# Third project I turn down this year...



## midphase (Sep 28, 2011)

What the hell is going on out there? I've never said "no" to so many projects in my life, and the reason is not because I'm plenty slammed with work, the reason is because the music budgets on those projects are a pittance.

Now...before you start thinking that a "pittance" for me is $50k, think again...I am being asked to compose scores for feature films for $1k or $2k at most!!!

Ok...one more factor to consider...before you start thinking "well...those must be student films" , nope, these are projects with accomplished and famous directors and actors, people whom everyone around here would recognize.

Has music been devalued so much even in the eyes of those accomplished and seasoned professionals that they are perfectly ok asking someone to devote his time and talent for what amounts to less than minimum wage?

What I suspect is happening (from talking with other directors and producers) is that film distributors are informing production houses that they need to lower their budgets in order to be able to turn a profit, so these guys are following the advice and cutting down the budgets, and while I'm sure that the producers fees are hardly being touched, the music departments are being lowballed like crazy.

This is the first time in my life that I have had these many lowballers in a row, thankfully I still work with other people who value what I bring to their films, but it is an alarming trend and one which I suspect will continue to grow.

Sad times!


----------



## madbulk (Sep 28, 2011)

I'm dumbfounded that "projects with ... people whom everyone around here would recognize" can possibly be juxtaposed with "$1k or $2k at most."
Usually I take the road less traveled on these discussions -- the "please stop accepting lowball amounts and contributing to the devaluing of music" threads. And will continue too, despite this.
But wow.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 28, 2011)

That's really depressing. Student films - sure. But not with name actors and directors. Sheesh.


----------



## midphase (Sep 28, 2011)

Yep, I never seen anything like this before in my life. I hope it's just some isolated cases, and I do know that other composers (including myself) do get respectable offers. But I'm hearing about more and more of these name projects with insanely low music budgets coming from more than one source and it's scary.


----------



## rgames (Sep 28, 2011)

Do you know what the total budgets were and, more importantly, who else was getting screwed? Definitely not a working wage. I've done shorts with no-names for about that much.

Sounds like these guys are testing the waters to see how low they can go and still get something. Honestly, my guess is that they'll find someone to do it, though probably not someone with a decent credit list.

rgames


----------



## José Herring (Sep 28, 2011)

midphase @ Wed Sep 28 said:


> Yep, I never seen anything like this before in my life. I hope it's just some isolated cases, and I do know that other composers (including myself) do get respectable offers. But I'm hearing about more and more of these name projects with insanely low music budgets coming from more than one source and it's scary.



Yes it happened to me a few years ago and I've pretty much bolted on the idea of doing low budget films. Turning into a ridiculous waste of time. I was at a party with some film and tv stars and there was this filmmaker there boasting about how he can now make a film for 25k. I said that's absurd and why would he want to do it, that's not even a good music budget. He went on to talk about digital downloads and how the "big screen" is dying and blah, blah, blah. 

It's funny when I was starting out, I worked with all these young broke ass film makers and all we talked about was getting millions to do films. Now I go to parties with all these pretty well off old farts and they're talking about making films for 25k. WTF. Why would you even bother?

In the end you have to decide what you really stand for and for me I can't stand behind an industry that's just trying to go as cheap as possible. So for me I'm exploring different avenues to go down and leaving the low ball scum bag film world behind. No more films for me unless the right kind of project comes a long with money and a budget for live players. 

The sad thing is that low budget film was a good way to work your way up the ladder. Now I don't think that that's the case anymore. You can get way stuck doing those little films because you start thinking that 5k is better than nothing. But after doing a few of those I realized that 5k is nothing when you're scoring a film. In your case 1 or 2k? You might as well be paying them.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 28, 2011)

josejherring @ Wed Sep 28 said:


> I was at a party with some film and tv stars and there was this filmmaker there boasting about how he can now make a film for 25k. I said that's absurd and why would he want to do it, that's not even a good music budget. He went on to talk about digital downloads and how the "big screen" is dying and blah, blah, blah.



See, I might be wrong but that sounds different. If it's a new indie filmmaker / chancer self-financing a microbudget production, I don't have a problem with it at all - good luck to him. Everyone has to start somewhere, and as long as people are upfront then that's fine.. most people will be doing jobs way above their usual post, and that's the name of the game. My problem comes if this is a studio production, even a small one, with name actors and / or director.

There's a huge difference in my book between microbudget (circa $10-20k budget) and low budget (between $0.5m and $5m) which is a full production but on a modest scale. I think Kays is describing that sort of a production... and $1k - $2k for that is horrific.


