# Composers rates falling! Things looking pretty ugly!



## midphase (Nov 15, 2006)

"The newly updated and expanded survey includes pay rates and typical hiring scenarios for film and television composers, video game composers, song and music licensing, music supervisors, orchestrators, conductors, recording musicians (including sample worldwide rates), agents and managers, music editors, contractors and scoring mixers.

Among the survey's findings:

* The industry's top few composers are making higher pay than ever, with pay for top composers ranging between $1m and $2 million dollars for a package deal including orchestral costs.

* Composers at the middle and low budget levels of the industry are seeing a major drop in composer fees. The low range for cable networks now features a package deal of $5,000 to score an entire movie of the week, with the network retaining publishing of the music. Composer fees for both film and television projects show a significant decline since the survey was last conducted in 2004.

* Song Licensing fees for film and television are declining for all but the most popular films/songs. Some production companies are now asking for co-publishing (a percentage of the publishing royalties) for song placements, a practice almost unheard of only a few years ago.

* Competition is increasing for recording musicians worldwide, especially from Eastern European orchestras where rates can range from $20-$30 per hour not including facilities and studio "



Hmmmm....I don't know about you but the above info doesn't sound too good to me. $5,000 for a movie of the week? Anybody around here start to see some of these rates? 

How can we all help to stop this hemorraging of the composer profession and put some effort into making sure that there is a future for composers? In a period of less than 20 years, I have seen the composing profession go from a well compensated field to a dog-eat-dog situation where rates and benefits are dropping to record lows each year.

There is also a sense of disconnect between young upcoming composers and PRO's who seem to put the majority of their resources to assist big time composers and recording artists. 

Everybody seems to want to get to be a film or TV composer, yet the majority of kids who get into colleges to study film composition have no real idea of what they're getting themselves into.

I know that some of you have been very opposed to the idea of Unionizing composers, but how else can we possibly put some regulations into place to protect our interests? It seems to me that the movie and TV industry is very well aware of how desparate for a break most of us are and hence it's in a position of taking advantage of the situation by offering lower and lower deals and taking more and more PRO's chunks.


Any thoughts on what we can do about this? Please let's open a discussion about this very alarming trend.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Nov 15, 2006)

I think you're going to start seeing more and more composers clustering together for self-styled companies where doing a movie of the week, games & such would be a shared project much like smaller versions of Remote Control with no ghosting. It may be what's fueling the decrease in compensation since a team can get a job finished in a fraction of the time than a single composer could with lack of sleep, twenty hour days and a goal of writing 5-7 minutes a day of quality cues.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 15, 2006)

Without a doubt those numbers seem real enough to me. I finally just put a stop to it. After doing it for two years straight hoping to move up I'm like what's the point.

Finally now I'm starting to do work for the right reasons. Hopefully I'll get compensated because people admire my work. But the idea of making a living "feeding" the Hollywood machine on your run of the mill lowbudget bread a butter shows. I feel those days are over for us. I'm sure that some companies still pay well. Battlestar Galactica looks like a pretty decent show with a budget.

But one thing is for sure. Union won't solve the problem. It hasn't for players. It won't for us. The only thing that will save us is ourselves by saying no to cheap low budget crap and putting our hearts behind work we really believe in. My new thought is, "if I'm not going to get paid well the project better be something I'm totally in love with."

Jose


----------



## Hermitage59 (Nov 16, 2006)

Folmann, things are different now, and a hundred year comparison doesn't seem valid, when you consider the sheer impact of technology.
There's been writing collabarations before, and will be in the future, as composers and arrangers get together.
And the number of people wanting to compose may well increase, and has done, but the additional factore this time is the willingness of the studios, etc. to accept a lower standard of product, (as they assume the general punter won't know the difference), in their pursuit of profit over quality. This did happen in the past, but not to the level it is now. Mediocrity has become the acceptable norm, because it pays for the investor, and gives the money types the leverage to lower their bottom line, usually meaning muso's get less.

And i speak from experience when i agree with Jose about the lack of confidence in unions. They're usually in it for themselves and the favoured few, and i never met a musicians union member in thirty years who ever got any help from MU when the chips were down.

