# Discovery Networks (& Netflix) Corners Composers in Music Royalties Battle



## gsilbers

Shows on the Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, HGTV and Food Network may sound very different in the coming months. That’s because Discovery Networks, which owns those and other cable channels, is instituting a new pay policy that virtually assures no composer currently working on their programs will do so after Dec. 31.
Discovery has informed many of its top composers that, beginning in 2020, they must give up all performance royalties paid for U.S. airings, and that they must sign away their ability to collect royalties on all past shows on its networks.










Discovery Networks Corners Composers in Music Royalties Battle


Shows on the Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, HGTV and Food Network may sound very different in the coming months. That’s because Discovery Networks, which owns those and other cable channel…




variety.com


----------



## charlieclouser

...


----------



## gsilbers

And here is the Netflix going for same/similar 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tv-film-composers-say-netflix-streaming-services-insist-buying-music-rights-1261940


----------



## Mike Greene

I've never done work for Discovery, but I've done similar shows where fees are really low because they know we make up for it with the back end. But now if they take the back end away ... doing those shows makes no sense for a professional composer.

I hold out hope that it wil be more difficult than they think to replace music with sources (of sufficiently high quality) that will agree to their terms.


----------



## gsilbers

Yeah, most publishing companies are smal and rely on these royalties. If not iota barley $100 per track which they share w the composer or something smal like that. I remember discovery pushing for owning publishing and therefore the publisher needed to share writers share w the writer.
Bot sure how in Europe they did it so it’s a law that writers cannot give writer share. With was the same here.
although if it’s upfront pay I guess that doesn’t matter.
Still... Europeans should start taking note cuz I’m sure this will catch up over there.


----------



## bengoss

gsilbers said:


> And here is the Netflix going for same/similar
> 
> https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tv-film-composers-say-netflix-streaming-services-insist-buying-music-rights-1261940


Wow this is sad! It’s unbelievable how this companies became so greedy and trying to destroy the art of a score.
It’s also very very sad that this post won’t even get attention from most of the composers here, busy arguing if Spitfire has a new player or OT came out with Sine player 

Ben


----------



## gsilbers

bengoss said:


> Wow this is sad! It’s unbelievable how this companies became so greedy and trying to destroy the art of a score.
> It’s also very very sad that this post won’t even get attention from most of the composers here, busy arguing if Spitfire has a new player or OT came out with Sine player
> 
> Ben



Lol, yep, I was just in that thread. All the minutia of a sample player most likely no one will afford due to lack of royalties.

or maybe that’s why they wan to cancel royalties? Mmmm so many composers can now get such amazing libraries that with so much supply of composer, prices can come down easilyS.

and if it happened to music when iTunes and Spotify came out , that suddenly everyone was expecting for a song to cost only $1 and now for free w ads.. and that devalued so much prices of music... what do studios think will happened with so many tv network shows... they’ll keep cutting corners to price lower tier streaming.
You can see it now w the musician union strike recently... heck.. that might explain why Alf clausen was fired. 
mall these studios now are doing more and more cut back since there so much supply that’s driven prices down.


----------



## gyprock

And the cruelty is that an Instagram influencer with a fat arse and botox injected catfish lips can get $50K for a photo that took 1 min to create and upload. We need a direct meteorite hit to reset the earth's inhabitants.


----------



## bengoss

Let’s hope this will raise some attention and get support from composers who can actually do something. Like Hans Zimmer, Junkie XL (he is busy promoting the library) Ben Wallfisch, Trent Razor etc.


----------



## gsilbers

bengoss said:


> Let’s hope this will raise some attention and get support from composers who can actually do something. Like Hans Zimmer, Junkie XL (he is busy promoting the library) Ben Wallfisch, Trent Razor etc.




well... somewhere in article (or was it a Facebook post)mentioned that Netflix will only pressure young up and coming composers who might not have a choice. But Hans and those guys have that agency they work w that are pretty big hitters so obviously Netflix won’t mention it.


----------



## goalie composer

Spread the word: https://yourmusicyourfuture.com


----------



## bengoss

Agree! Just wanted to say these people would have the influence to help and maybe change some laws that will forbid as in Europe from anyone buying out writers share. It should be no discussion there. But lol, these composers I mentioned probably have and exploit around 100 composers, ghost writing and helping out without any credit.


----------



## gsilbers

bengoss said:


> Agree! Just wanted to say these people would have the influence to help and maybe change some laws that will forbid as in Europe from anyone buying out writers share. It should be no discussion there. But lol, these composers I mentioned probably have and exploit around 100 composers, ghost writing and helping out without any credit.


Yeah that would be cool.


----------



## gsilbers

i found the cartoon version of our problem... each one of us built their own small sinking ship instead of unionizing and have a fighting chance👽


----------



## chillbot

bengoss said:


> It’s also very very sad that this post won’t even get attention from most of the composers here, busy arguing if Spitfire has a new player or OT came out with Sine player


Very sad. This is a great assumption. I can assure you that composers who's royalties are being affected by this are not busy arguing in Spitfire/OT threads.

There is an organization already pushing back, was going to post but see that it's already been mentioned, even HZ is onboard:



goalie composer said:


> Spread the word: https://yourmusicyourfuture.com



This group has been working for some time, in fact I would say the Variety article posted in the OP is 100% their doing.


----------



## ThomasNL

In the Netherlands this is sadly already common practice. Front end fees are very low and backend you have to give up a big part of your rights...


----------



## gsilbers

ThomasNL said:


> In the Netherlands this is sadly already common practice. Front end fees are very low and backend you have to give up a big part of your rights...


from what i remeber, the discovery executive who is pushing all of this is from europe and got transfered over tro the US.


----------



## JJP

goalie composer said:


> Spread the word: https://yourmusicyourfuture.com



This is a great start. It is going to take composers pulling together to protect their futures. Spread the word and figure out how to take action.


----------



## gsilbers

JJP said:


> This is a great start. It is going to take composers pulling together to protect their futures. Spread the word and figure out how to take action.



the issue that i see if that netflix for example can just hire a different composer who will do the upfront pay if its a show where its not the heavy hitters composers. they tell the producers to get another composer if they want the deal. for mid and lower tier shows specially. 
so no matter howmuch informed anyone is. someone is going to take the job... free market and all.


----------



## JJP

gsilbers said:


> the issue that i see if that netflix for example can just hire a different composer...someone is going to take the job... free market and all.



There will always be people who will take jobs that don't pay well. The question is how much of the market composers will allow to go that way.

This is the same argument that recording musicians face in their negotiations. Someone, maybe not as good, will always take the job. It is by pulling together that people are able to change the math on that dynamic.

If composers think it's hopeless, then the answer is simple. Do nothing, watch passively, and accept whatever the outcome is. If composers aren't willing to accept that, then spread the word and together figure out what to do next. 

The article landing in Variey raised a lot of awareness. That's the kind of collective action that moves in the right direction to combat the practices of Discovery and others.


----------



## Alex Fraser

Just so I understand correctly: The networks want to take away the backend, but are not increasing the frontend payment to compensate?


----------



## JJP

Alex Fraser said:


> Just so I understand correctly: The networks want to take away the backend, but are not increasing the frontend payment to compensate?



That's pretty much it. Be on the lookout for them to increase the front end fees to make it more enticing (and loudly proclaim their generosity for doing so), but never anywhere close to the equivalent pay composers traditionally see from royalties.


----------



## gsilbers

Alex Fraser said:


> Just so I understand correctly: The networks want to take away the backend, but are not increasing the frontend payment to compensate?



netflix is giving more upfront than normal and taking away back end. they are trying to teach composers that they wont get that much in the back end in streaming. so it will be a good chink of money but only poeple who have been getting royalties for large project might know better the amount. 

they have also been courting minority composers.. which is a double edge sword , helping out women and minorities but at the same time its a demographic who would likely take these deals. 


discovery has not said anything but im guessing theyll pay a bit more... but not that much imo.


----------



## chillbot

JJP said:


> That's pretty much it. Be on the lookout for them to increase the front end fees to make it more enticing (and loudly proclaim their generosity for doing so), but never anywhere close to the equivalent pay composers traditionally see from royalties.