----------



## jlb (Sep 28, 2011)

This is the reason that 99% of the music around is shit. You pay peanuts you get monkeys.

jlb


----------



## Daryl (Sep 28, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Wed Sep 28 said:


> There's a huge difference in my book between microbudget (circa $10-20k budget) and low budget (between $0.5m and $5m) which is a full production but on a modest scale. I think Kays is describing that sort of a production... and $1k - $2k for that is horrific.


The budget is only $1k-2k if some mug agrees to do it for that. If not, then it will be increased until someone accepts. If the Producer/Director are happy with students and hobbyists scoring the film, then I think a legitimate professional composer should feel lucky to have escaped. :wink: 

D


----------



## José Herring (Sep 28, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Wed Sep 28 said:


> josejherring @ Wed Sep 28 said:
> 
> 
> > I was at a party with some film and tv stars and there was this filmmaker there boasting about how he can now make a film for 25k. I said that's absurd and why would he want to do it, that's not even a good music budget. He went on to talk about digital downloads and how the "big screen" is dying and blah, blah, blah.
> ...



He wasn't some new indie film makers. Just a crappy one. But with hits in the past.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 28, 2011)

jlb @ Wed Sep 28 said:


> This is the reason that 99% of the music around is shit. You pay peanuts you get monkeys.
> 
> jlb



Treu. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.


----------



## rgames (Sep 28, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Sep 28 said:


> jlb @ Wed Sep 28 said:
> 
> 
> > This is the reason that 99% of the music around is [email protected]#t. You pay peanuts you get monkeys.
> ...



I don't think it's that simple. Are you saying that quality of music is proportional to the dollars spent on it? I don't agree - there's a trend, sure, but I'd be hard pressed to agree that you can always relate dollars spent to quality of music.

There are lots of big-budget scores that I think are very bad. Likewise I've heard lots of really good music written for very little money.

After all, what percentage of your favorite composers lived their lives mostly broke? I don't actually know but I'm guessing it's a pretty significant percentage in my case.

rgames


----------



## midphase (Sep 28, 2011)

I should add some info to this discussion. On this particular recent project that wants to pay crap for music, apparently they had hired a fairly accomplished TV composer who had agreed to their piddly ass budget. This is someone with substantial credits working on very well known TV shows who apparently felt a need to say "yes" to a music budget which I don't think would be adequate for a student film. As it turns out, now the "big name" composer is apparently too busy to finish the film, so that's when they approach me (and have the balls to ask me to work for even less because they already spent half of their music budget on the other guy).

I think we're doing it to ourselves, I'm walking away from it...but I really wish that the first guy hadn't agreed to it in the first place since he was the first one to lower the bar for cost of professional scoring in the eyes of the producers!


----------



## midphase (Sep 28, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Sep 28 said:


> Are you saying that quality of music is proportional to the dollars spent on it? I don't agree - there's a trend, sure, but I'd be hard pressed to agree that you can always relate dollars spent to quality of music.




Richard,

What he's saying is that composers (pro guys at least) agree to work on these crap paying jobs, and then either are forced to put in the least amount of time possible, or hand it off to their assistants to do all of the composition. It's the true reality of what this business has turned into.

There are some instances where a very artistic film will have funding issues and a composer will come on board and really give it the attention that it deserves...but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about films which are first and foremost created for commercial appeal and limited artistic intent.


----------



## jlb (Sep 28, 2011)

Hi there, no money doesn't automatically equal quality of course not. But something is wrong. All my favorite scores were composed 20, 30 years ago. Most things sound 'throwaway' today. This is a craft like any other craft, I would expect a fine carpenter or stonemason who has learned his craft over many years to be rewarded accordingly. Why should this be different? I suspect because people want music that 'will do' rather than music that is 'great'. My Father always told me that you get what you pay for.

jlb


----------



## rgames (Sep 28, 2011)

midphase @ Wed Sep 28 said:


> What he's saying is that composers (pro guys at least) agree to work on these crap paying jobs, and then either are forced to put in the least amount of time possible, or hand it off to their assistants to do all of the composition. It's the true reality of what this business has turned into.
> 
> There are some instances where a very artistic film will have funding issues and a composer will come on board and really give it the attention that it deserves...but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about films which are first and foremost created for commercial appeal and limited artistic intent.


Yeah - I guess I'm with you. I just wanted to make the point that dollars and quality are not always related.

Even for films that clearly have a commercial focus, there are folks who write really good music for next-to-nothing. So sure, call the guy a poor businessman, but he might be a damn good composer.

