# Live tv musicians - update - agreement reached



## JJP (Sep 22, 2012)

The musicians who work on live television are trying to negotiate a new agreement. This covers musicians on live musical shows like American Idol, The Voice, Dancing With the Stars, America's Got Talent, and Saturday Night Live; the late night shows like The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, David Letterman, and Jimmy Kimmel; and award shows like the Emmys and the Oscars.

These musicians haven't gotten a raise in 7 years (not even basic cost of living increases), and their health contributions are so low that musicians on shows like Idol, Dancing, and SNL don't even qualify for health coverage. Those shows are also hugely profitable with Idol pulling in over $6.5 million in 30 minutes. They sell 30 second advertisements for over $650,000.

I've heard network execs say that musicians don't deserve a raise because the musicians haven't given any concessions for seven years and the networks are struggling to remain profitable. I've also heard that a $150 payment to 11 musicians in a band is going to prevent a show being released on DVD or cable. :roll: I've seen the numbers, and the arguments that are being put forward are just stupid. Fortunately the musicians know it too, and they aren't backing down.

I encourage all of you to pay attention to this. These are the same issues that are leveled at composers. Keep yourself informed of the arguments that are being used against you. Read the trades, follow the money. If you are ignorant, they will use your ignorance against you.

The AFM press release is http://www.afm.org/news/musicians-union-frustrated-with-tv-network-negotiations (here).


----------



## wst3 (Sep 22, 2012)

thanks for sharing that. The level of greed, and lack of consideration for others that is displayed by corporations (corporations are people???) is frightening.

I'm not suggestion that the networks are the United Way, but there IS a middle ground!


----------



## Brian Ralston (Sep 22, 2012)

*Re: Live TV musicians*

If you think this is bad...wait till you hear the news soon to "officially" come out about a particular network moving to ALL pre-existing library music in ALL of their shows...ALL....including scripted dramas that currently get scored live on AFM contracts. Not only will the musicians be out of jobs there...but the composers too. No more original composed music in ANy of the shows. Everyone music is getting the boot. Why?...because they can and save lots of money. And other networks are watching.

We are having the VP of said network on SCOREcast to talk about it in a couple months. And he was one of the sole voices AGAINST this decision believe it or not. But he got overruled by forces above him.


----------



## Daryl (Sep 23, 2012)

*Re: Live TV musicians*



Brian Ralston @ Sun Sep 23 said:


> If you think this is bad...wait till you hear the news soon to "officially" come out about a particular network moving to ALL pre-existing library music in ALL of their shows...ALL....including scripted dramas that currently get scored live on AFM contracts. Not only will the musicians be out of jobs there...but the composers too. No more original composed music in ANy of the shows. Everyone music is getting the boot. Why?...because they can and save lots of money. And other networks are watching.


Well, the musicians will be out of jobs, but there will still be income for composers. Just this time it will be library composers.

To be quite honest, even though the situation is very different in the UK, there are a lot of similarities, and none of this is as simple as it appears. There are times when musician (and composer, for that matter) costs are so small within the scope of the overall budget, that when these get cut, it is almost petty. However, there are various other projects that live music is not possible precisely because of musician costs.

For example, I was talking with a group of players on a session the other day, and they were moaning about the fact that there is so little session work available. They all seemed to think that if there was a sliding scale, much as we have for the low movie rate, they would still earn far more money than they currently do, because there would be more work out there. To put it in perspective, a rehearsal and concert pays around £120, but one session for a library album pays £123. add that to the fact that there is no awkward travelling for the session, and they can easily do 3 in a day, you can see the disparity in income. The people I spoke to were suggesting a discount according to how many sessions were booked. I thought that it was an excellent idea, but it appears out that the Union had already turned it down.

So musicians 0, samples 1.

D


----------



## Brian Ralston (Sep 23, 2012)

*Re: Live TV musicians*



Daryl @ Sun Sep 23 said:


> Well, the musicians will be out of jobs, but there will still be income for composers. Just this time it will be library composers.



Kind of. But not really. The music library they will be using is an "in house" library they have been adding thousands of tracks to over the last few years. In fact...many people were writing tracks not necessarily knowing they would eventually be used like this. They may have been writing bumpers for some reality show but their deals specified music was going into the network's library in the fine print. That library is now very large and will get re-used over and over. No new music will be written. No outside libraries are being used at all. They are going to just use what tracks they already have for the foreseeable future. So you have some big composer names that will soon lose their $10k per episode jobs...and the networks own internal library will pick up the slack which only cost them a hundred a track or so. 

This is the "nuclear option" networks had for TV composers. And they will be executing it.


----------



## wst3 (Sep 23, 2012)

is there any limit to the shortsightedness of some people???


----------



## bryla (Sep 23, 2012)

in the same vein I can tell you that Danish National TV during this year have refused to let bands play on television if the members were in a union.


----------



## Daryl (Sep 23, 2012)

*Re: Live TV musicians*



Brian Ralston @ Sun Sep 23 said:


> Daryl @ Sun Sep 23 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, the musicians will be out of jobs, but there will still be income for composers. Just this time it will be library composers.
> ...