I've heard an increase of about 10% from their already low fees. For the record, on any given Discovery show I generally make about 15% front end and 85% back end. So yeah... bumping that up 1.5% would be a nice loss of 83.5%


----------



## gsilbers

JJP said:


> There will always be people who will take jobs that don't pay well. The question is how much of the market composers will allow to go that way.
> 
> This is the same argument that recording musicians face in their negotiations. Someone, maybe not as good, will always take the job. It is by pulling together that people are able to change the math on that dynamic.
> 
> If composers think it's hopeless, then the answer is simple. Do nothing, watch passively, and accept whatever the outcome is. If composers aren't willing to accept that, then spread the word and together figure out what to do next.
> 
> The article landing in Variey raised a lot of awareness. That's the kind of collective action that moves in the right direction to combat the practices of Discovery and others.




yes.. it always sounds nice and think we can do something but so far we havent done anyting with royalties with streaming. its been more than 10 years that all these sales poeple from the studios where charging netflix and amazon the same lciensing fees as big broadcaster but in turn they pay much less royalties. always sounds nice... for more than a decade we have all been complaining, and moved on to the next sample library. but it sure sounds nice.. just like a 19year old wears a che guevara t shirt and says we should all be "equal"..and "corporations are bad like in a nice made up eutopia. in the real world there are a few kinks to this.
your union musicans in LA that complain about this issues and deals got something.. but its a small group and the rest of about 90% of prodcutions in LA go to european orchestras who charge a reasonable rate and get consistent work.

There is a LOT of composers. like a toooooooon more. incredibly so. becuase its global now. and very talented w great tools. there is basically NO negotiation. they plain just wont call you and move on to the company who will do it. you thik the big composers are on board? what do you think happened to alf clausen? hans zimmer took that job.. aka bleeding fingers... for exactly this same reason. they lowered the cost of the music by using a company willing to charge less.. bucause fox is looking on ways to lower costs in the age of streaming. not that HZ is bad.. he just got the gig (or wheomever is the sales guy at bleeding fingers). thats how hollywood works on most of the non-AAA movies.

ive been doing my part.. you can see 10 years worth of posts in gearslutz and this forum sayign about royalties... and how streaming giants just bullshit us into thinking streaming doesnt make money while ive seen those licensing contracts and how they compare apples to apples vs broadcasters... its been a loooong time coming... no one cared... everyone argues... they razionlize it , say its streaming etc.

so sign up to that vanacore thing? sure.... ill learn about the stuff i already knw... but just as uber can just deactivate a driver who is protesting... fox/disney/netflix will just find someone else.
dont get me wrong.. im not in the side of netflix etc... im just being realist cause i saw this at fox and the spanish dubbers when they tried to ask for a raise and unionize... they went w another dubbing house. but in brazil for example they have laws against this.... and good union laws.. which we dont have. so its the reality of free market and an overabundance of composers who just rather check out the next spitfire library. but im open ears to see what actions can be taken.. and ill be on board.. just trying to mention the reality of the situation


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

Corporations have been taking over the world for the last century and a half.
Don't expect them to care nor to respect laws that they easily manipulate.
They will keep taking what is not theirs until the people fight back.|

Time for a revolution!


----------



## Mike Fox

chillbot said:


> I've heard an increase of about 10% from their already low fees. For the record, on any given Discovery show I generally make about 15% front end and 85% back end. So yeah... bumping that up 1.5% would be a nice loss of 83.5%


Holy sh%!.

I just hope this doesn't become the new standard.


----------



## Mike Fox

Patrick de Caumette said:


> Corporations have been taking over the world for the last century and a half.
> Don't expect them to care nor to respect laws that they easily manipulate.
> They will keep taking what is not theirs until the people fight back.|
> 
> Time for a revolution!


I think the ideal solution would be for composers to refuse these kinds of contracts until Netflix/Discovery re-think their approach. Unfortunately, there's some straight up desperate people out there that will give in to this horse sh$!.

Maybe this really is the inevitable start/future of large production companies using stock music, instead of hiring a real composer. First it's no royalties, then it's no composers.


----------



## charlieclouser

The up-front fee would have to be 4x-5x the standard per-episode fee in order for it to even begin to be tempting, and even then it would feel like a "fuckit, I'll be dead in two years, let's have a fire sale" price.


----------



## clisma

We all know the only solution here is for composers in the US to unionize. Bloody hell, we’re the only ones without organization in this business.. we need collective bargaining rights before the situation is too fragmented to rescue if it isn’t already.

The ironic thing is that this board is a good starting point for a movement. And of course, nothing happens without the big players.


----------



## Mike Greene

chillbot said:


> I've heard an increase of about 10% from their already low fees. For the record, on any given Discovery show I generally make about 15% front end and 85% back end. So yeah... bumping that up 1.5% would be a nice loss of 83.5%


The problem is that upfront payments have gotten _so_ low that that's where we are now, and producers have a skewed sense of our price. I suspect most producers never really knew how much was in the backend (I, for one, made a point of not telling them), so they just assume composers work really cheap. So in their minds, throw those composers an extra 10 or 20 percent and they'll be happy as pigs in slop!


----------



## J-M

In short, the folks at Discovery are a bunch of muppets.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

For a union to be effective and have a chance, we need all top composers to agree to threaten to pull out and stop working for the industry until a collective bargaining agreement is reached.
There will always be people willing to work for nothing, but a drastic reduction in film score quality would be enough of a threat for studios/networks to want to sit down and talk.
I don't think a Marvel or Disney production would go well with a semi pro score...
But are the AAA list composers ready to stand up for all of us?
If they did, they would certainly have a great pull on the rest of us in order to unionize and fight this unstoppable trend.
Our entire profession is at risk...!


----------



## JJP

Patrick de Caumette said:


> For a union to be effective and have a chance, we need all top composers to agree to threaten to pull out and stop working for the industry until a collective bargaining agreement is reached.



That may not be entirely accurate from what I have seen over the years. The top composers don't represent the bulk of the work out there, and they operate on a different plane than those doing the kind of work for people like Discovery. It's a bit like how the bulk of SAG/AFTRA negotiations aren't about how the big stars like Tom Cruise. The bulk of the negotiations are over things like stunt people, minor actors, background singers, and other roles which make up the vast majority of their membership.

Having big names on board helps any movement, but the real power comes from the average folks pulling together to have collective power in numbers. Big names are more willing to throw their weight around once they see that everyone is already moving in the right direction.

However, big names can be very valuable in helping others in their field to rally around the cause!


----------



## jeffc

All of the talk of needing a union as the answer, while I don't disagree, it's been tried in the past. For it to ever happen will take time. Time is something we don't have right now. This will be decided very soon. So, it's one thing to make broad comments and hope someone else will solve it. But at the end of the day, the one thing each person here can do is say NO to one of these deals if presented to you. It's really that simple. It may be more painful for a newer person to say NO or to see why they have to, but it's essential or we'll never get this moment back. I've personally turned it down at Netflix several times just on principal. The $$ they were offering for the buyout was tiny, but honestly even if it was good I will still say no until the bitter end. So, don't pass the buck here or wait for someone else to solve this. We have many composers here and at Perspective, many more than we'd have at a union meeting. So just do your part and fight for what you believe in. If enough people push back, this horrible business decision by Discovery and I'm sure many more to come, can still go away. But if this is the norm, I guarantee we will never get it back. And speaking as someone who's been around for a while, if some of you younger composers don't know the potential value of royalties - please talk to someone who does. The value is hard to see when you're struggling to put food on the table, but trust all of us, they are worth fighting for. We must stick together in this to have any chance of changing this....


----------



## goalie composer

gsilbers said:


> from what i remeber, the discovery executive who is pushing all of this is from europe and got transfered over tro the US.


In this day and age of public shaming and IF your information is correct, maybe this individual should have their name revealed for all to see. If we speak up, fight back and go extremely public with this issue (and single out the individuals responsible) we may be able to fight back. The current climate would seem to favor this approach. I am NOT advocating for doing anything illegal or dangerous, but I do believe that if specific people are attempting to take away our collective right to make a living, the world should know who they are. Just a thought.


----------



## gsilbers

Discovery Faces Backlash From Unscripted Producers After Shift in Series Payment Process


Discovery Inc. is facing a backlash from the unscripted production community following a shift in the cable giant’s protocol for paying for programming. During the past year, Discovery has im…




variety.com








_More than one producer reached for this story pointed to the contrast between tightening production expenditures and Discovery CEO David Zaslav’s blockbuster $129.4 million compensation package for 2018 (the vast majority of which is tied up in stock options that will only pay out if Discovery’s shares hit ambitious performance targets)._


The CEo is pushing for all the cuts and wierd pay for shows...


and seems he is hitting them since 2014









Mega Payday: Discovery CEO David Zaslav Earns $156.1 Million for 2014


Discovery Communications CEO David Zaslav received an astounding $156.1 million in compensation last year, the company disclosed Friday in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing. The vast majo…




variety.com





and not only discovery but he seems to be well connected that if it works, then other channels might follow

Zaslav serves on the boards of Sirius XM Radio, Inc., Lionsgate Entertainment, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, The Cable Center, Grupo Televisa,


----------



## gsilbers

we could all start contactin the boardof direcotr and threat a boycott or bad media relation thing

https://corporate.discovery.com/our-company/leadership/
but maybe that vanacore/signup thing might have better ideas


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

JJP said:


> That may not be entirely accurate from what I have seen over the years. The top composers don't represent the bulk of the work out there, and they operate on a different plane than those doing the kind of work for people like Discovery. It's a bit like how the bulk of SAG/AFTRA negotiations aren't about how the big stars like Tom Cruise. The bulk of the negotiations are over things like stunt people, minor actors, background singers, and other roles which make up the vast majority of their membership.
> 
> Having big names on board helps any movement, but the real power comes from the average folks pulling together to have collective power in numbers. Big names are more willing to throw their weight around once they see that everyone is already moving in the right direction.
> 
> However, big names can be very valuable in helping others in their field to rally around the cause!