And, of course, there are some really good businessmen who are damn poor composers. No names, please 

rgames


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 28, 2011)

midphase @ Wed Sep 28 said:


> I should add some info to this discussion. On this particular recent project that wants to pay crap for music, apparently they had hired a fairly accomplished TV composer who had agreed to their piddly ass budget. This is someone with substantial credits working on very well known TV shows who apparently felt a need to say "yes" to a music budget which I don't think would be adequate for a student film. As it turns out, now the "big name" composer is apparently too busy to finish the film, so that's when they approach me (and have the balls to ask me to work for even less because they already spent half of their music budget on the other guy).
> 
> I think we're doing it to ourselves, I'm walking away from it...but I really wish that the first guy hadn't agreed to it in the first place since he was the first one to lower the bar for cost of professional scoring in the eyes of the producers!



Interesting. There's another way of looking at this. Part of me kinda likes that he took the gig, thought "you know what? I can't be bothered" and just wandered off. If you pay this little, you'll be at the bottom of the priority pile. It's probably a step too far to say he did this deliberately to teach them a lesson, but I've heard stranger things. Looks like they weren't professional enough to issue a contract either, btw.

This will be giving the production a headache it thoroughly deserves.


----------



## David Story (Sep 28, 2011)

Kays, this is where we're at. Composers undercut each other. Producers exploit it.
We either stand together or hang separately. 

It's a misuse of technology that started in the 80's. "Samples sound great at a fraction of the cost". Now that fraction is around 0. A result of Bad judgment that those guys now regret.

Kays did the right thing and walked. If anyone takes the gig they're scum.

5% of the budget is where we start, if it's spec you get producers points.

Show some spine, or pay to play is next. It's happening.

A suggestion to new guys:
If anyone is getting paid, you get paid or turn it down. Show integrity and expect it of your colleagues.

You can't eliminate scum completely, but we can set standards. The way to increase price is to increase price, not work for peanuts.


----------



## jlb (Sep 28, 2011)

David Story @ Wed Sep 28 said:


> Kays, this is where we're at. Composers undercut each other. Producers exploit it.
> We either stand together or hang separately.
> 
> It's a misuse of technology that started in the 80's. "Samples sound great at a fraction of the cost". Now that fraction is around 0. A result of Bad judgment that those guys now regret.
> ...



+1 +1 +1 +1.......  Well said


----------



## midphase (Sep 28, 2011)

Believe it or not, a big chunk of the problem comes from top guys who can get their ASCAP checks to subsidize their involvement in low budget films just because they feel like it.

I suppose when you have high 6-figures coming to you annually from PRO's, then money loses meaning and it becomes easy to work on whatever you want just because you like the director/actor/story/whatever.

I'm told by reliable sources that even A-listers are not immune to working for free...how can we compete with that?


----------



## Daryl (Sep 28, 2011)

midphase @ Wed Sep 28 said:


> ....or hand it off to their assistants to do all of the composition. It's the true reality of what this business has turned into.


And we're back in that other thread. Greedy unscrupulous businessmen taking the credit, and the Royalties, for music that they didn't write. Only this time it's composers being greedy and unscrupulous (not to mention breaking the law). Now there's a shock. :wink: 

D


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 28, 2011)

jlb @ Wed Sep 28 said:


> David Story @ Wed Sep 28 said:
> 
> 
> > Kays, this is where we're at. Composers undercut each other. Producers exploit it.
> ...



+2 +2 +2 +2.


----------



## lux (Sep 28, 2011)

well maybe there is also another possible scenario. Most composers are actually buildin up a library. 

One way could be filling those type works agreeing providing library material. stems or modular material could help covering perhaps.


----------



## rgames (Sep 28, 2011)

David Story @ Wed Sep 28 said:


> If anyone is getting paid, you get paid or turn it down. Show integrity and expect it of your colleagues.



Deciding what's fair is, in general, a complicated decision but this is one point that I think should be an absolute. If everyone's working for free then that's one thing, but if there's a budget and everyone else is getting paid, well, the composer should be paid as well. The "do it for credits" line is BS. Would the actors or DP or whoever do it for credits if the composer was getting paid? Has that ever happened?

In fairness to the directors, I think most of them do not intend for it to work out that way, but oftentimes they run out of cash and get stuck. Of course, that's no reason to sign on to work for free. But it's not necessarily ill will, just poor management. Not always, of course, but I think that does happen quite often.

In the end, though, we're in an echo chamber here. How often does a director *not* find a composer?

rgames


----------



## David Story (Sep 28, 2011)

midphase @ Wed Sep 28 said:


> I'm told by reliable sources that even A-listers are not immune to working for free...how can we compete with that?



If no one is getting paid, then it's among friends.

Otherwise:
The worst scum could rise to the top. Happens in other fields.