Whilst I feel sorry on a personal level for any person, composer or not, losing a job that they thought was safe, I would assume that the music that is used will still pay Royalties, so it's not as if nobody is getting any money. I'm also not convinced that these big named composer currently write all new music for every episode anyway, as most of it seems a re-hash from what they've written for previous episodes. Maybe they will actually have to write some new music now. :wink: 

D


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 23, 2012)

*Re: Live TV musicians*

In all honesty I just don't see anyone from 802 in NYC getting pushed around, or treated poorly. I transferred from StLouis to NYC then to Vegas and there are benifits, but they are out of pocket at a discounted price from the Carpenters and Electricians Unions, so for 300 a month ( last time I checked ) it's a great policy. Naturally there are co pays to deter any repeated unnecessary tests and visits, but even here in Vegas, the Unions are so strong that many Stagehands are on the job and basically aren't even needed as Cirque has their own everything.
But in 1984 the Culinary, Musicians and several Trade unions made it very difficult for the Casinos to operate as usual by blocking entrances, and even the rats that came to unload a Bellmans Cart full of gear were told they were stealing the cart and to unload it back in their vehicle, then they would pull up to unload, and Valet workers would not allow them to park, then around back in the alleys the Stagehands and Teamsters saw rats crawling towards the stage door and recieved much more harsh treatment.
So if a strike is called for, 802 has all of the trade unions like Local 6A, which I also was a member of, come and walk the sidewalks. Rats are always the problem, but notice nobody crosses a public union line. Especially when the children are held hostage.

Maybe the Musicians need these 500k a year Public Union bosses to represent them and force tax payers to pay thier salaries and pensions/health care. That would be great.

The musician could actually suck really bad and make the band sound like shit, but he couldn't be fired or replaced. I could handle that as long as I retired with 90% of a spiked salary in my last year......

Screw those middle class peasants that pay my pension, I want to be a 1%'r, not a middle class working man/woman.


----------



## JJP (Sep 23, 2012)

*Re: Live TV musicians*



chimuelo @ Sun Sep 23 said:


> In all honesty I just don't see anyone from 802 in NYC getting pushed around, or treated poorly.



Well, that's how it has been lately. The networks are digging in their heels and expecting that the musicians will give up and settle for increases to salary and benefits that will only bring them up to where they should have been in 2006. But the networks will only agree to even discuss the possibility of those increases if the musicians first agree to a list of concessions.

In other words the networks are saying, "Give up a significant portion of what you earn now, and we'll agree to discuss possibly increasing your pay and benefits. However you should only expect to get 2% even though you've missed out on 20% worth of increases over the last 7-8 years." :evil:

I can speak with authority on this because I was sitting at the negotiating table. This is the shameful state of corporate greed. You can say it doesn't affect you, but it does. If the networks get away with this, it will affect other parts of the industry as well. That means cable TV contracts, new media, even motion picture. Some of these people are the very same people who negotiate film/TV motion picture labor agreements.

If any of you watch the Emmys tonight, think about this when you see and hear the musicians in the pit orchestra or there is a mention of any live TV categories. This is the contract that covers those musicians.


----------



## rgames (Sep 23, 2012)

*Re: Live TV musicians*

Every time I come across such a debate I am reminded that I am at an impasse regarding my personal feelings on the matter.

On the one hand, it seems that providing good wages is good for the community of musicians and composers. If a society provides good wages for those involved in music making, that society will make better music (actually, I'm not sure that's true, but I *want* to believe it).

However, on the other hand, nobody has a right to make a living as a musician - these debates always seem to imply that right at some level. If the pay isn't good, or you think you're being exploited, don't take the gig. Do something else. It's that simple.

In fact, that's my attitude towards unions in general: why does anyone need someone else to represent his interests? If he can't make a living as a musician or he feels he's being exploited, he should do something else. Then musicians will drop out of the gig market down to the point where supply matches demand and the problem will fix itself. If 75% of musicians leave the music business I guarantee the wages will increase.

So, like I said, I'm torn on this one but I do lean towards the side that says let the market play out however it wants.

rgames


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 23, 2012)

*Re: Live TV musicians*

I agree with rgames that a musician should be a free agent, and start at the Union Scale, then negotiate.
I knew a monitor man for a famous Crooner we worked with, who was paid 16k a month by Van Halen when he was FOH, and would accept lower pay from the Vegas crooners just because the pay was still quite good. But he would do a few months and make this crooner very happy then say, hey how much of a notice do I need to give you to stay on good terms, since we do not have a contract..? Naturally the chap would reply where are you going, I am going where the greens are 6k a month more, so I want to make sure I can work someone in before i leave, next thing you know he has a raise. He represented himself, I also do the same thing by saying I am always booked when maybe I am not booked just to play hard to get.
For some reason everybody wants something they can't have or at least requires negotiations.

It's hard to say if you are living in a Nanny State as the taxes are insanely high. It really does require a yearly cost of living just to keep up with the Big Spenders and the promises of free stuff from politicians trying to maintain their powerful, lucrative positions.
Years ago the best advice ( which I never took ) from a Conducter I studied under told me that musicians must be like businessmen, lawyers and accountants to make it. I should have listened, as I could learn to stash my cash away like politicians and wealthy corporatists do. Then you can evade taxes legally and not need the cost of living, but even back in '76 on 74th and Riverside, a crappy 1 bedroom 40 stories up was 1600 USD per month, I can't even fathom what they cost now...
Valet parking was thousands a month if you had to drive.
The cheapest thing I remember was the 6 dollar a gram Blond Lebanese Hash.
A rip off compared to the Amstel Coffee shops..... /\~O


----------



## midphase (Sep 24, 2012)

*Re: Live TV musicians*



rgames @ Sun Sep 23 said:


> However, on the other hand, nobody has a right to make a living as a musician - these debates always seem to imply that right at some level. If the pay isn't good, or you think you're being exploited, don't take the gig. Do something else. It's that simple.
> 
> In fact, that's my attitude towards unions in general: why does anyone need someone else to represent his interests?