I totally agree that for change to take place, the vast majority of composers needs to be on board.
However, when you are taking into account the number of big productions that are in the hands of a few top composers, the pressure that needs to be applied from our end in order to get reform can only be applied if those composers are applying the pressure as well.
And it is not very enticing to be militant when one is very comfortable...

To be honest, considering some of the underscore going on in those shows, and the lowest common denominator that seems to have become the norm in the vast majority of cable TV programs, the pressure applied at a lower level will not have much weight, since it would be very easy to do away with composers and make deals with the many libraries music companies out there that have significant catalogs and who will not hesitate to make deals in order to stay in the game.

Not to mention the AI powered applications that are slowly but surely coming into competition with us.
It is interesting to notice that the problem that we are experiencing is also starting to affect many other professions.

Signs of the times

Make America great again...NOT!


----------



## chillbot

Patrick de Caumette said:


> To be honest, considering some of the underscore going on in those shows, and the lowest common denominator that seems to have become the norm in the vast majority of cable TV programs, the pressure applied at a lower level will not have much weight, since it would be very easy to do away with composers and make deals with the many libraries music companies out there that have significant catalogs and who will not hesitate to make deals in order to stay in the game.


As someone who has provided the underscore for the music for a lot of these shows, not sure if I should be insulted. No worries, I'm not.

Hey, composers are not going to get a union, they just aren't. It's been debated for as long as I can remember. But there is a force working against this and I would encourage joining, sorry @goalie composer already mentioned but worth mentioning again.

https://yourmusicyourfuture.com 

The article floating around from Variety is a direct result of this group and I see it's been posted a dozen times to various FB groups with a lot of chit chat and jibber jabber. That's a good start anyway.


----------



## Drundfunk

Man this sounds horrible......


----------



## patrick76

I wish I could say all of this is unbelievable. Thanks for sharing the information. Hopefully this thread will end up with a massive amount of views.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

chillbot said:


> As someone who has provided the underscore for the music for a lot of these shows, not sure if I should be insulted. No worries, I'm not.



Good to hear that you understand what i am saying.
There is also a lot of quality music being produced, but most of it is wallpaper, because that's what the networks want.


----------



## river angler

bengoss said:


> Wow this is sad! It’s unbelievable how this companies became so greedy and trying to destroy the art of a score.
> It’s also very very sad that this post won’t even get attention from most of the composers here, busy arguing if Spitfire has a new player or OT came out with Sine player
> 
> Ben



Absolutely! 

THIS IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THREAD FAO ALL PRO COMPOSERS HERE! 

I beseech the administrator to make this a sticky please!


----------



## river angler

For those companies who become obsessed with earning money over the backs of the very people who help create their products in the first place I can only quote their own favourite moto:

"WAKE UP! THERE"S NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH!"

This is yet another example of how the man made concept of money could eventually bring the thorough demise of all human integrity.


----------



## river angler

JJP said:


> There will always be people who will take jobs that don't pay well. The question is how much of the market composers will allow to go that way.
> 
> This is the same argument that recording musicians face in their negotiations. Someone, maybe not as good, will always take the job. It is by pulling together that people are able to change the math on that dynamic.
> 
> If composers think it's hopeless, then the answer is simple. Do nothing, watch passively, and accept whatever the outcome is. If composers aren't willing to accept that, then spread the word and together figure out what to do next.
> 
> The article landing in Variey raised a lot of awareness. That's the kind of collective action that moves in the right direction to combat the practices of Discovery and others.


First it was libraries attempted "dividend pay" to their composers then the appearance of the ugly head of royalty free music, now it's no pay music!

One always hopes that integrity will win out and I for one would wholeheartedly support any rally against these practices.

I won't be surprised to see a huge surge against this kind of greed in the years to come.


----------



## river angler

If companies like the Discovery Channel continue to bleed the livelihoods of composers their TV content will plummet in production value. Period.

However this obviously falls on deaf ears with the fat monkeys sitting at the top of these trees as they invariably have no integrity - I think the only way to stop them is to boycott composing for them... that means library composers stipulating in their contracts that their music shall not be placed with companies adopting such practices.


----------



## gsilbers

Great post by Stephen Robert froeber in Facebook in regards to someone saying that if u where a good ceo then you should also be earning $128 million (a year) for discovery channel and if u don’t like the (discovery new deal) just don’t take, simple. 



Response:

It is, decidedly, not that simple.

You are hinting at the fantasy that floats around as "aspirational reality" for many freelancers and entrepreneurs: that making lots of money automatically means that 1) you are successful, 2) that your success comes directly from some intrinsic virtue that you must have, that others who are less wealthy do not, and 3) that anyone who critiques you for having money must immediately be jealous, lazy, insert-personal-moral-failings-here. 

On top of it being untrue, the line of reasoning is meant to discourage any valid criticisms of wealth inequality, consolidation of income streams by oligopoly, etc. 

It is, of course, quite valid to bring up the income level of a CEO that is pushing for a particular business strategy that affects someone else's work and well-being. 

It is absolute nonsense to insinuate that a composer can arbitrarily decide on any value for their music, immediately start demanding that value, and then have an expectation of continued income at the new value level with no consideration of the other party in the negotiation. 

Regardless of what guru, positive thinking, next level, supercharge your business strategy now, self help authors want you to believe, there are actual economic factors at play that are truly outside of your control. 

To ignore this person's income, in a discussion about a company that is affecting other people's income, is disingenuous, naive, capitalist evangelism at its finest.


----------



## tsk

Agree 100%. Just unbelievable what is happening.

I also request this thread to be placed on the homepage and shown to all who visit this site. What can we do as composers / creatives?




gsilbers said:


> income, is disingenuous, naive, capitalist evangelism at its finest.


----------



## Loïc D

river angler said:


> THIS IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THREAD FAO ALL PRO COMPOSERS HERE!


I’m no pro but I totally second this and I’m supporting the cause.
Besides, I hate playing in a venue with no income, even with my amateur band (charity events aside).
I cannot imagine when this “slave trading” attitude is affecting your income & career.


----------



## staypuft

There´s always a greedy corporate ahole on top of the food chain willing to screw the little guy over some big bucks. Like if those calling the shots weren´t filthy rich already.

We artists make the Discovery channels of the world while executives sit on their fat asses doing absolutely nothing other than profiting on us. The nerve to pick our pockets like that...

Where´s cancel culture and outraged ´´influencers´´ when you need them? Make some noise people!!


----------



## Wunderhorn

If streaming is supposed to the #1 model for film and TV then paying ongoing royalties is the fair way of compensation towards those who create it. Trying to cut that off is flat out robbery and even worse it is a display of unspeakable disrespect towards creative work and its - not only monetary but also artistic value.


----------



## gsilbers

Wunderhorn said:


> If streaming is supposed to the #1 model for film and TV then paying ongoing royalties is the fair way of compensation towards those who create it. Trying to cut that off is flat out robbery and even worse it is a display of unspeakable disrespect towards creative work and its - not only monetary but also artistic value.


Yep. That’s that whole business disruption tech thing Silicon Valley seems to be hated for nowadays.

since 2012 I saw those licensing contracts to show a fox / Disney etc on Netflix and was very surprised that it was the same as a broadcaster like hbo/skyitalia/nbc etc . Same show, same time period and same window showing. Broadcasters of course where not too happy either.
so the sales folks at Disney figured out the streaming giants where making the same amount as broadcaster. Which means that in theory the streaming companies should be paying the same amount. There was never a real reason to pay less. Not a “streaming is calculated differently” , not a “subscription pays less”or home entertainment so it’s dvd” thing.
there was always money but they decided to pay for million dollar tv episodes instead. Several times over.


----------



## gsilbers

And in a parallel dimension :


*Warner Music, Providence to Invest $650 Million in Old Songs*









Warner Music, Providence to Invest $650 Million in Old Songs


Warner Music Group is teaming up with private equity giant Providence Equity Partners to go shopping for hit songs.




www.bloomberg.com


----------



## river angler

Wunderhorn said:


> If streaming is supposed to the #1 model for film and TV then paying ongoing royalties is the fair way of compensation towards those who create it. Trying to cut that off is flat out robbery and even worse it is a display of unspeakable disrespect towards creative work and its - not only monetary but also artistic value.