One answer is to not work for an A-lister who is working for free on an otherwise paid project. They need help more than the rest of us, and their big fear is slipping down a level. 

I have seen composers pay their staff and players to do a spec demo, and that's normal.
But if they ask you to work for free, ask if it's a spec project. 

I've turned down 2 gigs this year, and walked from a 3rd, who called back and came up with something.

*Make it Hard to find a composer who works for free.*


----------



## sevaels (Sep 28, 2011)

+3

Can't post this enough:

http://youtu.be/mj5IV23g-fE


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 28, 2011)

I'm with Richard on this. And I think a lot of folks are missing a central part of this tale - the "scum" original composer walked, dropping them in it. Why? Because he had nothing to lose, he could, so he did.

I'm always wary when composers - or any other craft members - think they are being singled out for bad treatment. Every department thinks that. Chances are if one department is getting bad treatment, everyone is. If I've understood correctly, this is a shambolic production that didn't issue a binding contract, paid peanuts, the composer walked away presumably with a bit of spending money and the filmmakers have no score. So this is not a scenario where producers are chomping on their cigars patting each other on the back for getting it done on the cheap. This has all the hallmarks of a bad production.

Now maybe shambolic productions are on the rise, and if so that's depressing. Chances are they are rarely good films, one would hope they don't sell particularly well. As Kays said in the OP, there is still good work out there, and I don't think it logically follows that because there's a fair bit of crap around at the moment, everything will end the same way. A good producer will know it makes no sense to follow a business model that ends in failure.


----------



## Daryl (Sep 28, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Wed Sep 28 said:


> Now maybe shambolic productions are on the rise, and if so that's depressing. Chances are they are rarely good films, one would hope they don't sell particularly well. As Kays said in the OP, there is still good work out there, and I don't think it logically follows that because there's a fair bit of crap around at the moment, everything will end the same way. A good producer will know it makes no sense to follow a business model that ends in failure.


If it's a good film the solution is simple. "Invest" $60k in the film, which basically what the composer is doing, by being asked to score the film for next to nothing. Have a look at the books, and work out how much a share of the film you own. Then at least you stand to make something back.

If the film is rubbish there is no reason to do it anyway, unless it pays so much money that you won't need to do any sh*tty films ever again.

D


----------



## midphase (Sep 28, 2011)

I can tell you that it's not a "shitty" film. It has good actors, good camera work, lots of locations and lots of extras who had to be fed during the shoot.

All that I'm saying is that I have seen a rise in these types of offers and it's alarming me, especially when the films attached have recognizable names (both actors and directors) and they have some decent production values.

I'm sure they had a contract with the previous guy, but what are they going to do? Sue him? Ask him for the couple of thousand dollars back?


----------



## rgames (Sep 28, 2011)

Another thought I just had - for $2k for a decent film that'll probably have some back end I might be willing to edit some of my library tracks and license those to the production.

So it might be an OK deal in that scenario...

rgames


----------



## SergeD (Sep 28, 2011)

It's sad for film composers.

Like toaster the rapper said "Money money is the name of the game". How many producers would bet on a Mad Men production versus a CSY crap show. 

I guess that BBC and National Geographic composers are well paid. Some documentaries have beautiful diversified music. Films producers should learn from these documentaries.


----------



## Daryl (Sep 28, 2011)

midphase @ Wed Sep 28 said:


> I can tell you that it's not a "shitty" film. It has good actors, good camera work, lots of locations and lots of extras who had to be fed during the shoot.


Even more reason to do the "investment" thing then.

D


----------



## Daryl (Sep 28, 2011)

SergeD @ Thu Sep 29 said:


> It's sad for film composers.
> 
> Like toaster the rapper said "Money money is the name of the game". How many producers would bet on a Mad Men production versus a CSY crap show.
> 
> I guess that BBC and National Geographic composers are well paid. Some documentaries have beautiful diversified music. Films producers should learn from these documentaries.



BBC? Well paid? HAHAHAHAHAHA.....!

Actually some things are reasonably paid, but it's usually not the composers. The programmes that use lots of live music sometimes have the use of one of the BBC orchestras, and so doesn't come directly out of the music budget. There are other drama productions that really scrape the barrel in terms of budget, but still have good names attached to them.

D

D


----------



## Brobdingnagian (Sep 28, 2011)

"What I suspect is happening (from talking with other directors and producers) is that film distributors are informing production houses that they need to lower their budgets in order to be able to turn a profit, so these guys are following the advice and cutting down the budgets, and while I'm sure that the producers fees are hardly being touched, the music departments are being lowballed like crazy. "


This is one of the main reasons. It is a pyramid scheme whereby only the top folks get paid and sadly their "buy in" is not that much. Look around, you'll see some established composers getting Executive Prod. credits more often than before. Whether they get paid from first-dollar gross is doubtful....