To me this question really shows the profound difference between the Republican and Democrat mindset. 

My attitude is that people with money will more often than not want to exploit those without money, and those without money are more prone to letting themselves be exploited. As it is so often pointed out on these discussions, the best course of action for anyone who is not satisfied with the offer being put on the table is to simply walk away. While this reads great on paper, we all know that in reality it is not so. Time and time again in history we have seen the same exact behavior with those in powerful positions taking advantage of those in not powerful positions. In reality the market doesn't balance out, and unfortunately artists are more often than not on the forefront of being exploited for little compensation.

I don't see anything wrong with unions, I believe they are a necessity because sometimes people do need to be protected from themselves. People for the most part don't make rational decisions, they many times make impulsive decisions based on emotions rather than logic. We have seen this same debate happen with Obama's health care law, people who don't want health insurance are making such a call based on an emotional reaction and not a logical one. 

There is also an attitude in this country that, if you're working in one of the "creative" fields, it's not really a job job, it's more like a cushy lucky way to get paid to do what you love. I very much disagree with this point of view. I assure you that musicians who work on these shows have to work their asses off to be good at what they do. I am sure that most of these guys would much prefer to play other music than some cheesy rendition of a Lady GaGa song, but they do it in a professional and skilled way that provides for the show's musical (and entertainment) needs.


----------



## rgames (Sep 24, 2012)

*Re: Live TV musicians*



midphase @ Mon Sep 24 said:


> I assure you that musicians who work on these shows have to work their asses off to be good at what they do.


I think everyone agrees with that statement. But it's not the issue - the issue is what is the value of that skill? And, more importantly, how is it determined?

I don't know if musicians have a higher tendency to let themselves be exploited - maybe. But I don't think a union is going to protect them. Do you really think the union always acts in the best interests of the musicians? Does the AFM really protect musicians or are they just a different group carrying out the exploitation? I don't know but back when I was doing a lot of gigs I saw the AFM as a sort of mafia.

The sad truth is that you can't protect people from exploitation if they're prone to it - you need to teach them to avoid it.

rgames


----------



## madbulk (Sep 24, 2012)

*Re: Live TV musicians*



midphase @ Mon Sep 24 said:


> rgames @ Sun Sep 23 said:
> 
> 
> > However, on the other hand, nobody has a right to make a living as a musician - these debates always seem to imply that right at some level. If the pay isn't good, or you think you're being exploited, don't take the gig. Do something else. It's that simple.
> ...



Often, yes.



midphase @ Mon Sep 24 said:


> There is also an attitude in this country that, if you're working in one of the "creative" fields, it's not really a job job, it's more like a cushy lucky way to get paid to do what you love. I very much disagree with this point of view. I assure you that musicians who work on these shows have to work their asses off to be good at what they do. I am sure that most of these guys would much prefer to play other music than some cheesy rendition of a Lady GaGa song, but they do it in a professional and skilled way that provides for the show's musical (and entertainment) needs.



Yeah, but would they rather play GaGa, or dig a ditch for the same money?

It's not a simple matter. If we want live TV music to degrade, we should let market forces take over. Degrade it will. But don't tell me we aren't propping up guys doing what they love for a living if we interfere. We are, just for good reason.

(Note: I wouldn't presume to tell you what to tell me and what not to tell me. That's just how I talk sometimes, Kays.)


----------



## dinerdog (Sep 24, 2012)

*Re: Live TV musicians*

I hate getting involved in these kinds of discussion's, BUT as a long time 802 member, I've been nothing but happy to be a part of it. I was happy to join and happy to do 802 work. There's nothing exploitative about them. I'll actually have a pension when I retire. None of my 'work for hire' friends will. They've totally protected my pay scale when needed.

The reason (imho) that musicians need union's is the same as any other creative person. Of course you need to understand the music "business", but at some point you can't do it all (and I would argue most creative's don't want to) and need a business expert involved. For a classic read on why technicians (us) can't do it all, read this:

http://www.amazon.com/The-E-Myth-Revisited-Small-Businesses/dp/0887307280 (http://www.amazon.com/The-E-Myth-Revisi ... 0887307280)

rgames - I'm kind of amazed at your statement that if a musician feels he's being exploited, he should do something else. Thats pretty cold and capitalistic to me. Music (and all the other arts) are not just any job, most of us are passionate about creating and would rather have those challenges than work in some flourescent office. Perhaps that's fine if music is just your hobby or just a second job, but I don't think it is for most of us here.

Oh, and if you think when musicians drop out (give up) that supply will match demand at some point? Wages will increase? I can pretty much say that will NEVER, EVER happen. It's laughable to even remotely think that.

If 75% of the musicians drop out of the business, there's still enough music to go around and NOBODY will pay any more for it than they are right not. NOBODY. Besides that fact that it will never happen with a certain percentage of the population creating more and more free music all the time.