The bosses of these companies that are threatening to enforce this malpractice have no interest in art: in fact they only ever see art as another product on the supermarket shelf to be manufactured as cheaply as possible for maximum profit. These kind of human beings only care about their own "material wealth": acquiring as much money as possible is their only raison d'être. Therefore it is futile to try and appeal to any possible artistic sensitivity here because there is none!

It's not all doom and gloom though because although I think the situation is worrying and definitely needs to be addressed swiftly by the professional creative community, the reality is that this mal practice in the long run would implode on Discovery and others that think they could make more profit by it.... However the point is that if such practices were to start taking place it would create a lot of problems for many before that implosion occurs.

The irony is that these executive "businessmen" would see far less profit coming from cuts in composer wages than continuing to pay them because without quality music, particularly bespoke composition to picture, the production quality of their programs will diminish- fewer film makers will want to work with them and TV networks won't want to broadcast under par program content. Their returns will crumble hand in hand with the lack of artistic merit to the products they produce. It's as if they don't understand the true meaning of one of their favourite phrases: "quality product"!

However it is imperative that all bodies and institutions involved in the creation of TV and film are made fully aware of this prospective can of worms!

As such the only way to combat companies that are trying to cut off composers earnings is to ace them on the same court they like to "play ball" on. For ace them we must to make sure this prospective practice does not become yet another "norm" in our industry.

For that serve to become an ace a combination of things must happen:

1. All composers must now boycott any financial association with the Discovery Channel and any others who are no doubt going to try to follow suit. Basically refuse any work from them including use of any library music.

If they are going to drop all bespoke composition commissions and revert to using strictly "music off the shelf" and (the ****ing cheek of it!) refuse to continue paying licenses even for that! it is imperative that composers speak up for their 50% right to forbid library music companies they share published works with to do business with the likes of the Discovery Channel... in other words: no buy outs!
Unfortunately library companies can be just as sneaky and ruthless but this is where the PRS and all copyright bodies could step in also...

2 (a) In turn the PRS (British copyright society) and all other associated copyright bodies around the world must support their associated composers in the fight against this potential threat.
The "world copyright guild" must refuse to pay out any royalties to library companies continuing to do business with the likes of the Discovery channel.

(b) (hear me out on this one!) In reality the Discovery Channels belief that they will continue to sell programs who's quality filmography is no longer supported by any bespoke music whatsoever is a joke! They will soon realise they need some bespoke music to keep up a modicum of class to their productions. Even if this type of commissioning has been officially cut from their budget they will still approach composers. And as they are hoping to commission music royalty free there will still be composers out there who will secretly offer their bespoke music services royalty free to the likes of Discovery no doubt succumbing to miserly music production fees to boot! I think the PRS should actually strike any composer from their books found composing royalty free music for the likes of the Discovery Channel. In fact any composer who does accept commissions for royalty free music production from any company is undermining the royalty payment system anyhow.

This is a controversial point but I think it would be necessary to discourage any composer from accepting royalty free commissions from Discovery Channel and in turn this stringent rule would bring composers together on this issue which is clearly no longer an "I'm alright jack" situation.

3. Film companies must also support the composers cause as it reflects on their own quality of work: they too must boycott working with the likes of the Discover channel.

4. TV distribution networks must be made fully informed of the issue and encouraged not to buy Discovery productions.

In short, should this practice ever become apparent the likes of the Discovery Channel must be financially frozen out of business.

It's such a pity that the foundations of a production company like Discovery that has produced some of the most spectacular and informative programs of our generation are being dismantled by ignorant executive decision.

This issue is potentially far reaching and could actually effect all warps of the film and TV industry if it isn't nipped in the bud.

I hope Discovery read this thread and I always hope, because I'm an optimistic kind of guy, as much as I have bashed those working at executive level at The Discovery Channel, that there is one of them who can at least see that it does not make business sense to axe a composers wages let alone recognise the downright insult it hurls at the composer, a skilled worker, who is a vital pillar in the creation of quality TV and film production.


----------



## Beluga

And why wouldn't they take the royalties from composers? If I'd be a little sarcastic I'd say, they should do so. Composers have no one else to blame but themselves, there is no loyalty, I'm pretty sure there is always a line of them ready to accept this and happy to get their "break". There is no way to stop this for any of us individually. If you think you are clever to accept a deal lower than the next guy there is always that guy behind you who will still accept a lower fee. Unless composers value their own music this is going on and we all have the AI breathing down our necks.


----------



## Mr. Edinburgh

Very worried about this - literally family incomes relay on PRO royalties.
I just dont understand the business model. Are Discovery paying composers (for example) $200 per track and that's it. no royalties whatsoever? And then they use that track over and over again?


----------



## JohnG

This day has been coming a long time but sorry to see it arrive.

FWIW, I don't think it's useful or persuasive to cast aspersions on the character and motivations of corporations or executives; expressions like "greedy" attribute motives to people whom we don't know. 

And, anyway, that's capitalism. If we're not going to have a union (and we're not), we have to vote by saying, "no." From a financial point of view, I find these shows' upfront payments are minuscule already, so without royalties, I don't see how they attract anyone who's not a rank beginner.


----------



## StevenOBrien

I know that the many of the top sample library developers are also composers who depend heavily on income from royalties, so here's a drastic idea:

Change your license agreements going forward to prevent your libraries/software from being used in certain work-for-hire situations.


----------



## T-LeffoH

It's a move which I think is an affront to composers.

I do believe it's a targeted response to Music Modernization Act (MMA) as NMPA spent a tremendous amount of time pushing for that legislation; and it's not legislation favorable to licensees.

The most extreme response to MMA is for licensees to circumvent it by removing royalties from their equation, such as in this case. I think it was a gap that wasn't considered in forming the legislation.

There are probably convincing legal arguments to pursue in the area of restraint of trade or antitrust but I know PMA has taken notice of this, as I'm sure NMPA also has.

I think the best path forward is actually a legal response...unfortunately.


----------



## mrd777

With sites like audio jungle offering $8 royalty free tracks, why is anyone surprised? Audio jungle and similar sites probably started this and they probably even struck a back room deal for a bulk discount. Just my guess.

As one mentioned above, sample libraries can update their terms to mention their samples cannot be heard on certain TV channels, but the enforcement and tracking of that is damn impossible.

Even if Hans Zimmer and friend push back, what can they do if composers don't get hired at all anymore? I don't understand how these companies wont simply use royalty free websites to get all their music?


----------



## VivianaSings

I'm always the unpopular one but really - everyone kinda did this to themselves. 

First of all, the ranting about the evils of corporations - that makes me laugh. The CEO's job of any company is to maximize profit. He's not there to make people feel good. Now here's the kicker - you're doing the same thing for yourself, just on a vastly smaller scale. 

Why are you on a virtual instrument website wringing hands over which string library to buy? Why are you not hiring a violinist to play your lead melody? At least in America, no matter how rural you are, there's at least a state orchestra, or at the very least a college with a decent music program. Go find out who the violin professor is there and ask them to play on your track. You know why you don't? Because when you get your low/no-budget writing gig and make $100, giving $75 to a violinist to play your melody doesn't work now, does it? You're trying to maximize your profit. Congrats, you're no different than the CEOs you cry about - except you're doing it with a lot less zeros. So instead you come on here and stress about how you keep editing piano roll notation but you can't make a convincing run or tremolo in Joshua Bell. You don't seem too worried about the violinist who's losing out on some session work and their ability to make a living, so don't cry about the CEOs lack of care about yours. 

Second, when you lower the bars to entry and especially when you lower the technical ability needed, what do you think is going to happen? Not only do you have programs that orchestrate for you as you play, you have phrase libraries now. People who can't write their way out of a paper bag are cutting and pasting phrases. So when the guy who has 20 years experience and an expensive music school education is competing against the guy with minimal ability but using Sonokinetic libraries and OT orchestral runs, who do you think the company is going to look at when the end result sounds the same but the guy using the phrase libraries is willing to give his stuff away for pennies because it really didn't cost him much to make in the first place in terms of labor or knowledge, and he's a weekend warrior and makes a living with his day job so money's not a big deal. Now think about the thousands of people like this flooding cheap licensing sites with their pre-baked compositions. 

Third, I saw this coming over two decades ago when I saw the barriers to entry being lowered. I said back then on forums that there should be mandatory licensing for professional musicians and composers, at the very least based on that their sole income is from music and "musician" or "Composer" is listed on their tax return. And that no one but licensed musicians and composers be allowed to take part in any commerce concerning music. Weekend warriors and amateurs can be allowed to compose as much as they like but they shouldn't be allowed to submit work to libraries or take composing gigs under threat of legal action for being unlicensed. I was chased off forums with pitchforks and told that I was "disgustingly elitist" and that I'm a "have" trying to keep the "have-nots" out. 