Sadly, and maybe as a result of the creative and often individualistic, character of composers, we're unlikely to work together dealing with this is in manner beneficial to all of us. If we all said no to cheaper rates, someone would break ranks, in the pursuit of pennies, or glory, or both. And let's fact it, if someone is making a reasonable living at the moment, and feeding the family, can we really expect them to put that at risk based on an 'honourable stand?' Composers, and other related professionals, are being played off against each other by the profiteers, and it's those same profiteers who are the only ones who gain, as they play the game in which they set the rules. It would take all of us standing together for a long time, with a lot of publicity, and negative press for the studios and media outlets before they would even consider changing, and even then, they'd probably use the opportunity to resort to library music, and leave composers out of the picture altogether.

I think we should all say no to cheaper rates, and low expectations on the part of the money types. Reality speaks differently however, particularly when it comes to bean counters, studio owners, producers, and 'profit versus fair pay.'

There's no easy way to improve the situation, or even try to maintain the little that the bulk of composers get these days, but Jose's right (IMHO). 

Unions aren't the answer.

Regards, and good luck,

Alex.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Nov 16, 2006)

Kays,

I got paid 10G (canadian, worked out to 9G US at the time) this past summer for a US MOW. That's my minimum for a feature. I will not accept lower. That said, there are more young composers than ever, and when you're starting out, you are more than willing to compose for 5 grand, given that what you really need are credtis, and you're used to getting paid in hundreds. I've seen rates fall too. Series used to pay 2 grand an episode. Now it's more like half of that. There's a variety of causes, imo: many more networks competitng for the same eyeball mean less add revenue to go around = smaller budgets; the pressure on network admins to cut, cut, cut costs in the name of efficiency (if technology can keep offering more for less, why not composers?...); more competition from up and comers who don't need to have a network of musicians (hello sample libraries), schooling (hello performance loops); music libraries anyone?

Solution? Hold on like a spider in the wind. Adapt. Do more with less. There are more opportunities than ever to make music for images. Compromise most on projects which will give you the greatest joy. Reject those that will pay you little in both money and pleasure.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Nov 16, 2006)

Wow.

This is one of those cases where all of the advice given young composers has gone (expectedly) unheeded. People are gearing up with DAW software, and working for sack-boy wages just to get a credit. That, in turn, emboldens the movie-mills to pay even lower. No different than lowballing a bar owner with your band to knock another band off the calendar. You just screw yourself...there's no winning that game.

I agree that Unions won't fix a thing. Unions had an important socitetal purpose at one time, but have outlived most of their useful value. My wife, among other things, negotiates contracts with the biggest unions in the country...she is known as one of the best in her industry at dealing with them. The issue with Unions is the seniority system. They are stuck with it, because no member who actually HAS seniority is going to support a move to a merit-based system...and when advancement is tied only to seniority, you have all sorts of other consequences which play out.

Karen just finished negotiating a contract where the unfortunate end result is that less qualified (but generally much older) Union members actually got to "bump" more qualified ones out of jobs, strictly because they had the seniority...and there was absolutely nothing she could do about it. The company had no control over this, nor did the Union, whose reps actually are trying (to no avail) to improve their end product. And, this drives costs up exponentially for healthcare, since a union workforce tends to be older, fatter, less educated, and less healthy overall. The union reps were equally distressed about the outcome--they see the writing on the wall. This is what is killing unions, and there is almost nothing to do about it. Among 3-4 generations of people, to many, joining "the union" meant you didn't have to work hard in school or attend university..."the union" would take care of you, like dad, and grand-dad, and great grand-dad before him.

Those rates you're quoting are ludicrous. Has any one here actually seen a serious offer that low? I don't work for that kind of money. I won't. Partly because I'm middle aged, and I don't give a flying f**k about credits at this point in my career. If some young idiot wants to knock himself out scoring some crappy movie of the week for $5k, I say good for him. Eventually, he'll realize that taking low paying jobs on mediocre work will lead to even more low paying jobs on mediocre work...and that you've worked your brains out with nothing to show for the effort. We all pay dues at one time or another, but music is one of those businesses where you either move on to better things very quickly, or you'll reach "final placement" in the words of Lawrence Peter, and you fade away...


