I did not recognize it as such.)

All of the sudden my hourly rate was many times more than the studio rate - a complete flip! So of course they were not going to pay more for maintenance than they were charging - and forget about proper design! (No exaggeration, I once visited a studio that had copied a Live-End-Dead-End type design from pictures in a trade journal, except they turned it 90 degrees, so that the left wall was dead and the right wall was diffuse, and they seriously wondered why their mixes did not translate well to the rest of the world.)

The same thing has happened to the original music market, except that while supply has skyrocketed, demand has also increased - just not in proportion. And that means that a media producer can get people to work for nothing, or next to nothing, because they can. And you know what... they will!

Don't fall prey... you hurt yourself, and you hurt everyone else working in the field.

It's fine to take an occasional gig on spec. It's fine to even do a project for free if you just have to be part of it. But don't make that your regular approach... you'll spend a lot of time getting rid of the reputation that you work cheap! AND, you make it that much tougher for others to ask for a living rate.

It's fine, in fact I'd say proper, to ask for less if you do not have an impressive demo reel. If you are starting out you can't expect to make what the A-List folks make... that's unreasonable. But that does not mean that you should not value your time and talent, and ask for (expect) a reasonable return for you efforts!

I may never reach the point where I am supporting my family from musical activities alone - it happens to be OK, since I also love the technology side of things (multiple personalities???), but I won't give away my time just to get a credit unless it's a project I just have to be part of... I've done that twice in the last few years, and I was thrilled with the outcome... but it was the exception, not the rule. (And, if you think film and advertising are bad go visit your local theatrical company<G>!)


----------



## adg21 (Sep 23, 2010)

tslesicki @ Wed Sep 22 said:


> Narval @ Wed Sep 22 said:
> 
> 
> > tslesicki @ Wed Sep 22 said:
> ...



I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic here(?) lots of people would be willing to score a feature for free and I bet some people would even be willing to pay for the opportunity. But it would just never happen. I think people forget that filmmakers/directors/producers want to produce the best product possible, they are creative people and just like they wouldn't want to hire an actor that's never acted before, or cinematographer with no credits, nor would they want to do the same with their music. Hiring a good composer is all in the name of making a good film, and no-one wants that film to be better then the filmmaker themselves.

I think the real question is: where do you draw the line? 
So you've scored a few short films, done a few spots here and there, have a few credits, maybe have a website with examples of your work. At what point do you say enough is enough, pay me more - when you think you deserve more or when they think you deserve more?


----------



## jlb (Sep 24, 2010)

noiseboyuk @ Wed Sep 22 said:


> Wow. Where to begin? There is so much on this thread that I passionately disagree with...
> 
> I feel like I want to start with jlb suggesting that 70% of the success of Blade Runner was the score. I don't think I've ever read a statement on VI control that is less in touch with reality than this, and I think it informs a lot of the attitudes on this thread. 70%?!!! The score is a classic, make no mistake, but... er... the script? The production design? The direction? The acting? I guess jlb would argue that the rest of the film would be nothing without the score, no matter how good the other elements. Well guess what - if the script were crap, the score would count for precisely zip in the final movie.
> 
> ...



I can't even remember the script of Bladerunner, there was incredible lighting and cinematography I take your point. But Bladerunner cannot live without the music, it created the whole atmosphere for me. The music can live without the film though. I think it played a HUGE part in the success. If it had been a tedious orchestral score and not the analogue synths, forget it.

jlb


----------



## Narval (Sep 24, 2010)

I think his point was:



noiseboyuk @ Wed Sep 22 said:


> 70%?!!!


And I think he's right and you're wrong. On one hand, this sort of numeric appreciations and percentages are completely meaningless. On the other hand, overlooking the quality of the other elements in a film doesn't make the music any more important for that film's world. I'd say, on the contrary.


----------



## jlb (Sep 24, 2010)

Ok not 70%!

But I know why many people on here are hostile to Vangelis etc. It is because unlike his, their music doesnt work without a picture to support it. There is a lot of stuff around that is as weak as piss at the moment.


jlb


----------



## Narval (Sep 24, 2010)

Oh but that's a magnificent soundtrack! I'm with you on that. It really serves that film. But what really baffles me is how well a synth score works on a non-SF film like Chariots of Fire... 

Vangelis is THE unsurpassed master of synth music. He really knows how to create convincing worlds out of modulated electric signals.


----------



## nsmadsen (Sep 30, 2010)

Simple response: 

I don't think a composer should work for free unless the rest of the crew is all working for free as well. If there's a profit share clause then it should be divided up in a fair and consistent manner. (Side note: profit shares hardly EVER result in... profit!) I have heard of cases where student films pay everyone BUT the audio person and I find that to be completely unfair and unprofessional (even at the student level). 

If the project can pay, even a small amount, then they should make every attempt to do so. If I hear another director say "Hey we're filming on a Red camera! But we can't pay you. Can you start tomorrow?" I'm gonna scream!  