I'm not saying the amateur music is even bad. A lot of it is good because even the people doing it as a hobby or part time job love what they're doing. Much like we do, just not to the same level as risking everything and doing nothing else 24/7

Anyway my point is Unions are usually pretty helpful, but if you think "nobody has the right to make a living as a musician", what do they have the right to do???


----------



## madbulk (Sep 24, 2012)

*Re: Live TV musicians*



dinerdog @ Mon Sep 24 said:


> Anyway my point is Unions are usually pretty helpful, but if you think "nobody has the right to make a living as a musician", what do they have the right to do???



Well, they have the right to try, but not the right to be successful, anymore than I've the right to a successful acting career. But it would be nice.


----------



## rgames (Sep 24, 2012)

*Re: Live TV musicians*



dinerdog @ Mon Sep 24 said:


> rgames - I'm kind of amazed at your statement that if a musician feels he's being exploited, he should do something else. Thats pretty cold and capitalistic to me.


Yes, it is cold and capitalistic, but that's my dilemma. Why should we use a judgement other than society's votes with its collective dollars? My emotional brain says "Yes - help protect the musicians." But my rational brain says "Why force an outcome other than what society wants?"

Here's an analogy: I once saw a guy making absolutely stunning balanced rock sculptures at a beach in California. The skill he had was absolutely astounding - his ability to balance and counter-balance rocks was incredible. And he clearly was immensely passionate about his art because he had been doing it a long time and spent an immense amount of time perfecting his craft.

Does he have an inalienable right to make a living at it?

I don't know, but I don't think so. Like Brian, I certainly feel he has the right to *try* to make a living at it but if the market doesn't value his talents, well, tough luck. Go do something else. Same thing for musicians. You can't use passion and skill as the basis of a right to make a living - you would cripple the economic engine that drives a society because there are a lot of people who are passionate and skilled at activities that have no intrinsic value to society.

In the United States, we are not guaranteed the right to any outcome. We are only guaranteed to right to life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. If we fail in that pursuit, then so be it. If the market can get by with musicians working for less-than-scale, then so be it.

Engineers and lawyers and doctors don't have unions, but they're equally passionate about their work and make very good livings. Simply having passion or craft doesn't cut it - you must convince society that your passion and craft are worth paying for.

If musicians and composers are valued by society and that society sees a drop in supply for those professions, it will respond by increasing the value associated with those professions. If, however, the market of musicians and composers is super-saturated, then society should be given the opportunity to de-value those professions down to the level commensurate with the value it places on them.

Again, for me, personally, yes - I see value in protecting musicians' wages. But if society as a whole does not, why should I have the right to deny that society its desired outcome?

rgames


----------



## midphase (Sep 25, 2012)

I think you're being far too pragmatic with your reasoning. On paper it reads well, but humanity doesn't work that way. It would be nice if things were so black and white, but they're not.

I think any modern and evolved society has a responsibility to safeguard forms of creative expression, without art we are dead.

I know, I know...it all sounds very hippie and idealistic, but we really must continue to believe and fight to create a good environment for artists, if we don't and promote this "survival of the fittest" mindset, in the long run we will find that we have lost something unimaginably precious.


----------



## Daryl (Sep 25, 2012)

*Re: Live TV musicians*



rgames @ Tue Sep 25 said:


> Engineers and lawyers and doctors don't have unions, but they're equally passionate about their work and make very good livings. Simply having passion or craft doesn't cut it - you must convince society that your passion and craft are worth paying for.
> 
> rgames


That's different though. You need qualifications to work in those professions, therefore it is not so easy to get some kid in a bedroom undercutting a seasoned professional. Also, as creative arts are about opinion, and most executives don't know anything, their opinion is likely to favour what costs them the least.

D


----------



## Daryl (Sep 25, 2012)

midphase @ Tue Sep 25 said:


> I think you're being far too pragmatic with your reasoning. On paper it reads well, but humanity doesn't work that way. It would be nice if things were so black and white, but they're not.
> 
> I think any modern and evolved society has a responsibility to safeguard forms of creative expression, without art we are dead.
> 
> I know, I know...it all sounds very hippie and idealistic, but we really must continue to believe and fight to create a good environment for artists, if we don't and promote this "survival of the fittest" mindset, in the long run we will find that we have lost something unimaginably precious.


I don't think that most intelligent people would disagree with that. However, there are two caveats in that reasoning:

1) That people should necessarily be paid to create art
2) That anything that goes on in the popular media could be considered art.

D


----------



## Hannes_F (Sep 25, 2012)

*Re: Live TV musicians*



rgames @ Tue Sep 25 said:


> Engineers and lawyers and doctors don't have unions



Wait a moment here.

It is not as if you could open randomly a solicitor office or a medical practice just where you would like to. There are lots of regulations, and not only you need the requested diplomas, also the medical association resp. the Chamber of Lawyers are watching eagerly and restricting the numbers.

It may be different in your country but this is how it is in Germany. The claims are pegged out and will be defended by the representatives of the respective guild.

On top of that there exists a first shortage stage because you can't be a doctor or a lawyer without the successful completion of a university study - and the study places and success rates are regulated due to estimated demand (and this applies to engineers too, at least to a certain amount).