No, I wasn't elitist, I just saw what happened to photographers when professional stock photographers got destroyed once digital cameras made every half ass weekend warrior photographer capable of taking bad pictures of their food, then photoshopping the heck out of it to fix everything wrong until it looked half as decent as the professional stock photographer who had vast knowledge of lighting and film and hundreds of thousands in equipment and was able to take perfect photos from the onset. And then let these mooks flood stock photo outfits so they could make "extra money" in their spare time. Their "extra money" takes away from someone's living. Now the stock photo market is decimated and even big stock houses like Getty have resorted to selling stock photos for pennies and not paying photographers. All you had to do was transpose that over to the music composing world to see where we were gonna end up.

Well, you reap what you sow. Not me though because I saw this coming and networked and hitched my wagon to one of the top TV composers out there and have worked steadily for the past decade as his orchestrator and doing a lot of session work for him on top of it, so my work and income remain steady. He's not one of the guys who's going to be affected by this. 

No one's gonna unionize. You're not gonna get this horse back in the barn now that it's out. If you were one of the guys working cheap with your sample libraries to undercut the big composers, don't cry that there's guys under you that will undercut you for the same reason. 

Seriously, it's hilarious to see people crying that rats ate through the hull and the ship is sinking when half of you brought the rats on board with you to begin with. 

I have a bad feeling, like 20 years ago that I'm gonna get flogged for this post, but what I speak of is true and looking at this thread I kind of float between feeling bad for everyone and feeling vindicated after being chased with torches and pitchforks.


----------



## gjelul

If you do not respect yourself, no one is going to respect you.

I do not see composers unionizing any time soon, and I do not see corporations stopping these kind of practices, as unfortunate as that sounds.

For years now we have played a major role in our own demises, by accepting to work for little to no $ at all, to give away publishing, to let agents and managers ask and become part of our royalties, to let agents tell us sell your own mother to get the gig, to write just for credit, to write for royalty free libraries, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. 

If Discovery gets their way there is no stopping all the others doing the same thing - and that will be it. Time has come to seriously think about our professional survival. Each one of us should realize that we are in a very perilous moment - we should do our part to refuse such practice. 

Here is what I'm going to keep doing and do:

- Writer's share is not negotiable! 
To me this is a matter of principle first and foremost, and then economical.

- I'll write to my PRO, and to my Congressman and Senator and express my deep concern over such attempts by Discovery. It is the law that allows these corporations try and to get away with such 'ideas.' For perspective, Europe is a capitalist society too, but you cannot do this is France for example, not because the "Discovery" there doesn't want to do it, but because the law doesn't let them even try.

- If a show doesn't have the highest artistic standards then there is no point in viewing it - life is too precious to waste with mediocre shows. Discovery's intention of using 'canned' music makes me completely un-interested in their channels / programming.

Hopefully, the majority of us will take this moment seriously...


https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tv-film-composers-say-netflix-streaming-services-insist-buying-music-rights-1261940


----------



## Tice

Color me gloomy but I don't think this will get any better. There will always be composers willing to do it for less, and there will always be show makers who see no value in going beyond stock music. Even if the whole composer market implodes and many great composers go out of business, CEOs and show makers will hardly notice what they've lost. They'll notice it's gotten cheaper to make shows though. So what card to composers have left to play here?


----------



## mrd777

VivianaSings said:


> I'm always the unpopular one but really - everyone kinda did this to themselves.
> 
> First of all, the ranting about the evils of corporations - that makes me laugh. The CEO's job of any company is to maximize profit. He's not there to make people feel good. Now here's the kicker - you're doing the same thing for yourself, just on a vastly smaller scale.
> 
> Why are you on a virtual instrument website wringing hands over which string library to buy? Why are you not hiring a violinist to play your lead melody? At least in America, no matter how rural you are, there's at least a state orchestra, or at the very least a college with a decent music program. Go find out who the violin professor is there and ask them to play on your track. You know why you don't? Because when you get your low/no-budget writing gig and make $100, giving $75 to a violinist to play your melody doesn't work now, does it? You're trying to maximize your profit. Congrats, you're no different than the CEOs you cry about - except you're doing it with a lot less zeros. So instead you come on here and stress about how you keep editing piano roll notation but you can't make a convincing run or tremolo in Joshua Bell. You don't seem too worried about the violinist who's losing out on some session work and their ability to make a living, so don't cry about the CEOs lack of care about yours.
> 
> Second, when you lower the bars to entry and especially when you lower the technical ability needed, what do you think is going to happen? Not only do you have programs that orchestrate for you as you play, you have phrase libraries now. People who can't write their way out of a paper bag are cutting and pasting phrases. So when the guy who has 20 years experience and an expensive music school education is competing against the guy with minimal ability but using Sonokinetic libraries and OT orchestral runs, who do you think the company is going to look at when the end result sounds the same but the guy using the phrase libraries is willing to give his stuff away for pennies because it really didn't cost him much to make in the first place in terms of labor or knowledge, and he's a weekend warrior and makes a living with his day job so money's not a big deal. Now think about the thousands of people like this flooding cheap licensing sites with their pre-baked compositions.
> 
> Third, I saw this coming over two decades ago when I saw the barriers to entry being lowered. I said back then on forums that there should be mandatory licensing for professional musicians and composers, at the very least based on that their sole income is from music and "musician" or "Composer" is listed on their tax return. And that no one but licensed musicians and composers be allowed to take part in any commerce concerning music. Weekend warriors and amateurs can be allowed to compose as much as they like but they shouldn't be allowed to submit work to libraries or take composing gigs under threat of legal action for being unlicensed. I was chased off forums with pitchforks and told that I was "disgustingly elitist" and that I'm a "have" trying to keep the "have-nots" out.
> 
> No, I wasn't elitist, I just saw what happened to photographers when professional stock photographers got destroyed once digital cameras made every half ass weekend warrior photographer capable of taking bad pictures of their food, then photoshopping the heck out of it to fix everything wrong until it looked half as decent as the professional stock photographer who had vast knowledge of lighting and film and hundreds of thousands in equipment and was able to take perfect photos from the onset. And then let these mooks flood stock photo outfits so they could make "extra money" in their spare time. Their "extra money" takes away from someone's living. Now the stock photo market is decimated and even big stock houses like Getty have resorted to selling stock photos for pennies and not paying photographers. All you had to do was transpose that over to the music composing world to see where we were gonna end up.
> 
> Well, you reap what you sow. Not me though because I saw this coming and networked and hitched my wagon to one of the top TV composers out there and have worked steadily for the past decade as his orchestrator and doing a lot of session work for him on top of it, so my work and income remain steady. He's not one of the guys who's going to be affected by this.
> 
> No one's gonna unionize. You're not gonna get this horse back in the barn now that it's out. If you were one of the guys working cheap with your sample libraries to undercut the big composers, don't cry that there's guys under you that will undercut you for the same reason.
> 
> Seriously, it's hilarious to see people crying that rats ate through the hull and the ship is sinking when half of you brought the rats on board with you to begin with.
> 
> I have a bad feeling, like 20 years ago that I'm gonna get flogged for this post, but what I speak of is true and looking at this thread I kind of float between feeling bad for everyone and feeling vindicated after being chased with torches and pitchforks.


Truer words were never spoken before.


----------



## j_kranz

JohnG said:


> This day has been coming a long time but sorry to see it arrive.
> 
> FWIW, I don't think it's useful or persuasive to cast aspersions on the character and motivations of corporations or executives; expressions like "greedy" attribute motives to people whom we don't know.
> 
> And, anyway, that's capitalism. If we're not going to have a union (and we're not), we have to vote by saying, "no." From a financial point of view, I find these shows' upfront payments are minuscule already, so without royalties, I don't see how they attract anyone who's not a rank beginner.



Agreed. The whole Scripps buyout I think foreshadowed a lot of changes coming. I know plenty of libraries that didn't like Discovery's deal even before this all happened, so it's not super surprising, but certainly disappointing as it could also point to a larger trend.




StevenOBrien said:


> Change your license agreements going forward to prevent your libraries/software from being used in certain work-for-hire situations.



Thats a pretty slippery slope...


----------



## South Thames

VivianaSings said:


> I have a bad feeling, like 20 years ago that I'm gonna get flogged for this post, but what I speak of is true and looking at this thread I kind of float between feeling bad for everyone and feeling vindicated after being chased with torches and pitchforks.



Anyone chasing you with torches and pitchforks for the licensed composer idea had overestimated it as much as you apparently did. It's delusional and myopic to imagine such an arrangement could have worked, and in any case it hadn't a chance of becoming a reality. They should have just laughed.