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 16, 2006)

Bruce pretty much nailed it for me.


----------



## rJames (Nov 16, 2006)

IMHO, Ned's the only one who's got it right. 


Ned Bouhalassa @ Thu Nov 16 said:


> Adapt. Do more with less.



Well, not necesarily, "do more with less," although that might be one way to adapt.
No doubt, you must adapt.

There's no choice. Competition is fierce in every field. Companies try to own their market (Microsoft) and east up the competition (Netscape and a few hundred others).

How many real estate agents have left a flyer at your door this week?

Whole towns (main street) have been made irrelevant by Wal-Mart. 

At least as a composer you can provide a product that your clients can get nowhere else. Leverage that...and ADAPT.

Computer technology has revolutionized music allowing thousands of new composers access to orchestras, synthetic ensembles, you know...a thousand new ways to make music.

With that new field of play, some composers who don't deserve to be paid for their talent (or lack of it) will be knocked out of the queue by some whose voice would never have been heard a few years ago.

Every market changes. Those who recognize the change and adapt will survive, those who don't, won't.

The marketplace will take care of itself. If a producer chooses to use a "free" soundtrack and still makes a good movie, then he has done his job well. If he makes a flop, then he will be cast off to the side of the road or run over by the traffic rushing to the screen.

Its not fair!


----------



## midphase (Nov 16, 2006)

Ron,

With all due respect, I have to disagree with your view, but let me explain why.

I recently watched the film An Inconvenient Truth. Although I didn't learn much that I didn't already know about global warming, the points that were made abundantly clear to me were that: A. this is not part of a natural cycle. and B. we have to do something to stop this.

In a way, global warming is analogous to what's happening to the composer community (and small businesses, and real estate, and so on). It is an inbalance caused by a surge of numbers of people in the community and a change of business approach.

By urging everyone to "adapt", and that the "marketplace will take care of itself" you are essentially taking a let's-not-take-care-of-the-problem-let's-just-adapt-to-the-problem stand.

While mankind has survived by adapting to natural changes, it will undoubtedly die by adapting to unnatural ones.

By urging composers to essentially "deal with it" you're saying that we'll all just have to get paid less, work more...and not be such crybabies about it.

I'm really tired of this "free market" excuse and the "eat or be eaten" reasoning to justify a really unhealthy state of the world. Free market is great...but there is nothing free about this market. Political influence over business decisions is just as bad as big business influence over political decisions.

We have simply traded one "big brother" for another.


----------



## midphase (Nov 16, 2006)

Bruce,

It seems like here at VI, we seem to agree more than in the other place!

I fully agree with you, but to answer your question, I have been offered those $5k gigs before. I generally either turn them down, or put pressure on the production company to raise the music budget and make the best effort to explain to them why chances are if they hire a composer who will readily accept $5k, they will probably get someone who will not benefit the film as much as I would (or probably who might even hurt the film).

I just signed on to score a "studio feature" and the music budget was way below what I would consider adequate for the budget of the film. Still more than $5k...but it was an alarm bell for me that things are really changing in a big bad way.


----------



## midphase (Nov 16, 2006)

I'd like to get one more point (and then I really have to get to work) which is that there is a difference between filmmakers who appreciate the value of good music, but find themselves unable to fully compensate the composer, and filmmakers who don't seem to give a f-ck or who don't see any difference between getting a good composer on board or the chepest guy they can find.

The former, should be worked with by a flexible composer and the relationship nourished as the composer sees fit.

The latter should be avoided at all costs no matter how tempting the promise of a "big break" is. In 90% of the cases, those guys never lead to a significant improvement in the quality of work.


----------



## Thonex (Nov 16, 2006)

midphase @ Thu Nov 16 said:


> In 90% of the cases, those guys never lead to a significant improvement in the quality of work.



Agreed


----------



## rJames (Nov 16, 2006)

Kays, I agree with your points. As usual, I was being an extremist (and the devils advocate).

But the truth of the matter is that hoards of newcomers are coming into the valley. What will you do?

Preface, I respect Bruce Richardsons opinion as well; Bruce wants to give them the advice that we can't sell our services for such a low rate or we will be hurting ourselves. Try telling that to the raiding parties that are trying to sack your city.