Then - if you think about it there exist voluminous regulations for doctors and lawyers about which costs what. You can be more expensive than that but you can not undercut the next one. 

All in all there is a certain amount of market forces in these professions too since a good one will have more to do than a bad one, but still being a doctor, lawyer or engineer is very different from a 'dog eats dog' rat race or something the like.

Especially lawyers and doctors are competent in monetary affairs and have exactly understood how the market system can work for them and how not.

Just saying - not that the rest of your conclusions would necessarily be true or not true.


----------



## JJP (Sep 25, 2012)

*Re: Live TV musicians*



rgames @ Mon Sep 24 said:


> Yes, it is cold and capitalistic, but that's my dilemma. Why should we use a judgement other than society's votes with its collective dollars? My emotional brain says "Yes - help protect the musicians." But my rational brain says "Why force an outcome other than what society wants?"



This is where your argument completely misses the mark. Society IS voting with its dollars - over a billion of them. (Yes, "billion" with a "B".) The live TV shows that use live musicians are relying on them in a bigger way than they have in half a century. There are more musicians working in live TV than at any time since the 1960s.

Many of these shows are music-centered shows. These shows are generating huge amounts of revenue. 30 second ads are selling for over $500k. Shows with live TV musicians are in some cases pulling in over $6.5 million dollars in just 30 minutes of air time.

No cost of living increase in seven years? People going without health coverage because network contributions are too low? All while these shows' popularity and revenue have skyrocketed? The demand for the product is being met by the musicians. It's not like the networks can't afford to pay because there is no market for the product. The product is fetching a breathtakingly high price, but the musicians' compensation for meeting this demand is being syphoned off by the networks. 

The demand for these musicians is there. The networks freely admit this and claim that the AFM musicians doing this work are the best in the world. However they are then turning around and saying that the musicians don't deserve the same raises as the person winding cable, the person adjusting the mic, the writers, actors, or the person sweeping the floor. This is a simple case of the musicians generating the cash, but the networks saying, "Now that you've helped us make it, we're just going to keep it. It's ours now, and there's nothing you can do about it."

That's not the way a free market is supposed to work. The networks are perverting the capitalist system. Now that the musicians have their jobs, the networks are betting that they will be afraid to risk losing them to fight for the full amount they are due. These musicians have children and healthcare costs (which many of them have to pay out of their flat paychecks because they don't get health coverage), so it would be too risky for them to strike. It's not just about dollars for them. It's about health, well being, and survival. Corporations don't have to worry about things like that.

These musicians are also freelancers. When they work full time on a series they are turning down other work and making themselves "unavailable," so just walking away and picking up another job that pays the same amount isn't as simple as you make it sound. Those other jobs have already been filled.

Because they know this, the networks are digging in their heels and refusing to let the revenue flow to the creators of the music. That's not a free market. That's exploitation of a power position over a worker's paycheck. This is why developed societies see the need for unions. They understand that an employer has this inherent power advantage.

So the AFM a mafia? Hardly. That's insulting to me and all the professional musicians out there who are part of the AFM and fighting hard to be properly compensated for our work just like everyone else on our shows.


----------



## dinerdog (Sep 25, 2012)

*Re: Live TV musicians*

+1


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 25, 2012)

*Re: Live TV musicians*

I use to watch Lettermen just to hear Pauls guest performers and his B3 chops plus Oberheim stuff.
They never really had a full 11 piece Horn Section so he would use the Oberheim synths Brass and Mod Wheel to thicken up the section shakes and it was a great technique.
Now I like the guys on Leno but they never have guests anymore which kind of takes the winging it factor out of it.

But I live in live perfomance town and on any night I can see any style I want, and just recently Josh Stone, and Joe Walsh.
So I can see why folks in a town where there isn't much of a market would enjoy it.

I mean Johnny Carson was all about Him and Ed McMahon and Doc Severinson and I never missed a show when I was a kid, I actually follow his website too, and found out about an old St.Louis favorite right up there with Miles was really sick and I sent 10 bucks. 
Not much I know, but I'd rather a musician I admired get a boost instead of some weasal politician sending me emails and begging for cash like some mooch.

If you are in a compassionate mood here's the link.

http://www.docseverinsen.com/2012/06/letter-doc/


FWIW, does anyone remember when Arnold Palmers wife was a guest...? OMG, it was hysterical, he asked what good luck tricks do you before the old man goes and plays in a tournamnet...?
And she said I kiss his Balls........meaning the Golf Balls for good luck, but the usual Johnny Carson replied in a fast fashion by saying " I bet that makes his Putter stand up."
Oh jeez I miss that kind if schtick stuff.
But Kimmel, Stewart and Leno are fun to TIVO for when I get home.

They really need to move those shows to Vegas, they won't be taxed at the Soviet rates and maybe the Musicians can be better represented here as the Union Tradesmen would march with them. The whole town would strike. And nobody dares cross those lines except customers who'll go in and wait for a Pit Boss to go and try and make then a drink........ o-[][]-o


----------



## Markus S (Sep 26, 2012)

*Re: Live TV musicians*



JJP @ Tue Sep 25 said:


> rgames @ Mon Sep 24 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it is cold and capitalistic, but that's my dilemma. Why should we use a judgement other than society's votes with its collective dollars? My emotional brain says "Yes - help protect the musicians." But my rational brain says "Why force an outcome other than what society wants?"
> ...