Flipside - Filmmakers are getting brutally taken advantage of by distributors. Close colleagues (close enough that we can discuss hard numbers) tell me the disgust and pain they feel having to piece meal territories together to cobble together a small profit. Or, distribs play such games with these guys (who somehow begin to behave like composers) that they do anything to get their films out there. Yes, films with names and faces, etc......

All of these VOD services popping up, PRO's paying a pittance for online music - these times are a changing. Everyone racing to the bottom. 

Good times. Gather ye rosebuds whilst ye may......


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 28, 2011)

> The programmes that use lots of live music sometimes have the use of one of the BBC orchestras, and so doesn't come directly out of the music budget



And that right there is how the US is living in the dark ages. We could never have a publicly funded broadcast network funded by a dedicated tax, complete with staff orchestras. It would be considered elitist communism socialism anti-free market totalitarianism Moslem nanny state non-job creator class warfare.


----------



## Jeffrey Peterson (Sep 28, 2011)

This is simple supply and demand. When you have too much of something(composers) the price goes down.

Now we know why all the composers are making sample libraries.


----------



## Vision (Sep 28, 2011)

Classic..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Faf3UjNTq8o&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Faf3UjNT ... er&amp;list=UL)


----------



## David Story (Sep 28, 2011)

Vision @ Wed Sep 28 said:


> Classic..
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Faf3UjNTq8o&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Faf3UjNT ... er&amp;list=UL)



xtranormal is great!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYGfUAKU7qo

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7311927/the-composer-interview (http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7311927 ... -interview)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 28, 2011)

Jeffrey, there's always been an oversupply of everything in every art. I think this is a matter of people allowing themselves to be taken advantage of.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 28, 2011)

One more thing I always feel almost duty-bound to point out in these discussions - the negotiations about royalties are sometimes massively more significant than the fee. This doesn't apply in terms of a low budget movie, but since people are talking about BBC documentaries etc, worth remembering. That's a thread of its own of course, but if its a series that will get plenty of repeats on major broadcaster(s) and I get to keep the rights, then it puts everything into a totally different context.

Maybe I'm wrong and this production is exclusively shafting composers. I'd love to know more about the other departments though, in my experience as I say everyone ASSUMES everyone else is making a mint when usually its the opposite. And the moral of that is - there are people who will work for little or no money EVERYWHERE.

As for investing... simple rule. NEVER invest.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Sep 28, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Sep 28 said:


> Jeffrey, there's always been an oversupply of everything in every art. I think this is a matter of people allowing themselves to be taken advantage of.



But the last 10 years of advances in tech and samples (and it's costs) have made it easier for joe and his cousin to be composers (or filmmakers).


----------



## Jeffrey Peterson (Sep 28, 2011)

What is this extranormal? I saw a investment banking vid they did awhile ago. Is it just one guy making these or a lot of people? Is the creator a composer, so he knows how it is?


----------



## midphase (Sep 29, 2011)

PRO royalties sometimes can be overblown, on some movies there isn't a whole lot to be had even if they play on cable fairly frequently. If the up front fee is very low, it could take many years of royalties before the total sum amounts to what should have been paid to the composer in the first place.

Regarding other departments, I think that it depends if a film is a union shoot or not (I suspect in my example, it is a union shoot since the director is DGA, the DP and editor are in their respective unions, and all the actors are SAG). So what it means is that many departments received at least what the union minimums are (plus food which adds up over the course of several weeks of shooting). Ultimately though...it doesn't really matter if everybody else is getting shafted or not, that doesn't make it any better for the composer to get shafted too.


Once again, the main reason for me bringing this up is that before this year, the only few times that I was asked to score a movie for very little it was on a low production movie which sucked through and through and had no familiar names. This year I've been surprised that this has started to happen on films which appear to have high production values and recognizable talent attached. I keep hoping that this is not necessarily the sign that low balling composers has trickled down (or up) to higher end productions which are now looking at the music as an extremely low value asset. 

And as a last point...yes, there are exceptions. In some cases there are some truly deserving films which have such obvious potential for getting noticed that one shouldn't necessarily ignore them due to their limited finances...but I think it's more important than ever for the composer to fully exercise his critical eye in assessing if that is truly the case with a film that he's being asked to work on, or if the film is more than likely going to end up in the big pile of straight to video releases that get largely ignored by the public.


----------



## Daryl (Sep 29, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Thu Sep 29 said:


> As for investing... simple rule. NEVER invest.


If you are working for a fee that is lower than you should, you are already investing. What I am suggesting is that this becomes a part of the contract, so that you own a part of the production.