No, the newcomers are going to ignore that advice. Duh!

Maybe a "composer's guild" modeled on the "writer's guild" would stave off the thundering hoards. Maybe not.

The market forces will soon show them that they can't make a living by giving away their product. "I only lost a little on that job but I make it up in quantity."

You've got the contacts. I want the contacts. I have to figure out how to get the contacts.

I'm not saying the market forces will take the market in the direction that you would like but I am saying that the market forces are at work. And you better look at them and roll with the punches.

The world gets smaller every day. Ten years ago, you competed with people who live in the LA area. Today, you compete with TJ in Europe and Leogardini in Brazil.

You have brought this to our attention, so obviously you are already paying attention.

If you'll read my post more carefully, I said that Ned's, "do more with less," is only one way of dealing with the new realities.

ADAPT is the main idea. Creating a guild might be one way of adapting (sort of circling the wagons).

The composer has had to learn to wear many new hats in the past 20 years; composer, engineer, performing artist, producer, the list goes on...add business analyst, business strategist...


----------



## JonFairhurst (Nov 16, 2006)

I recently read a post by a camera operator who long ago had graduated from film school and did whatever it took to work with the very best equipment. He did some amazing jobs early in his career, and before long he was well compensated and continued to work on higher end productions. 

He saw the potential of the DV revolution early, bought some DV equipment and established himself in that space. And you know what? He got pegged as a low-end guy and lost all of his high-end gigs. As time went by his reel became more and more stale.

The guy is now trying to reverse course, working for peanuts (if that) to re-establish himself as a high-end operator. We'll see how it works out.

I wonder if there is a parallel in the world of music? Volunteering for low end stuff simply establishes you as a low-end player. And as the survey shows, there's no money in the low-end - even if you succeed. 

Working as a go-pher for John Williams would be another story. One would have the opportunity to establish yourself in those circles and eventually show off their chops. At least there's something at the end of that rainbow.

The big problem I see is that the middle of the market (TV MOTW) is turning into a low-end business. That's tough.

It seems that the only solutions are to a) brand yourself as a $10k composer who gets royalty checks, rather than a $2k no-back-end serf, and b) to find a way to keep ownership of your work by partnering with producers, directors, investors, etc.

Don't discount the "brand" mentality. Look at the Bose Wave Radio. It's just a clock radio, albeit a really nice one. But they're not branded as alarm clocks. They're branded as amazing compact audio systems. And they sell for $500 apiece.

What's your brand?


----------



## Hannes_F (Nov 16, 2006)

It is a general trend for artists: Costs are going up, salaries are going down.

I earn my living mostly by performing music, comedy and magic. As joyful it is, it is a hard life financially, and customers are willing to pay less and less every year.

But the reason is not that there would be no money, the reason is that the _priorities shift_. Today a manager straight forward told me that they would not have an adequate budget for my show ... because it is more important to offer really really unlimited alcoholic beverage to their staff at the company christmas party. Arrggh.

So I have turned down several gigs this year ... which on the other side does not do good for my income of course.

In the moment I think the only way to get out of this is to blow them away with quality. If they do not want to have just 'somebody' but try to get 'me' - this is the only way to turn their priority list downside up again. Therefore I try to get back to making an art of it instead of a craftwork.

I have not much experience so far in composing for money. So I can only transfer this in analogy to your situation. But I think that every composer should try to be 'him' or 'her' as much as he or her can - be original and charismatic in work. Yes, that would drive away some customers first. But if people would come to get 'your' profilic sound this would be a totally different situation than 'we are looking for _somebody _that can make something that sounds like X or Y' or 'a typical action cue'. 

Everything that is exchangeable will be subordinated to inflation. Art can stick out and change priority lists. Craftwork will just follow the rules of the market.

I know that it is difficult and I am myself constantly oscillating between those two poles. But ... maybe one day it will work out.

The best to all of you


Hannes


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Nov 16, 2006)

JonFairhurst @ Thu Nov 16 said:


> Volunteering for low end stuff simply establishes you as a low-end player. And as the survey shows, there's no money in the low-end - even if you succeed.



That's a good encapsulation of the reality.