+1


----------



## madbulk (Sep 26, 2012)

Oh stop making this about beating Richard. What's that, two or three +1's? At least Kays admits there's a little "you may say I'm a dreamer" in his argument and doesn't insist he's got you beaten.
Richard's argument did not completely miss the mark. You wanna see society voting with its billion dollars? Strike. And we'll see if the numbers change. Stop insisting the votes are in already. Your argument was sketchy from the outset.

My hope and expectation is the numbers would change. And I agree that the bad guys are comfortable either with expecting the opposite, or just as likely don't care about that so much as they just know they've got the musicians at a terrible negotiating disadvantage and would rather give up nothing.

But since you can't strike and they don't have to give in, you probably land where Kays says you land, in hippy dippy land where we have to preserve what's good somehow.

Edit: Okay the last part was probably a bit much.


----------



## midphase (Sep 26, 2012)

I still point my blame finger squarely at schools for getting us into this situation. They have oversaturated the market and made it impossible to have any sort of negotiating power, there are simply too many talented and desperate musicians out there who are willing to take paycuts and work for less than the other guy, and even renounce their unions or convince themselves that unions do more harm than good.

It's really sad, but you should see how cool Berklee's new dorm/cafeteria and workout gym is going to look....glass walls overlooking Mass Ave, wi-fi and premium cable while you work out and relax between those pesky practice sessions. The board members approve!

http://b.vimeocdn.com/ts/223/624/223624393_640.jpg


----------



## Mike Greene (Sep 26, 2012)

midphase @ Wed Sep 26 said:


> I still point my blame finger squarely at schools for getting us into this situation. They have oversaturated the market . . .


True, but you can't expect schools to close themselves or reduce enrollment. Especially since other schools will happily take any students turned away, so nothing would really get accomplished.

There's a recording school (L.A. Recording School) a few blocks from here. And another one (S.A.W.) a few blocks further. Not to mention Musicians' Institute a few blocks in the other direction. Thousands and thousands of students spending mom and dad's money on an education that I can't imagine will ever pay off for 99% of them, given the practically non-existent recording industry nowadays.

But the schools aren't in business to fill a need of not enough recording engineers or not enough guitar players. They're in business to fill a need of putting more money in the school owners' wallets.

Hmmmm, that gives me an idea . . . Kays, what do you say to the idea of "K&M's Composer Academy?" :mrgreen:


----------



## midphase (Sep 26, 2012)

I say let's do it!!!


Just to clarify, I am not blaming the schools for enrolling students, however I am blaming them for painting an incorrect and even deceiving picture of the jobs availability in the market. 

Colleges should disclose accurate post-graduation employment numbers to perspective students. As a matter of fact, federal law requires colleges and universities to disclose job and graduate school placement, as well as others pertinent statistics.

Nowadays colleges (particularly liberal arts ones) are more than happy to fudge the numbers and count unrelated employment when putting out those statistics.

In all fairness, when I went to Berklee, there were opportunities for employment in the film/TV scoring world. I can't blame them for not predicting the future. However today the situation is quite different. Oddly enough, the reason why I decided to pursue a career in film scoring was because I felt that there was far too much risk in pursuing a career as a musician. If at the time I would have been given relevant data as to the abysmally low employment rates in the film scoring industry, I would have undoubtedly pursued a different career (and Berklee would have probably not gotten my $$$).

This is not unlike the type of misleading tactics which got us into the housing market mess. We simply can't continue to allow institutions to paint a rosy picture when it's convenient for them, and then turn right around and tell the unemployed graduates that the should have known better.

As I get older, I realize that what most of us seek is the ability to express our creativity and to do so while being allowed to have a financially sustainable existence. Richard is right in stating that it's not the government's job to guarantee that reality, however it should be the government's job to implement regulations that provide accurate information to our next generations. What adds insult to injury is the absurd student loan debt that most art school graduates find themselves having to shoulder as they look for employment in the restaurant industry.


----------



## wst3 (Sep 26, 2012)

outstanding observation Kays!

But schools have become businesses too. OK, they were always businesses, but they didn't realize they could be for-profit (big profits) businesses for a long time.

Slight tangent - about ten years ago I was invited to sit on an academic advisory board at my alma mater. I did. I went to the first meeting, and there, sitting across the table, was me arch nemesis, my freshman Calc professor. UGH!

We glared at each other for a moment, and then got down to business.

Much to my surprise, I ended up siding with her, in fact I was the first to speak up against the trade-school approach they wanted to adopt. They wanted to teach, as an example, Photoshop, and drop most of the intro to fine arts classes. They wanted to do away with the math pre-reqs too.

I think there is a place for job specific training, but I'm not sure a small, independent liberal arts college is the best place for this, nor do I think it ought to be the purpose of a small liberal arts school.

But there is SO MUCH MONEY to be made teaching this sort of thing...

The music department was going to follow the same path, teach Pro-Tools, drop all those pesky harmony and theory classes, and especially the performance classes.

This is, allow me to mince words, stupid and short sighted.

And it leads to exactly the same sorts of problems we see elsewhere in the marketplace.

Dropping live musicians for canned music, no matter how good, and no matter how well compensated the composers and producers will be, is a kick in the teeth to anyone who appreciates live music.