Obviously it goes without saying that you should keep all Publishing. That is also worthy of another thread, because this is where many media composers are ripped off by the film companys that employ them.

D


----------



## Daryl (Sep 29, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Sep 29 said:


> > The programmes that use lots of live music sometimes have the use of one of the BBC orchestras, and so doesn't come directly out of the music budget
> 
> 
> 
> And that right there is how the US is living in the dark ages. We could never have a publicly funded broadcast network funded by a dedicated tax, complete with staff orchestras. It would be considered elitist communism socialism anti-free market totalitarianism Moslem nanny state non-job creator class warfare.


Well I think the BBC is currently going the wrong way. There is too much emphasis on ratings, paying big names huge fees and licencing in the latest cr*p Hollywood movies, and that's not what a subsidised organisation should do, IMO. There are plenty of good actors, writers, and the rest, that none of us have heard of, who could be employed in high quality dramas, for example, and could still be paid a good fee, yet the total budget would still come in at far less than is usual these days. Unfortunately we are stuck between the traditional BBC model (good quality at medium price) and the US model, which is profit at any cost to standards.

Honestly I don't see the BBC holding out for much longer, because all those orchestras, for example, make such a huge loss that they have been under threat for years (and some have already been closed down).

D


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 29, 2011)

midphase @ Thu Sep 29 said:


> PRO royalties sometimes can be overblown, on some movies there isn't a whole lot to be had even if they play on cable fairly frequently. If the up front fee is very low, it could take many years of royalties before the total sum amounts to what should have been paid to the composer in the first place.



I agree on this sort of film - really I was talking about TV work (and advertising), where the royalties are much more important.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 29, 2011)

Christian, that's also true.


----------



## midphase (Sep 29, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Thu Sep 29 said:


> I agree on this sort of film - really I was talking about TV work (and advertising), where the royalties are much more important.



FYI, there are no PRO payments on advertising (except in very rare cases).

The guys who are hitting pay dirt are the TV shows that get syndicated guys. So if you're doing CSI type of shows, you're probably doing pretty well.


----------



## Daryl (Sep 29, 2011)

midphase @ Thu Sep 29 said:


> noiseboyuk @ Thu Sep 29 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree on this sort of film - really I was talking about TV work (and advertising), where the royalties are much more important.
> ...


There are in the UK. Oh, and we also get PRS payments for films shown in the local multiplex. :wink: 

D


----------



## midphase (Sep 29, 2011)

As Nick mentioned....when it comes to arts, the USA is in the dark ages.


----------



## Daryl (Sep 29, 2011)

midphase @ Thu Sep 29 said:


> As Nick mentioned....when it comes to arts, the USA is in the dark ages.



This is what your PROs should be fighting for. Lobbying the government. Something. Not just fighting each other for clients.

D


----------



## midphase (Sep 29, 2011)

Yeah, there are many things PRO's "should" be doing....like paying more than $.20 to the dollar compared to "Vocal Background" music used in film and TV....but the world we live in isn't exactly fair now...is it?


----------



## Daryl (Sep 29, 2011)

midphase @ Thu Sep 29 said:


> Yeah, there are many things PRO's "should" be doing....like paying more than $.20 to the dollar compared to "Vocal Background" music used in film and TV....but the world we live in isn't exactly fair now...is it?


But you guys should be hassling them, not just accepting that this is the way that things are. In the same way as you should be challenging the so-called Publishers, who Publish nothing, and are only set up to rob the media composer of half their Royalties.

D


----------



## PMortise (Sep 30, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Sep 28 said:


> Treu. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.


I laugh through the tears... :lol: 



sevaels @ Wed Sep 28 said:


> +3
> Can't post this enough:
> http://youtu.be/mj5IV23g-fE


...simply because I've hitched my cart to this seemingly dying pony. When I take a step back from posts and threads like this I can't see any other way for us but _some_ form of unionization. It's pretty obvious that left to it's own devices the situation will keep deteriorating. I'm not saying the arguments against unionization are not thought out - just chicken-shit IMO. An tho' the topics seem to intersect, that's another thread, ain't it? :wink: 

On a more optimistic note, I believe that the general audience will eventually notice the decline in quality product - and then something will be done. For most people, film music is like the air they breath. They take it for granted until it's either gone, or it really stinks. It's no different then back when the Milli Vanillis of the pop world had their bubble burst on them and they were sent packing (for a time at least). Next thing you knew, acts that _could_ actually sing went into overdrive- even singing during interviews to profess their "real talent" - and the term _a cappella_ became en vogue….as EnVogue would break into an a cappella no less! Oh, I like me some EnVogue! :lol: My point being the real talent was poised to move in when the posers fell.