But when making a film usually there's a large team involved so saying _music does at least 50% of a film_ is a bit of a stretch. Editing a film is also very important and when done well can take up a lot of time. What about color correction? Sound design is also important. Depending on the film's footage ADR can play a vital role. Special FX are needed for certain films (like action, horror and Sci-Fi). Props and costumes are kind needed too. Oh and... actors. Good acting can really help make a film more enjoyable.  And what about a script? Lighting? Script/Line manger? Grips? 

Man... as you can see by my rough list there are MANY things that go into a film. Music adds alot, but not 50% in my opinion.

Nate
_
--
Nathan Madsen 
Composer-Sound Designer
www.madsenstudios.com_


----------



## JohnG (Sep 30, 2010)

noiseboyuk @ 21st September 2010 said:


> it depends on the gig. Are you working for a bunch of chancers? Or are you working for a professional outfit, with actual (not phantom) deals in place where significant royalties are guaranteed down the line?



Guy is right. What we charge depends on the gig, both the project (is it for Oxfam / United Way or is it a horror movie) and the people involved. Leaving aside student projects and charity work, which can be great fun, one has to be willing to say "no" or one is toast in any negotiation.

If the composer is, in effect, "investing" in the movie, he or she can ask for a percentage, just like any other investor. 

The filmmakers may be working for nothing, but if the film does well, they can make a lot of money. We should have some upside, and not just royalties, as they are highly unpredictable. If the film airs on a major network in prime time, or will get a theatrical release in, say, Norway (nice royalties!) then fine. But if the project is heading for the Obscure Cable Network, the royalties can be pretty inconsequential, and in any event they are completely uncertain.

It's one thing to be devoted, it's quite another to be so desperate as to commit many weeks of one's time to a film for nothing. 

In short, if it's a commercial enterprise and everyone else is either making money or getting some upside, so should we.


----------



## midphase (Sep 30, 2010)

I believe that if one is a student (or fresh out of school), and is compelled to work on student films to beef up the reel, learn how to interact with others, and experiment with new ideas that is quite acceptable.

The problem comes into play when the free work starts extending into those "post student" indies. At what point does one draw the line in the sand? My opinion is when the end product is geared towards a commercial release and not for a college grade. I think it's ok if the compensation on these first steps for entrepreneur filmmakers is minimal...but it has to be there (and not deferred).

The problems get bigger as these first steps into the indie world are followed with a second and third film where the budget never seems to go up (surprise?) and the composer is asked to continue working for free. By now both the composer and the filmmaker have been out of school quite a few years, and yet the same "student" approach continues. At this stage, the blame rests solely on the shoulders of the composer for perpetuating this situation and (by now) potentially damaging his peers and industry.

The harsh truth (the one that will be lost on a few in this crowd) is that it's extremely rare that a composer's career benefits in the long term (via publicity, impressive credits, or royalties) when working on a project of this type. One might as well count on winning the lottery!

Whenever I hear of a film that has a very low or no music budget, I just know that the film is going nowhere...and my predictions are always confirmed by reality once the film does come out and goes straight to DVD with no publicity whatsoever.

There are exceptions of course, but it's exactly what they are, exceptions.

Anyone who argues that doing work for free has any benefits to the composer beyond the student or near-student world is incredibly naîve and out of touch with reality.


----------



## tslesicki (Sep 30, 2010)

nsmadsen @ Thu Sep 30 said:


> tslesicki @ Wed Sep 22 said:
> 
> 
> > Narval @ Wed Sep 22 said:
> ...



Agreed


----------



## Guy Bacos (Sep 30, 2010)

I'm sure people have heard this many times after the producer has just finished getting you excited about his new film, and then he tells you: The problem is, there's not really a budget for the music".

:evil:


There are different ways of looking at it. You could keep on working for free gaining experience in the film industry, and IF you keep improving, you will soon be able to say: "Well, now you want me, you going to have to pay me". And meanwhile you will have accumulated lots of credits.


----------



## midphase (Sep 30, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Thu Sep 30 said:


> There are different ways of looking at it. You could keep on working for free gaining experience in the film industry, and IF you keep improving, you will soon be able to say: "Well, now you want me, you going to have to pay me". And meanwhile you will have accumulated lots of credits.




You will have accumulated a bunch of inconsequential credits, and when you make the argument to the same filmmaker that he now needs to pay you...he will simply say that he doesn't have the money and go find himself another chump like yourself to squeeze for another few films.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Sep 30, 2010)

Perhaps for some, and others might notice your talent and experience through this.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 30, 2010)

I'm friends with Chris Jones, the author of the Guerilla Filmmaker's Handbook, the mircobudget bible. Terrific bloke. He made a microbudget movie in 1998 called Urban Ghost Story. Rupert Gregson Williams did the score. I don't know 100% in Rupert's case, but everyone I know worked on that movie for expenses only. Of course RGW now has a very successful movie and TV career. Meanwhile, the editor, Eddie Hamilton, recently cut Kick Ass and is currently working on the new X-Men movie. Sadly Chris himself hasn't yet had the break he deserves! (though his recent short, Gone Fishing did deservedly win a quite staggering number of awards and made it to the Oscar shortlist - still rooting for him).