The problem is, there aren't as many folks in that category as there once was.

OK, end of tangent (I learned about tangents in math class!!!!)


----------



## rgames (Sep 26, 2012)

*Re: Live TV musicians*



JJP @ Tue Sep 25 said:


> This is where your argument completely misses the mark. Society IS voting with its dollars - over a billion of them. (Yes, "billion" with a "B".) The live TV shows that use live musicians are relying on them in a bigger way than they have in half a century.


Correct.

But you've not addressed the issue: if all of those TV musicians are replaced with low-paid part-timers, do you think people will stop watching?

Doubtful. The TV shows probably aren't making billions because of the musicians.

But if people do quit watching when the musicians are replaced with low-paid part-timers then there will be pressure on the productions to increase the amount they pay so they can get better musicians. That would be a situation where people are allowed to vote with their dollars. Right now, they are not afforded the opportunity to do so.

And yes - there are way too many music majors these days. In fact, there are way too many college degrees of any kind. Colleges/Universities are businesses - very much so - that put a lot of people into debt that has no value. It seems unavoidable that student loans are, indeed, the next housing bubble: people duped into leveraging themselves into oblivion.

rgames


----------



## JJP (Sep 27, 2012)

*Re: Live TV musicians*

Agreed on the points about music schools.

I think the argument of whether people would watch if you replaced the musicians with low-paid lower-skilled people (I'll just call them "hacks") is a little more subtle than you're making it out.

The recent NFL referee situation might be a good example. Sure, they can get through it, and people will still watch, but the value of the program is seriously compromised. That will lead to a decline in ad revenue immediately and viewership over time -- probably starting on the third week or so.

I think that same argument could be used with any trade on a show. If you replace the cinematographers, costume designers, or writers with hacks, people won't immediately stop watching, but advertisers will dislike the lower quality and the value will be compromised which will affect viewership. The problem is that no one says any other trade doesn't deserve a raise.

However, there is another off-camera affect that you don't have in the NFL. If you replace the musicians with hacks, that greatly slows down the production schedule. Most of these shows are rehearsed and shot in a single day. The rehearsal schedule on show day is packed and there's not a moment to spare. When you start replacing any trade with hacks, it slows things down. In the case of musicians, arrangements are expected to be perfect, parts copied flawlessly, and the players are expected to nail the music first time through while sight-reading. If you have to run a musical number even one more time than planned, things start getting tight with the schedule. The air time for a live show can't be moved. That's what live TV is all about.

If you slow down the rehearsal schedule, you have to either limit the content of the show, further degrading the value, or pre-rehearse anything you can't fit into show day. The second option is a huge expense because all the trades have to be paid for another day. Any gains made by cheaper musicians are easily offset by this added cost. Musicians are a pretty small part of the overall budget on most of these shows.

So musicians could be replaced with hacks, but it would be a serious cost to the show. However, walking off a show or striking is always seen as a nuclear option. It's something nobody wants to do because it hurts not only the networks and producers, but everyone involved with the show. There are other types of pressure that can, and are, being brought to bear in a dispute like this.

But to put the idea of a strike in perspective, as with most things in large, creative projects, you can't just take out one element and say, "See, if I remove this block the tower still stands, so it's not as valuable as the one next to it." If you've ever played the game Jenga, you know the same could be said of any block in the tower.


----------



## madbulk (Sep 27, 2012)

*Re: Live TV musicians*



JJP @ Thu Sep 27 said:


> Agreed on the points about music schools.
> 
> I think the argument of whether people would watch if you replaced the musicians with low-paid lower-skilled people (I'll just call them "hacks") is a little more subtle than you're making it out.
> 
> ...


 
+1 
I can't disagree with any of that.


----------



## rgames (Sep 27, 2012)

*Re: Live TV musicians*



JJP @ Thu Sep 27 said:


> I'll just call them "hacks"


You shouldn't. They're not. That's extraordinarily condescending, so you might want to re-think that statement.

Your prejudice is leading you to the wrong conclusion. There are plenty of musicians with day jobs who can replace most full-time musicians. I know it for a fact because I've been one for more than 20 years. I've always had a day job outside music but prior to the last few years I was first-call sub for a number of groups. Pit orchestras, concert orchestras, jazz groups, studio work, whatever. I made good beer money in college doing it. And I wasn't unique.

There are plenty of folks who are not full-time musicians who can work a quick-turn gig.

Common sense tells you that must be the case: we already discussed the ridiculous number of people getting music degrees. If so few of them actually get full-time gigs, that means there are a lot of well-trained musicians hanging around doing something other than music.

Now, is the average level of musicianship of the part-timer as good as the average level of the full-timer? Probably not. But, again, what's good enough? Let's be honest, you don't need to be a virtuoso to cover most of the TV gigs.

rgames


----------



## madbulk (Sep 27, 2012)

Not a big football fan, Rich?


----------



## ozmorphasis (Sep 27, 2012)

*Re: Live TV musicians*



> nobody has a right to make a living as a musician



True!



> why does anyone need someone else to represent his interests?



If that is a valid question, it should also be asked of shareholders. 

Your argument would only make sense if all individual potential employees (composers) were seeking work in a world that is also made up from individual employers. In other words, a level playing field.