Another example is the el-cheapo reality TV thing. Folks in general got fed up, and it had to balance itself out. I'd like to think that the same can happen for us, but when it does we'll need to be prepared on the business side of things. Gods knows the other side will be waiting with their "plan B".

Remember: "Every battle is won long before it is ever fought."--Sun-tzu


----------



## Brian Ralston (Sep 30, 2011)

PMortise @ Fri Sep 30 said:


> ...simply because I've hitched my cart to this seemingly dying pony. When I take a step back from posts and threads like this I can't see any other way for us but _some_ form of unionization. It's pretty obvious that left to it's own devices the situation will keep deteriorating. I'm not saying the arguments against unionization are not thought out - just chicken-shit IMO. An tho' the topics seem to intersect, that's another thread, ain't it? :wink:



The whole unionization movement has one MAJOR thing against it and it has nothing to do with people wanting to unionize or not wanting to unionize. The United States National Labor Relations Board has defined composers as independent contractors. As such...they cannot unionize by definition. Not even if every single composer wants to. There is now legal precedent.

There are only two ways and they are these.

1) The studios voluntarily recognize composers as a group or organization to bargain with. Which will NEVER HAPPEN VOLUNTARILY. They will never pay more money for anything unless they have to. They just won't. 

2) The National Labor Relations Board changes their 1980s era decision and re-defines composers as employees, thus making composers, as a group, eligible to unionize and force a collective bargaining agreement. 

THAT'S IT. Every composer in the country could want to unionize...but as long as they are defined as independent contractors in the eyes of the law, they can't legally. So...it is not really a decision in control of any composer group to decide...unfortunately. 

The solution is really...for more young composers to decide another career path and for the market to stop being flooded. But I will be the last person to tell someone to not follow their passion in life. So...it is what it is. And we are all each to our own in terms of building our individual careers and business relationships.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Sep 30, 2011)

Daryl @ Wed Sep 28 said:


> midphase @ Wed Sep 28 said:
> 
> 
> > ....or hand it off to their assistants to do all of the composition. It's the true reality of what this business has turned into.
> ...



Ah. Been drinking again with Leopold Mozart have we! o-[][]-o


----------



## Peter Alexander (Sep 30, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Sep 28 said:


> > The programmes that use lots of live music sometimes have the use of one of the BBC orchestras, and so doesn't come directly out of the music budget
> 
> 
> 
> And that right there is how the US is living in the dark ages. We could never have a publicly funded broadcast network funded by a dedicated tax, complete with staff orchestras. It would be considered elitist communism socialism anti-free market totalitarianism Moslem nanny state non-job creator class warfare.



Or good business...


----------



## kid-surf (Sep 30, 2011)

I hear you Kays. Before I split from music I was asked to score a 2 mil film for 2k. What a fukkin joke...

Someone took the gig tho. Film did nothing. Horror film. Lake House? I forget?


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Sep 30, 2011)

A publicly funded broadcast network could be funded for the next 100 years and it still wouldn't be a drop in the bucket compared to our spending on the military, social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. Or, for that matter, it wouldn't even approach the tax breaks we kept for those earning over $250k.


----------



## rgames (Oct 1, 2011)

Brian Ralston @ Fri Sep 30 said:


> The United States National Labor Relations Board has defined composers as independent contractors.


Do you know the reason they continue to define composers that way? I'm assuming it's because we retain the intellectual property for our work.

If so, then it seems that argument would fail in work-for-hire situations. So a third option would be to define two classes of composers: one that handles work-for-hire and is unionized and one that does not.

rgames


----------



## SergeD (Oct 1, 2011)

In Canada, producers having funds from Telefilm, SODEC, must pay for a scriptwriter's story a % based on the film budget. Scriptwriters and composers are on the same boat no? Could it be a good start to build a "fair contract" chart from that? 

Forget laws and union, the way to go is having a certified "fair contract" logo. Use YouTube, Facebook etc... with big names to spread the concept behind the logo. Let it be the "talk of the town". 

A YouTube very short clip example:
Imagine something dying on the beach, is it a dolphin? a whale? The camera get closer and closer. It's a decomposing composer scoring music.

Do it with enjoyed music to make laugh.
Redo it with scaring music to make shake.
Redo it with sad music to make cry.
Send the message "Film is music, nothing more... etc..." with the logo

Then the producers will smell the potential $$$ and will pay the required % to get that logo.


----------



## vancomposer (Oct 1, 2011)

Jeffrey Peterson @ Thu 29 Sep said:


> This is simple supply and demand. When you have too much of something(composers) the price goes down.
> 
> Now we know why all the composers are making sample libraries.