Musicians have a delusional relationship with business. The live band business is dead except for casuals and weddings, and even largely dead there. Musicians killed it by screwing each other for so-called "exposure," forgetting that we're in the music BUSINESS.

The composing business is no different. Our idiot musical brethren are already screwing it all up. It just took longer, because before the software revolution in production, it was actually pretty hard to make listenable music. Not so many people were talented enough at it to succeed. There was infinitely less competition, numbers wise, and infinitely more competition, talent wise. If you were going to break into jingles at the time I broke in, you'd have to be a hell of an arranger (on paper, not just dumb luck jamming into a sequencer), and you needed a stable of great players that could nail it in the studio. Otherwise, you couldn't compete.

That filtered out a lot of morons. Now, any f-ing idiot can buy a studio for $400.

So, I might be a little negative, but I'd say the pooch is already screwed for television and film. It's either some variant on pads and grooves, or the pizzicato-driven-slightly-humorous orchestral sound that is all over Desperate Housewives, et. al. There will be a handful of top-shelf talent, and the "middle class," so to speak, will continue to disappear. It is happening, and the study's numbers reflect it with the same accuracy as all of our experiences. 

I should say that I would entertain a $5k movie of the week...IF it had a good back end. I neglected to mention that aspect in my last post, but I see that others already have. If the back end is there, sure...if it plays on any significant television outlet, that's a good paycheck, and $5k up front is low, but not a deal breaker. The problem is that the movie-sweatshop biz has discovered that young idiots will take buyouts, and so there you go. Now, even that level of gig is trashed.

Thanks kids, I hope you enjoy that macaroni and cheese and those ramen noodles you'll be eating when you reach my age!!! At least most of us middle aged guys had a few good years to make cash before the bottom fell out. Heck, I still have a few shows in circulation that I own 100% of both writer and publisher share. One episode on cable is a better check than these "modern reality" gigs are paying.

So, I guess despite the fact that I regret the willingness of our fellow musicians to destroy the business over and over again, I am firmly in the "adapt-to-survive" camp. I am doing a lot of things artistically that have nothing to do with scoring films, and I am enjoying all of them. I have always worked in different areas of the business, and despite the fact that I have been mostly composing for the last ten or so years, I'm seeing lots of opportunity in other artistic ventures. It's a pain to keep changing, but what are we going to do? It has never really been any different, it's just changing faster now. But, on the other hand, it's easier to keep up. There is always opportunity.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Nov 16, 2006)

Hannes_F @ Thu Nov 16 said:


> I have not much experience so far in composing for money. So I can only transfer this in analogy to your situation. But I think that every composer should try to be 'him' or 'her' as much as he or her can - be original and charismatic in work. Yes, that would drive away some customers first. But if people would come to get 'your' profilic sound this would be a totally different situation than 'we are looking for _somebody _that can make something that sounds like X or Y' or 'a typical action cue'.



I agree very much with that line of thinking. I always recommend it to young musicians. Become a good player when you are young, so that you actually develop a musical personality that you can watch people respond to. That gives you the means of learning how to manipulate people's moods--even their actions. 

People don't care how sophisticated a musician you are, or how technically excellent your playing is. They only want you to make them feel something, which manages to be simultaneously easier and harder than anything taught in the average music degree plan. 

This is what you can sell as a composer...much more so than any level of production value or "soundalike" MIDI-mockup skills will buy. Those things were overvalued to begin with, and now that the price of entry is low, there is no exclusivity in it. There never really was...that was simply delusion and wishful thinking.

I am far, far, far from the most talented person on the block. But I can write a dumb hook that people cannot dislodge from their brains for days, and that is what gets me jobs. Sophistication is not necessarily a matter of flashy technique or intricate complexity. I learned a long time ago that I can get paid $1000 for ten-thousand notes, but can also make that same $1000 for three notes...if they're the right three.

I'll take the latter. More time for left-handed Winstons, gardening, sex, food, and cocktails.


----------



## kid-surf (Nov 16, 2006)

I agree with much that has been said here.... but heres my take.