Of course there are many, many timewasters and users out there, but Chris isn't the only guy with integrity (the same year, Christopher Nolan made Following, another UK microbudget movie). If the filmmaker is talented, treats everyone equitably and honorably I say good luck to him / her. It's up to the composer - and every other crew member - to determine the worth of the filmmaker and a microbudget project, to see if it is worth their time.


----------



## midphase (Sep 30, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Thu Sep 30 said:


> Perhaps for some, and others might notice your talent and experience through this.



Are you still coming to LA? If so I think we're overdue for a couple of pints and a reality-check heart to heart talk!


----------



## Guy Bacos (Sep 30, 2010)

midphase @ Thu Sep 30 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Thu Sep 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps for some, and others might notice your talent and experience through this.
> ...



Does this require getting drunk? :wink:


----------



## midphase (Sep 30, 2010)

Absolutely!


----------



## nikolas (Sep 30, 2010)

nathen is very right.

My experience thus far has been of the good kind, almost always (with 1-2 exceptions though). All my free clients, once moving to commercial venues picked me up along the way. Were always very understanding of my situation (studying, working, kids, London, etc). Actually I've had a few having a root position that they work with me, otherwise they won't take the gig (which is a blessing to see and feel!).

My reasoning is this: I could potentially work for free if:
a. Nobody else is getting paid.
b. There's no equipment hired (cause if so, I'd like to hire LSO please).
c. If there's money to be made, I get a % of that.

This is how I started out, in a very strict sense. There is one gig I'm doing for free right now (due to free time), but it's such a nice project, so promising and linked to some great people I've known for many years, so... why not?


----------



## Guy Bacos (Sep 30, 2010)

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here. Some things will be beneficial for some and not others.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 30, 2010)

I just thought of another really good example / story from Chris Jones, who I mentioned in my post above. His last short which won all the awards was shot by Vernon Layton, a veteren DP who's shot many big Hollywood movies. His story is fascinating. He was about to start DPing on CSI – bags packed at the airport, kit all loaded – when he had what was by his own admission a bit of a breakdown. The Hollywood ratrace had caught up with him, and he effectively decided to leave the business.

I think Gone Fishing – for free – was the first project he'd been involved with since, and for no money. Why? Cos he liked Chris, and connected with the script. Does his involvement devalue him in some way? Not remotely. But my God it adds to the movie. Vernon is so proud of it too, and helps promote it at festivals etc, and I know really wants to work with Chris again... which, when Chris' time finally comes, I'm sure it will.

I think the film's budget was £23k, and people only got paid expenses. Is this ethical? Yes, absolutely in my book. It's the most fantastic calling card for everyone. It looks, feels and sounds like a real movie – anamorphic widescreen, state of the art effects, stupendous sound design, a great cast and a cracking story. If Chris had literally done it for nothing, it wouldn't have been a calling card for anyone. I had a very small hand in the script, of course didn't get paid and am dead proud of my involement. OK, it is unsusual for a short to be SO good as this, but still it shows what microbudget can achieve without ripping anyone off.

There are many, many motivations for working for free, and as Nikolas says above, it's actually not just for people on the bottom rung.


----------



## midphase (Oct 1, 2010)

I think this discussion has veered a bit off course. The problem is not sometimes making decisions to work on shorts with unusually good production values (I think we can all agree that Gone Fishing is not your average type of short...nor one that most people would have access to score). Rather we're discussing the problems of composers devaluing their products, especially for non-calling card and feature length projects which add absolutely no potential for future work to one's career.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 1, 2010)

midphase @ Fri Oct 01 said:


> I think this discussion has veered a bit off course. The problem is not sometimes making decisions to work on shorts with unusually good production values (I think we can all agree that Gone Fishing is not your average type of short...nor one that most people would have access to score). Rather we're discussing the problems of composers devaluing their products, especially for non-calling card and feature length projects which add absolutely no potential for future work to one's career.



IMHO it's not veered at all. The question was asked "why work for free" - this is absolutely the answer, or part of it at least.

Gone Fishing was quite unusual, but there's nothing about it that makes it beyond any talented filmmaker with a work ethic, decency and chutzpah. Projects like this ARE around. My point is the composer needs to assess each case. Sure there are sharks and those who will abuse you. I worked for a little while on an Indie recently through a friend on a very nicely made film who needed a composer in a hurry (the pressure was really on despite no cash of course). I did some quick stuff, but it wasn't "real" enough so a borrowed the services of a kind guitarist and it was sounding great.

I never heard from that director again, doubtless someone else in the production got another mate to do it and he never had the common courtesy to tell me. Needless to say I'll never work with him in the future, and neither will our mutual producer friend. What goes around, comes around.

When it comes to a higher level of finance but with no music budget, as I think you're talking about Kays, then that's different again of course.


----------