True and its getting more and more also guys coming from the sides like me who had a somewhat fruitfull years as a touring and studio musician, but the recording industry is so dead now!! We were signed to Capitol/EMI and in the course of 4 years we were there they fired so many people, it was really sad beside the billions they are in debt now... and I am talking about people who have been workign there for years.

Of course the rat tail goes longer... now more records mean nore more artists means no more studio and touring work.

Lets face it everybody can use those computers and samples today and can allready do some decent stuff. What a bunch of hard core musician nerds think about it, doesnt mean an averrage listener will ever care about.


----------



## PMortise (Oct 1, 2011)

Brian Ralston @ Fri Sep 30 said:


> ...The solution is really...for more young composers to decide another career path and for the market to stop being flooded. But I will be the last person to tell someone to not follow their passion in life...


Good, because that's entirely unrealistic. Even if possible (which would be as successful as keeping teenagers from...mingling :wink limiting the quantity of new composers to the field wouldn't help. Raising the quality of work expected however, will. In fact, that in itself would stem the flow of those who don't really love the craft enough.

This admittedly seems like a naive suggestion, but as it were I did say "some form of union", even if it's just among ourselves as a community to police ourselves. Any form of solidarity would help. Entertain (if you will) the crazy notion of composers giving in to their own health & retirement fund, and setting up by-laws for it's members to retain membership. Snooze on your responsibilities to the group, and lose your contribution. Crazy as it sounds, and way short of realistic details on how to make it work, it could, with enough members cooperating. A crazy and naive notion. But how many good things have been accomplished that have once fallen in that category?

If our generation can't accomplish that, then maybe a future one can.


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 3, 2011)

Daryl @ Thu Sep 29 said:


> Well I think the BBC is currently going the wrong way. There is too much emphasis on ratings, paying big names huge fees and licencing in the latest cr*p Hollywood movies, and that's not what a subsidised organisation should do, IMO. There are plenty of good actors, writers, and the rest, that none of us have heard of, who could be employed in high quality dramas, for example, and could still be paid a good fee, yet the total budget would still come in at far less than is usual these days. Unfortunately we are stuck between the traditional BBC model (good quality at medium price) and the US model, which is profit at any cost to standards.
> 
> Honestly I don't see the BBC holding out for much longer, because all those orchestras, for example, make such a huge loss that they have been under threat for years (and some have already been closed down).
> 
> D






thats interesting because although i dont know anything about royalties or anything to do with composer remuneration we were asked sometime ago to do a study of the bbc. for us it came out as a totally failed business model with some gray areas. you may say everyone knows that already but when you consider the type of programing they used to do sometime ago and what they do now given cost and license expansion and customer inability to even have a choice you could make a good argument for the bbc to become defunct in the future.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 3, 2011)

George Caplan @ Mon Oct 03 said:


> thats interesting because although i dont know anything about royalties or anything to do with composer remuneration we were asked sometime ago to do a study of the bbc. for us it came out as a totally failed business model with some gray areas. you may say everyone knows that already but when you consider the type of programing they used to do sometime ago and what they do now given cost and license expansion and customer inability to even have a choice you could make a good argument for the bbc to become defunct in the future.


You are quite right that the BBC is a failed business model, and that's because it shouldn't be a business model at all. In my view you either subsidise, or you don't. This sort of halfway house creates many more problems than it solves.

D


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 3, 2011)

Daryl @ Mon Oct 03 said:


> George Caplan @ Mon Oct 03 said:
> 
> 
> > thats interesting because although i dont know anything about royalties or anything to do with composer remuneration we were asked sometime ago to do a study of the bbc. for us it came out as a totally failed business model with some gray areas. you may say everyone knows that already but when you consider the type of programing they used to do sometime ago and what they do now given cost and license expansion and customer inability to even have a choice you could make a good argument for the bbc to become defunct in the future.
> ...



yeah i understand what youre saying but it has to be a business model when youre charging. when youre charging a license and at the same time taking taxpayers money in the form of subsidy regardless of lets say higher values when compared to cold financial facts its difficult to see how its going to survive. they are spending big on their news programs and they get a lot of critique on their bias from the british public and indeed american and european audiences too. we found that puts a lot of audience off just as one example. this was all done it has to be said for another broadcasting company.

sky is much bigger than the bbc now and will continue to take a bigger audience share albeit mainly because of sports coverage like soccer and has a good business model going forward even with the recent shareholder debacle. how they pay composers is a mystery to me so i cant get into that with any knowledge.

put it another way. if you could buy shares in the bbc on the exchange today you probably wouldnt unless you were mad.


----------