----------



## gjelul

Tice said:


> Color me gloomy but I don't think this will get any better. There will always be composers willing to do it for less, and there will always be show makers who see no value in going beyond stock music. Even if the whole composer market implodes and many great composers go out of business, CEOs and show makers will hardly notice what they've lost. They'll notice it's gotten cheaper to make shows though.
> 
> 
> So what card do composers have left to play here?




This!

Let's hear it...


----------



## South Thames

_So what card do composers have left to play here?_

The only cards composers have to play is the quality of their music.

Somebody mentioned above that use of samples had put musicians out of business. But the fact is a few things happened -- samples and technology got a lot better and more convincing, and the general style of media music changed (a la Zimmer/Remote Control) so that that the gulf between a virtually-realised score and a high budget recorded score in prevailing contemporary styles shrank to the point where it was not particularly noticeable to the lay person hearing the scores on relatively low-budget television. 

The key factor here will be if Discovery is able to maintain the perceived quality of its output (such as it is) with the new system. If quality composers don't play ball, and they are forced to track with royalty-free stock music, it's tough to see how they could, and it's even tougher to see how outlets with a much more conspicuous attitude towards quality control than Discovery and the like adopting the practice.


----------



## South Thames

> I don't understand how these companies wont simply use royalty free websites to get all their music?



There's a lot of confusion about what royalty-free means. For the most part, 'royalty free' library music means no front-end sync/mechanical payments to the composer or the library (instead you pay to 'purchase' the track), but backend PRO payments are still payable where the music is broadcast and are the basis of the business model, along with the purchase payments. There are some libraries offering the direct-licensing approach - the thing that Discovery would need - but they are in the minority and, for understandable reasons, decent composers don't generally touch them. 

As it happens, the vast majority of the library music used in professional productions is still from the traditional libraries where front-end royalties are payable. Apropos my above point re. quality, there's a good reason for that.


----------



## patrick76

VivianaSings said:


> Go find out who the violin professor is there and ask them to play on your track. You know why you don't? Because when you get your low/no-budget writing gig and make $100, giving $75 to a violinist to play your melody doesn't work now, does it? You're trying to maximize your profit. Congrats, you're no different than the CEOs you cry about - except you're doing it with a lot less zeros.



Even in your hypothetical example here you state a very important distinction between the low budget composer and the CEO, namely that the low budget composer is dealing with a lot less zeros. Well this is a very important distinction, especially considering if one is taking jobs for $100, in which case they are struggling even to survive (at least in the U.S. and a lot of Europe), whereas the CEO (in the Discovery situation) is said to have a massive compensation deal worth over 100 million dollars, yet still feels fine taking even more. Of course in plenty of situations they have absolutely zero regard for the consequences even in the most extreme scenarios and excuse themselves with just the kind of ideology about maximizing profit/ it's just business stuff you mentioned. And yes, I'm sure some low budget composers might even do the same thing if they had the chance, but of course that doesn't really mean anything except some people are terrible. 

I would agree however that many composers have brought this on themselves as you argue in the rest of you post. I would also agree about the technology and lower (composing) skill level. I would add that globalization also contributed to the situation. A kid in Russia making $100 per track might be satisfied with that and maybe he can still make a living, but someone in Los Angeles obviously would have problems. 
Congratulations on having the foresight to create a situation for yourself where you are somewhat sheltered from this. Seriously. It's pretty cool that you were able to do something about it because I could imagine many others might have seen what was coming, but did not end up in spots as good as yours.


----------



## river angler

South Thames said:


> _So what card do composers have left to play here?_
> 
> The key factor here will be if Discovery is able to maintain the perceived quality of its output (such as it is) with the new system. If quality composers don't play ball, and they are forced to track with royalty-free stock music, it's tough to see how they could, and it's even tougher to see how outlets with a much more conspicuous attitude towards quality control than Discovery and the like adopting the practice.


Precisely! This is what I think will happen.

The fact is any TV production co adopting this practice will see the quality of their productions fall to the point where no broadcaster will be willing to air them.

In general any company producing diligent, edifying, quality visual content does not want to support it with poorly produced music and are still willing to pay for quality. Discovery are delusional to think they can have continued success adopting the practice they are proposing.


----------



## gjelul

@ VivianaSings



- I do see your point. However, here is a few more thoughts:

i do not believe a self employed composer is using samples to maximize profits - it's more likely, so he / she can get paid less than minimum hourly rate. And that at best... I am also sure that composers (especially the trained ones) would rather pay a real violin player to play a solo rather than deal with VI's.

Hiring a college orchestra / ensemble, or other ensembles, groups and such, is not realistic, at least for most of the time. At this has to do with production timelines. One of the projects I recently worked on had a two weeks deadline for final delivery for 45 minutes of music. And as I was working on the score the film was still being edited - locked picture was not done until a couple of days before the delivery deadline. Obviously, there is nothing we composers can do when in such a timeline, and as we say, it-is-what-it-is. Can I bring a few musicians to sweeten things up here and there - when from a business perspective I don't have to? Absolutely, I do it all the time - simply and most importantly for my own professional satisfaction.

Libraries / Joshua Bell library - I just purchased it actually.
If Joshua Bell doesn't see an ethical issue in making the library, why should I have one using it? Libraries are tools that make the composer's life more easy, during the mock-up / approval stages, increase the production value of scores and are not meant to 100% replace musicians. On the other hand, the musicians performing in such libraries, were paid for their services. In some cases, such as with libraries from Cinesamples, musicians are also paid residuals on every copy of the library sold (the way it should be.)


_Second, when you lower the bars to entry and especially when you lower the technical ability needed, what do you think is going to happen? Not only do you have programs that orchestrate for you as you play, you have phrase libraries now. People who can't write their way out of a paper bag are cutting and pasting phrases. So when the guy who has 20 years experience and an expensive music school education is competing against the guy with minimal ability but using Sonokinetic libraries and OT orchestral runs, who do you think the company is going to look at when the end result sounds the same but the guy using the phrase libraries is willing to give his stuff away for pennies because it really didn't cost him much to make in the first place in terms of labor or knowledge, and he's a weekend warrior and makes a living with his day job so money's not a big deal. Now think about the thousands of people like this flooding cheap licensing sites with their pre-baked compositions._

I am personally classically trained and my music education has started at 5 years old, so.... 
Unfortunately, we cannot stop people from saying I am a film / TV composer, or stop Sonokinetic do their phrases libraries (they've hired real musicians too for those libraries btw.) As an analogy, you can't blame a person for opening up a restaurant, just because they're selling fast-food and they've zero culinary knowledge. You just don't go to eat there if you understand what proper cuisine is. I aim to work within a specific target and with people that value music in their productions and value my contribution. Filmmakers that do not care for their projects do not interest me.
Is it easy running my 'business' this way? No...
Is it professionally satisfying working this way? Yes...


_Third, I saw this coming over two decades ago when I saw the barriers to entry being lowered. I said back then on forums that there should be mandatory licensing for professional musicians and composers, at the very least based on that their sole income is from music and "musician" or "Composer" is listed on their tax return. And that no one but licensed musicians and composers be allowed to take part in any commerce concerning music. Weekend warriors and amateurs can be allowed to compose as much as they like but they shouldn't be allowed to submit work to libraries or take composing gigs under threat of legal action for being unlicensed. I was chased off forums with pitchforks and told that I was "disgustingly elitist" and that I'm a "have" trying to keep the "have-nots" out._

I am for professional standards or unions, just as with almost every profession in the industry. I agree with you on the fact that everyone now is in the same 'pot'... even in these forums for example. Everyone has an opinion 


_Well, you reap what you sow. Not me though because I saw this coming and networked and hitched my wagon to one of the top TV composers out there and have worked steadily for the past decade as his orchestrator and doing a lot of session work for him on top of it, so my work and income remain steady. He's not one of the guys who's going to be affected by this._

- That is smart and definitely one way of doing it. I used to work for 5 years for one of the top guys too, amicably moved on and chose to follow my own path. With all the chaos in our industry, so far - so good.


_No one's gonna unionize. You're not gonna get this horse back in the barn now that it's out. If you were one of the guys working cheap with your sample libraries to undercut the big composers, don't cry that there's guys under you that will undercut you for the same reason._

- I agree, unionizing is the right thing to do. I am very skeptical if this is something that can be achieved, at least for the time being. However, I do not see how 'me + samples' can undercut John Powell or Hans Zimmer. It just doesn't work...
If 'me + samples' undercut any one for the same project is probably 'another composer + samples,' and me getting the project - most of the time - has to do with a lot of factors than just the music itself.



_Seriously, it's hilarious to see people crying that rats ate through the hull and the ship is sinking when half of you brought the rats on board with you to begin with. I have a bad feeling, like 20 years ago that I'm gonna get flogged for this post, but what I speak of is true and looking at this thread I kind of float between feeling bad for everyone and feeling vindicated after being chased with torches and pitchforks._

True...
Whoever chased you at the time had a different opinion than yours / mine and so on - I am happy you're feeling vindicated now 
Hopefully we can have a discussion, about the state of our industry and bring forward beneficial ideas.
I believe there is room for everyone in our industry, at every level. With so much content being created there is a need for original music. Everyone will find their own path, be that by working for free (one cannot sustain it and there is no future,) or by working within ethical and professional standards (the long road, but a more rewarding one.)