Almost all potential employers (in this case networks) are "unions" of profit-seeking interests, with combined powers that can dictate the terms of the market in ways that defy basic supply-demand scenarios.

A labor union (for better and worse) is labor organized so that it has a chance to negotiate the playing field given the size of its potential employer. It is an inevitable byproduct of a non-level playing field.

Your view sounds good on paper, but does not work out in reality. Regulations (policy) and negotiating power (established through sheer numbers, in other words unions) are the only things that have prevented markets from completely exploiting labor, historically speaking. 

This is not a defense of unions, but a basic observation of power dynamics at a negotiation table.

O


----------



## JJP (Sep 27, 2012)

*Re: Live TV musicians*



rgames @ Thu Sep 27 said:


> JJP @ Thu Sep 27 said:
> 
> 
> > I'll just call them "hacks"
> ...


Not trying to be condescending. I'm not sure what other shorthand term I should use to replace the phrase "low-paid lower-skilled people". I didn't want to keep typing that.



> There are plenty of musicians with day jobs who can replace most full-time musicians. I know it for a fact because I've been one for more than 20 years... I made good beer money in college doing it. And I wasn't unique.


I don't want to disrespect your playing ability, I'm sure you're a fine player, but no college kid would ever get hired for a prime time Hollywood live TV gig nowadays unless he or she was a virtuoso. I wouldn't compare gigs in college with the type of jobs we're talking about. It's not uncommon for people to underestimate the level of excellence if they haven't worked that particular scene. If you have, and I'm way off base, do give me a lashing. :wink: 

On many of the shows I work the players are virtuosos. I mean quite literally some of the very best in the world at what they do. I'm talking about ringers who get called in to be woodwind soloists for the Chicago Symphony, win international violin competitions, get invited to music direct at the Olympics. On top of that, they're musicians who are extremely experienced in a studio situation. They can read, interpret styles, and work a click like nobody. That's a specialized skill that many typical good live performers don't have.

That's why I made the comparison with the NFL referees. Sure the replacements could get the job done. But when the chips were down and the calls had to be right, it just wasn't the same as having the top-tier talent. There is a unique value those top-tier people bring to their jobs. They deserve compensation for that because of the value they bring to the entire production.

By the way, I never expected this discussion would go so far. Quite thought-provoking. o-[][]-o


----------



## rgames (Sep 27, 2012)

*Re: Live TV musicians*

Well, I don't know what else to add.

However, I'll re-iterate the point that we seem to agree on: there are a lot of really good musicians out there doing something other than music for a living. Those folks continue to play, and they have chops as good as anyone you'll find on a TV show.

Here's something else to think about: do you think the musicians on the TV shows just showed up and started playing the shows? Probably not - they had day jobs before they made enough to live off their playing. I think you'll agree that the number of people who manage to do that is a pretty small percentage, so where do you think all those other musicians went? They're still around, they just didn't get the break. They're certainly not "hacks".

And while the folks playing on TV shows might be virtuosos, I stand by my assertion that such skill is not necessary. Better is the enemy of good enough...

rgames


----------



## Arbee (Sep 27, 2012)

*Re: Live TV musicians*

As someone with a TV music background (on and off across 15 years), who these days earns his living elsewhere, I can add the following:

Every TV show I ever worked on hired the very best studio musicians available who could intuitively sight read anything and with feel. The same deal with arrangers who could create and orchestrate at lightning speed under pressure. With the greatest respect to part-timers, I can't imagine how less experienced musicians could really cut it in TV at the pace and "red light stress" to get it right the first time. There is little to no scope for "can you just wait a minute while I figure this out" in TV. You can be confronted with anything from Lady Gaga to West Side Story on the same day.

The world owes no-one a right to do anything for a living. There has to be demand and the less the demand, the harder and smarter you have to work and the more professional you have to be to rise to the top of the pack. Most musicians are not working for the end customer, the consumer, they are working for the middle men. Call me an idealist but I believe every musician in this day and age should attempt to develop a direct relationship with the listener/consumer. This gives valuable feedback to their art and craft and, if successful, some negotiating leverage when dealing with those middle men.

TV, like so much in the arts, is a ruthless medium and for that reason alone, pay should be reasonable given the risks musicians take in committing to TV (except for one off shows of course). There is no golden handshake when a TV series is axed, it is simply "oh and by the way that was the last show you just did.". This may be different elsewhere, but certainly the case in Oz.

Anyway, just my 2c....


----------



## JJP (Oct 2, 2012)

*Re: Live TV musicians*

For those of you who were following this thread, the AFM took to the streets today to get the word out to the public about their situation.
http://www.afm.org/news/musicians-slam-tv-networks-on-both-coasts-today

Los Angeles Local 47 put up this website showing some of the inequities of the networks' arguments.
http://promusic47.org/tvmusicians.html

Variety also picked up the story
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118060199?refCatId=16

Deadline Hollywood also ran a story about the action
http://www.deadline.com/2012/10/mus...otests-leno-letterman-kimmel-and-other-shows/


----------



## JJP (Nov 20, 2012)

After seven years, several rounds of agressive negotiations, and a leafleting campaign at the network shows, live TV musicians finally reached an agreement. The new agreement includes a pay raise, an increase in benefits, and critical coverage of new media. This is a good day for all musicians.

http://www.afm.org/news/afm-reaches-agreement-with-tv-networks

=o


----------