I think this composing world is pretty shitty in it's current state and is only going to get worse. But then, I'm one of the problems for my "friends" here. And I recognize that fact. But you know, I've been doing music for 20+ years, I love music and I don't want to do anything else. But no, I didn't want to be a composer when I was 10.

Anyway...

I believe the "only" way out of this is to brand yourself (as Jon said). Eventually you do enough KILLER music and you'll find yourself separated from the pack a fair amount. It's really one of the only chances we've got. (and btw -- if I feel my music is KILLER, which I don't yet, I could give a crap if some other composers thinks I suck. We are what? .0001% of the viewing audience? We can't even sell very many soundtracks to our music even when we're the top guy in the business. Not to say the music is bad, just that not very many people care to begin with. Even though I'm not amazing, I learn fast and will only get exponentially better. But that all leads into my thoughts on the film industry and lack of talent provided to 'us' to score against. I tell you what, I sure as hell don't feel less talented than the people I'm hustling jobs from. Fuck no! If you wanna be 8 million times more talented than the directors you work for, cool. I'd like to work with someone at least at "my own" level. Which I'm sure you've seen out there is not the case "usually". not for me anyway.)


I also agree that there are those directors out there that "get" why they need us and truly believe in good music. As well, many more who couldn't give a flying fuck who they use long as they see something they recognize in their credits. Isn't it amazing how shitty their films always are. I turned down one of those the other day... I don't care who is in it. It fucken sucked. What's that gonna do for me? Why do a film that's that bad... I don't need that rep.


I got offered 3 grand the other day for a film with distro, decent production company. The rates are pretty shitty I find. I made more doing a "blip" of music than that whole film was going to pay. (Yet I should fallen over myself and thank them for the "opportunity", right?)


I swear, I am about to shoot my own film. I can make certain the script is good (have the top agents in the business tell me so before I seek financing etc). Then direct it my fucking self, hire a good DP. More than half of these directors I'm working for set up the shots like shit, the story is fucking boring and tired, and they really don't have much "skill" as a director or writer to begin with -- yet somehow they were able to convince someone they did. It's shocking to me. I watch the thing and think "how the hell do you stand behind this... it's horrible. How does one set out to direct and shot stuff worse than what _i'd_ do???" (between you and I  )


Well, that may be one express way to better gigs. DYI. I think it's about the best idea I can think of (if you fell you know what's up and could pull it off). You do a film that is great and you are all of a sudden "the man". Look, these people (agents and so forth -- the people calling all the shots) they aren't smarter than "us" when it comes to recognizing art. "WE" are the creators here, we are usually working on films we don't think are very good (well, true for me). Why let these directors/agents/studios be the ones who get to run our game? Their film hits and they'll be off using someone else. Why not take control of the most respected aspect of the film... "writing/directing" it yourself. 


You do a decent film and you've got a friggn studio deal and now are a Hollywood triple threat. Oh, you don't think it could work? I guess you don't know how naive these people sometimes are. Like I said, they don't create anything, they are voyeurs who "sell" what we do. I know how to leverage these people against themselves for my own benefit. But it has to be creating the "whole thing". Then you are golden......... because no one cares about the music unto itself. 

I'm talking about writing/directing the film YOU want to score. A film that would establish "your" voice. Sounds crazy huh... not to me. 


Think about it. It takes a composer YEARS to establish themselves. It takes a director "one" good indie film. Something there doesn't add up to me. Obviously the industry doesn't care about music, well, they sincerely don't really understand it. So it's hard for them to quantify it's significance/worth... and thus we are forced into this credit based evaluation system. A system that is not that way for directors. For a director or screen writer it's simply "can you do the work, or can't you?". You only need ONE example of good work before people throw money at you.

I know this to be true because I see first hand how writers come from obscurity, get signed by my wife, and are out there doing studio pitches/meetings almost the very next day. Off "one" script. Was it a fluke? They don't care, they find out later once you spec for big time "studio" jobs. You pitch your idea, BANG, now you've got a guaranteed fee. And yesterday you worked at the mall. Now you are a studio writer... maybe they offer you a an executive producer role on a TV show too. Who knows? The point is... it's entirely about whether or not they think you're good. Then you get to have an agent who'll actually put you up for jobs that pay A LOT!

Not true for us composers....