It starts with having the guts to say 'no' at times, to work a lot to master professional skills, to find your voice as a composer, and most importantly to not lose the passion and motivation in doing what we do. After all, we are creators, that's our job...


----------



## tehreal

river angler said:


> The fact is any TV production co adopting this practice will see the quality of their productions fall to the point where no broadcaster will be willing to air them.



Doubtful. If it makes money, they'll broadcast it. It's remarkable what many perceive as quality. Even shows considered high quality, like HBO's Succession and Netflix's Narcos, have frighteningly repetitive scores. No one seems to care.

Discovery/Scripps doesn't traffic in high quality so it'll be even easier for them to find composers that are "good enough" and hungry. Sure, the quality may go down somewhat but not to the point where the vast majority of viewers would even notice.

And Discovery knows that.


----------



## Tice

At the end of the day, a composer is worth the number of viewers they can generate. And for the average Discovery channel program I'm not so sure a great composition by a non-famous composer will generate many additional viewers, even if they write a masterpiece. For Netflix it's a different story. I think a work of fiction on Netflix stands to lose a lot more from having no great custom music written for it.


----------



## Lee Blaske

I sure wish I could see a way to fight back, but I don't. The problem is scarcity. There is none. There is WAY too much music being produced and the tools available are making it easier every day (consider all the sample libraries that will give you bigger and bigger components of the composition). Just think of the endless lists of demos we see for every library released. All of that could be underscore for these shows. I don't think there will ever be a way to have a union because underscore music can be made by anyone anywhere in the world. And, there are perfectly good composers everywhere. They're all churning out mountains of music, and they'd all like their music to see the light of day. If certain people band together and strike, they'll just go down the list to the next person. In short, the companies that need this content KNOW they can do this, so they are. There's no way to bring them to their knees. I don't think there's any way to make it illegal.

This is mostly an issue that younger composers need to face. Essentially, there needs to be a realization that this is most likely no longer a valid way to earn a living (unless you've got a fan base that'll finance you in a Go Fund Me manner, a rich benefactor, or you're just independently wealthy).

I think the only way that money will eventually be made will be on the high end of things where there's some bonafide celebrity needed, or if everybody wants to specifically hear your tune (and not just something a lot like it). I read where Mariah Carey's "All I Want For Christmas Is You" earned $60 million so far. So, if you want to make money, just go out and write something like that. 

Remember that it's also a sliding scale. Many of these companies will insist on keeping most of the rights, leaving you with a small fraction. But, this will eventually kill of the PRO system in the same way the Musicians Union was taken down.


----------



## T-LeffoH

Lee Blaske said:


> I don't think there's any way to make it illegal.



Illegal?? Or unenforceable? As with anything, yes there is a way - legislation and/or the courts.

Given how MMA passed unanimously, I won't be surprised to see this issue lobbied before the Congress or brought up in a civil case against Discovery.

It falls almost squarely within restraint of trade practices.


----------



## Lee Blaske

T-LeffoH said:


> Illegal?? Or unenforceable? As with anything, yes there is a way - legislation and/or the courts.
> 
> Given how MMA passed unanimously, I won't be surprised to see this issue lobbied before the Congress or brought up in a civil case against Discovery.
> 
> It falls almost squarely within restraint of trade practices.



I hope you're right, but it seems to me they'd need to make it illegal for people to give away content or let it go for paltry compensation.

Actually, the gig economy laws California is considering might offer more hope. If all labor going into music production had to be accounted for with a fair wage paid and taxes collected, it would restore a sense of formality to this work. No more endless labor for a flat fee.


----------



## bcslaam

Publicly shared the link. Will keep telling people about this. 
The trend for corporations to squeeze employees wages and contractors fees down below what's fair and viable for the increasing profit of their executives and shareholders is an attitude that's ruining our world environmentally and economically. Now it infiltrates our music and film industries. 
This is a part of capitalism that HAS to change. Corporations, their executives and shareholders are NOT more important than their employees, contractors or the earth.
It seems the only thing that will stop them going down this rabit hole is legislation.


----------



## T-LeffoH

Lee Blaske said:


> I hope you're right, but it seems to me they'd need to make it illegal for people to give away content or let it go for paltry compensation.
> 
> Actually, the gig economy laws California is considering might offer more hope. If all labor going into music production had to be accounted for with a fair wage paid and taxes collected, it would restore a sense of formality to this work. No more endless labor for a flat fee.



As with all the commentary, it's all just speculation but I think there's more than just one solution to the issue.

One rather simple thing BMI and ASCAP could do is refuse to grant or renew blanket licenses to networks who require composers to relinquish writer's share of royalties on new or existing works. It would severely limit what Discovery could run in programming, syndication and advertisements from their catalogue without those licenses and force them to find only royalty-free sources for all their programming.

NMPA worked their arses off to lobby Congress to pass MMA, so I don't think this will go over quietly. This to me is a worse action than the Spotify/Google lawsuit over increased royalty rates. They just don't like having to pay out more - rather Discovery Networks' is trying to circumvent having to pay royalties at all.

EDIT: I would urge fellow composers to reach out to your state Senator/Representative about this, especially if they are on this House/Senate subcommittees covering IP or their parent Judiciary committee. Composers' interests are one of the few topics that has had effectively unanimous support in the past few years, so it's certainly fresh in their minds.






United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org










United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Spectator

Is this about "commissioned music" or are they still using "production music" in the normal way?


----------



## Daryl

Spectator said:


> Is this about "commissioned music" or are they still using "production music" in the normal way?


Production music is unaffected, but there are changes on that front as well, in terms of cross territory blanket licences being granted.


----------



## Mr. Edinburgh

Daryl said:


> Production music is unaffected, but there are changes on that front as well, in terms of cross territory blanket licences being granted.


tell me more ..... in a nutshell please if possible


----------



## SillyMidOn

ThomasNL said:


> In the Netherlands this is sadly already common practice. Front end fees are very low and backend you have to give up a big part of your rights...


I didn't know that. I assumed that most European PRO's have that clause in their membership contract that members aren't allowed to hand over their writer's share. Is that not the case in NL?


----------



## Loïc D

I guess some executive at Discovery has just found an old copy of Peter Siedlaczek Symphonic Adventures Akai CD-ROM and has said : “Hey I can underscore a bundle of shark documentaries out of that. Call my lawyer !”

(half ironic post)


----------



## Daryl

Mr. Edinburgh said:


> tell me more ..... in a nutshell please if possible


Discovery has just got MCPS to agree a cross-territory blanket, for various of their production studios that are not in the UK, so the licence will be granted in the UK, even though the programme may be made in France, Italy, Spain etc. Those Publishers who won't agree to this, like my company, have been excluded from it. It remains to be seen whether or not it will make a difference to revenue for us.


----------



## South Thames

SillyMidOn said:


> I didn't know that. I assumed that most European PRO's have that clause in their membership contract that members aren't allowed to hand over their writer's share. Is that not the case in NL?



He talked about giving up part of the backend by which he’s probably referring to publishers’ share of performing royalties, which is pretty much standard by this point. Far as I know, it is a legal requirement in most European countries that the writers must retain at least 50 percent of performing royalities. In some countries it is higher - Germany stipulates 66 percent for example.


----------



## cmillar

gsilbers said:


> i found the cartoon version of our problem... each one of us built their own small sinking ship instead of unionizing and have a fighting chance👽


Sad, but inevitable....because...as soon as the use of sample/software libraries, free GarageBand programs, loops, etc. etc. became so readily available, it was only a matter of time. We (the musican/composers) all helped contribute to the problem. 

I'm guilty...taking work where the budget wasn't enough to hire real musicians and then create a 'life-like' score using my computer over and over. Just doing what we all have needed to do.

So!...and idea...let's all focus on LIVE music gigs once again and forget the 'pie-in-sky' dreams of living off of any royalties from reality Tv shows and other equally mundane brain wasters. Those days are going and gone; at least in North America and much of the rest of the world (let's face it and get real).

Or, use our computers in new creative ways....screw the corporations and let them wallow in a ton of library music that they all own anyways. There's enough library music available to last for eternity anyways. Are there any producers, directors, or executives left that even remember what live music actually is?

Gotta' get at the live gigs!