In fact I had that conversation with a composing agent. How it's so remarkably different on our end. 


I think there's other options is all... and I am working on a feature script that I plan to direct and score if worse comes to worse. I know what a good script is, due to my association to my wife's gig. I can be absolutely sure it's perfect before it's shot due to feedback from agents that rep the best writers out there. 

Aside from that ... I do think it's gonna come down to teams. These people are eventually gonna expect far too much from just one guy. And the rates will continue to go down for all but those who find away to the top.


I'm determined to not let Hollywood beat me, I've worked to fucking hard my whole life writing music to let that happen to me.... 


Good luck out there guys! Sincerely....


----------



## kid-surf (Nov 16, 2006)

Anyway part of my point was that....

Why do we throw around that word so much "quality". Why do we expect so much from us and not as much from them? Fuck that... I think it's a double standard. (are you gonna tell them their film is a piece of crap? Me neither) 


Aside from that. I hear what you are saying Kays. my brain is often where yours is regarding a Union. There good points both ways . Which ultimately leads me to believe it'll never change. We composers are fare too interested in our own welfare to help each other THAT much.

Sad but true... But, you know, composing is a lifestyle. Who has time to help anyone?

Well, Hollywood is a joke to me. Art? Yeah, whatever.... if you're lucky and the stars align. In that case revel in it! Absolutely! But the odds are so far against us... starting with the bad script. You'll know when the film is brilliant... then you can kick more ass than you ever have (and yet, your composer buddies will still think you didn't quite pull it off. :D And so it goes...... they don't mean harm. )

It's hard out there for a pimp.


----------



## rgames (Nov 16, 2006)

I've read through most of the posts here and there's one glaring omission from the discussion: what the consumer wants.

Let's face it, the average moviegoer/tv watcher/game player can't tell the difference between an "original" piece of music and a loosely related arrangement of loops. As such, those who decide where the money goes (and whose goal is to maximize profit) are satisfied with a minimum of quality because of the minimum price.

Think of it this way - what if an auto manufacturer extolled the virtures of the quality of some component of their vehicle that you don't care about - will you be willing to pay extra just because it's so much better in the eyes of someone else? I doubt it.

So there's the rub: trying to get the money handlers to pay higher wages is pointless. What we need to do is to convince the end-user that better music is desirable. Only then will we see wages go up because movies/tv shows/games will be differentiated on that basis.

Less than 10% of my income comes from my musical endeavors (mostly as a clarinetist, not as a composer, and I don't teach). The same is true for a huge percentage of musicians: there was a study that showed that something like only 20% of Juilliard performance graduates actually make a living only in performance - most also work other jobs to pay the rent. I would wager it's even worse in the composers' arena. All you have to do is pick up a copy of the International Musician and see what the offers are for performance jobs from the (few) leading orchestras. Then consider how many performance gradutes there are for these positions. I don't know of a similar listing for composers but I'm guessing it's even more competitive.

For better or worse, it's a capitalist society. If there's no demand for our product or if there are a huge number of people who can meet the minimum quality requirements then it doesn't matter how much we moan - wages will remain low until we change the demand. In my mind, that's where unions fail: they focus solely on the relationship between the worker and the employer, not the end-user.

Supplementing income in an unrelated field until my big break,

rgames


----------



## kid-surf (Nov 16, 2006)

rgames @ Thu Nov 16 said:


> I've read through most of the posts here and there's one glaring omission from the discussion: what the consumer wants.



Oops... well you should have read a few more... until you got to mine.


----------



## Hannes_F (Nov 16, 2006)

Side thought:

A good friend of mine has a Salsa dancing school. They are one among others in town and there is always a competion between them.

Most others concentrate on the people (customers) that are already dancing and try to convince them that their school or style is better (which is doubtable btw).

My friend has a completely different philosophy. He always tries to get new people into the scene. His target are the 'pedestrians'. For him it is pointless to hunt for other school's customers - they will come and go anyway - his mission is to promote dancing and Salsa as a resource of vitality in the society.

With other words, he makes people interested in his art that haven't been before, and therefore broadens his target group. This is his mission, and he tries from every angle. Meanwhile he is even engaged in television shows that are broadcasted nationwide.

So along the lines of rgames what we musicians need is to make the end consumer more aware of the differences of musical quality. We need measures that get more people into the 'active listener society'. This is one part of my personal concept - bring the violin to people that never thought it could be so beautiful.

Life music and all sorts of unconventional performances are one way, maybe you will find more. After all - you are the musical inventors of this world.


Hannes


----------



## JonFairhurst (Nov 16, 2006)

kid-surf,

If you haven't read it yet, check out Independent Feature Film Production by Gregory Goodell. There's almost nothing in it about film, lights, directing, acting or anything *remotely* artistic, but it takes you throught the process from start to finish. The first half is all about financing, legal agreements, getting investments and keeping the SEC from throwing you into the cell next to Bowfinger.

One thing clear: it's the people who understand the subjects in this book that make the money. Not the artists.

The book is a few years old, but it's still valid for theatrical and direct-to-DVD releases.


----------



## midphase (Nov 16, 2006)

A lot of projects that I work on usually get me to scratch my head in puzzlement a bit as to what the screenwriter was exactly trying to achieve.

I do think there's a double standard and I guess this is mostly our own fault....for (generally...and I include myself in this) being spineless pussies when it comes to holding our ground. We're so damn afraid that they'll pass on us that we give up practically right away.

Here's what my friend Gerard did when he spoke at Berklee for a seminar recently.....he told them the f-ing truth! He told them how crappy composers get treated, how low the wages are getting, and how the majority of them will probably not be able to get beyond the student shorts phase.

He managed to scare the crap out of his audience.....but it was tough love. Unfortunately the colleges are businesses first and foremost. So it's counterproductive for them to reveal the realities of the biz. 

I think that education is important to not only others, but ourselves.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Oct 25, 2017)

Has anything changed in 10 years?


----------



## AdamKmusic (Oct 25, 2017)

Probably even lower unless your doing Hollywood films


----------



## chillbot (Oct 25, 2017)

Desire Inspires said:


> Has anything changed in 10 years?


Have you been bumping old threads for 10 years? Seems like it anyway.


----------



## SillyMidOn (Oct 26, 2017)

midphase said:


> A lot of projects that I work on usually get me to scratch my head in puzzlement a bit as to what the screenwriter was exactly trying to achieve.
> 
> I do think there's a double standard and I guess this is mostly our own fault....for (generally...and I include myself in this) being spineless pussies when it comes to holding our ground. We're so damn afraid that they'll pass on us that we give up practically right away.
> 
> ...


When I briefly lectured I felt at times as though I was complicit in a big scam - there are far too many music courses and far too many graduates out there, it's not good. Only a small fraction of them have any chance of actually making a living. Plus now we have online degrees, and I have looked at these, and very seriously struggle to see their worth.

I tried to get past that feeling of being part of a scam by the fact that I tried my darn hardest to prepare them, and tell them as much as possible about the real world. The thing is the students I had were 90% plain terrible, lazy, and because of the prevalence of virtual instruments that made the emergence of the "one note bedroom midi composer" (you know what I mean: hold down one key, and this amazing loop/phrase starts up) thought it should be easy to make a living out of this, as they could quite quickly, with their software, create something that sounded vaguely ok.

I think quite a few of the overly hyped software developers also share some blame, as they are selling this notion of the ever better vi, that will make you even better and make you sound more like artists XYZ, when what you should probably be doing is practicing scales, four part harmony, instrument ranges, etc etc honing SKILLS ... It feels like they are selling a dream to me, one that is really unattainable to most.

The thing is the world of media composition had always been in flux, and there is also always a supply and demand scenario, and I have no doubt that at the moment there is far too much supply, i.e. too many composers. If there were a dearth of writers, then the fees would have to be higher.


----------



## SillyMidOn (Nov 6, 2017)

midphase said:


> "The newly updated and expanded survey includes pay rates and typical hiring scenarios for film and television composers, video game composers, song and music licensing, music supervisors, orchestrators, conductors, recording musicians (including sample worldwide rates), agents and managers, music editors, contractors and scoring mixers.



Is there a link to the survey?


----------



## MatFluor (Nov 6, 2017)

@Desire Inspires


----------