----------



## gsilbers

so BMI has a PAC for political influencing









BMI PAC


The rights and future of music creators are critical topics of discussion on Capitol Hill. The BMI PAC, a political action committee (PAC) that is a separate entity from BMI, will ensure the voices of creators and those that support them are heard.




www.bmi.com






it be interesting to see if they are doing something about this or they are still fighting the last battle for artists royalties/onwership


----------



## Loïc D

Maybe some French pro composers might chime in - *and I apologize if I'm totally wrong* - but I think that French PRO (SACEM/SACD) is 100%. Basically, you cannot give up your backend.

Hence no one hires French composers in some domains (VG, documentaries, international drama, etc.)
At least, that's what I was told by some pro.

Conversely, your front fee would be minimum. 

So French composers/artists used to contract loans "under the hood" from majors that were sometimes escaping the tax system. Those tax fraud scandals fed celebrity gossip magazines from the 60's to 90's, before the loan were subject to a stricter set of regulations.

That's all for history...


----------



## cmillar

Beluga said:


> And why wouldn't they take the royalties from composers? If I'd be a little sarcastic I'd say, they should do so. Composers have no one else to blame but themselves, there is no loyalty, I'm pretty sure there is always a line of them ready to accept this and happy to get their "break". There is no way to stop this for any of us individually. If you think you are clever to accept a deal lower than the next guy there is always that guy behind you who will still accept a lower fee. Unless composers value their own music this is going on and we all have the AI breathing down our necks.



Unfortunately, I believe this is right on target. We have no right to be 'shocked'.

For one thing, this downward spin all began long ago when Apple started including AppleLoops and GarageBand with all their products, and then pushing their computers into the education systems around the world. 

Much like in the graphic arts world....all of a sudden everyone could cut and paste and call themselves an "artist", or a "composer".

It's a time of upheaval and change.

We musicians certainly can blame ourselves to getting to this point as well. Let's face it...we all support the sample/software library/music sound efx/music library in some way or another by buying and using the same sounds, and we crave more and more "realistic" libraries that can be used in place of humans.

Right?

History and capitalism repeats itself over and over in the name of greed.... truck drivers are being replaced by self-driven trucks; actors are replaced by AI characters; graphic artists are replaced by a zillion different software packages; Taxi drivers are losing out to Uber, etc....(which depends on people as their drivers most of whom have probably lost their other jobs and are just trying to pay the rent!); Amazon will be using more automatic delivery systems, and won't even need any humans very soon; most car assembly lines use robots now; etc. etc.

What can't be replaced? 
- real live music conductors working with real musicians (...in a concert hall!....not recording background music for a film or reality TV show!)
- live actors/actresses working in live theater for live audiences
- live singers performing for live audiences
- live rock bands, jazz band, etc. performing for real breathing, dancing human beings

There's still a lot to live for!

So, screw the greedy corporate mother-f'ers...lets's support the real arts....get back in touch with reality.


----------



## Greg

Sounds like the CEO is cannibalizing the company to boost a couple earning reports so he can cash out of the sinking network tv ship.

Their shows have been repeating themselves for at least 10 years. Survive with only urine, ok now survive with urine while naked. Ok now survive being 600 lbs. Ok now survive having 18 children. Ok now lets watch this trooper survive busting meth addicts. Ok now lets see if this shark is finally going to eat our cameraman. Ok now lets drive into a tornado.

Meanwhile a Youtuber creating primitive technology with his bare hands brings in billions of views and he is just 1 guy with a camera and he doesnt even speak.


----------



## gsilbers

From Steve BArden in Facebook (groups)








Business Skills For Composers | Facebook


IF YOU APPLY TO JOIN, PLEASE ANSWER ALL THE JOINING QUESTIONS. Welcome to Business Skills For Composers. It doesn't matter how little experience you have - everyone is welcome to ask and share....




www.facebook.com






The Your Music Your Future community needs your help. Discovery Networks is planning to cut composer and songwriter income by 90% as of December 31st. Variety even called them out on it. So we’re rallying together to take ACTION to help stop them.



Action step: 


Here’s a tweet you can copy and paste:
Happy Holidays, composers! @Discovery Networks found a way to cut your income by 90%. RT if you want composers to be paid fairly. https://bit.ly/2qZ423k @Gold_Rush @DeadliestCatch @StreetOutlaws #DiscoveryGreed #yourmusicyourfuture @yrmusicyrfuture
Whatever you decide to tweet, please use the link (https://bit.ly/2qZ423k) and include the same hashtags (#DiscoveryGreed and #yourmusicyourfuture) for maximum impact!

Discovery is even pressuring composers to take the 90% cut going backwards for shows that are already on the air. The threat is that if they don’t take the deal, Discovery will strip these composers’ music out of all their existing shows (!), and the composers will never work with any of the networks again.
If we don’t take a stand, this practice will spread to other network groups and everyone will be paid much less money in the future—both composers and songwriters. And where will great composers come from when they can no longer make a living?
YMYF has signed up more than 6,400 composers. As a community, we have formidable power if everyone tweets. But we all need to take action.

Creator groups from around the world, inspired by Your Music Your Future, have pledged to tweet with us in support of composers. Please be sure to do your part!


----------



## Tice

Greg said:


> Sounds like the CEO is cannibalizing the company to boost a couple earning reports so he can cash out of the sinking network tv ship.
> 
> Their shows have been repeating themselves for at least 10 years. Survive with only urine, ok now survive with urine while naked. Ok now survive being 600 lbs. Ok now survive having 18 children. Ok now lets watch this trooper survive busting meth addicts. Ok now lets see if this shark is finally going to eat our cameraman. Ok now lets drive into a tornado.
> 
> Meanwhile a Youtuber creating primitive technology with his bare hands brings in billions of views and he is just 1 guy with a camera and he doesnt even speak.



Maybe those youtubers are our new employers...


----------



## José Herring

Sad thing is this isn't a new practice. It's been happening for at least 20years that I know of. I remember contacting the music department at Saban Entertainment back in the early 2000's. The Pres of Music was a good guy and he straight up told me not to work for Saban because they take all the music rights and put their own name on composers compositions. I was horrified but then I knew that was a harbinger of what would come. I really appreciated him being up front though. Really nice people are out there even if very few in the industry.

Thanks to the internet there are thousands of royalty free buy out libraries. Many shows already use them. I'm sure Discovery uses them a lot. So what they are trying to do it seems to me is create some similar model with original music. Business wise it makes all the sense in the world to do this. For us, I wouldn't even begin to get involved in any of this stuff and spend the saved time just trying to sell my own records and not deal with any of this shit.

The really sad part of it is that there has to be some writer's name attached to collect worldwide royalties. So every score will have some exec's name on it and not the actual composer. The even sadder part, there are literally 1000's of composers that will jump at the opportunity to give all their music away, especially new composers who never new any better.

It won't effect the guys at the top for a while so it will be a slow roll getting really big names invested in the fight. But, if they don't do something now, in 5 to 10 years it will roll up to that level as well. There isn't a composer working who couldn't be replaced by some other composer lower on the totem poll who wouldn't jump at the chance to score Top Gun 3 even if it meant total buy out.

I know Hans is already making some noise about it but there needs to be a lot more than just him to stop this from rolling all the way up the food chain. Which brings in the other problem.

This is such an exclusionary industry that the people who are the top with the power to do anything about it are so very few (like less than 5 people) that those numbers are too few to stop a major industry trend if it does start rolling upward. There isn't anybody who isn't easily replaced if they make too much noise.

So, the only thing we can do is band together and not take the buyout bait. It will also mean that there will be even fewer composers working. Irving Berlin and Victor Hebert's dream when they started ascap is sadly under attach in film and TV, been decimated by internet radio and music streaming sites and unfortunately not much can be done but complain about it.

I will try to do something about it, but really who am I?


----------



## Greg

Tice said:


> Maybe those youtubers are our new employers...



They are desperate for good music that won't copyright strike their channel. Been working with a lot of them. And exposure on Youtube can actually turn into real $ unlike TV and Film. Especially if you have your own channel or distribute albums online.


----------



## daBOOSH

Greg said:


> Meanwhile a Youtuber creating primitive technology with his bare hands brings in billions of views and he is just 1 guy with a camera and he doesnt even speak.



And for his billion views, he gets $1.30 for his "Creativity". :(


----------



## Greg

daBOOSH said:


> And for his billion views, he gets $1.30 for his "Creativity". :(



It's more like $1500 - $3000 per DAY from ads alone.


----------



## VeePo

re: The RACE to FREE 
"The only people that win at the end of the day are the people that had the money in the first place." 
Sync Manager Randall Foster


----------



## river angler

cmillar said:


> Sad, but inevitable....because...as soon as the use of sample/software libraries, free GarageBand programs, loops, etc. etc. became so readily available, it was only a matter of time. We (the musican/composers) all helped contribute to the problem.
> 
> I'm guilty...taking work where the budget wasn't enough to hire real musicians and then create a 'life-like' score using my computer over and over. Just doing what we all have needed to do.
> 
> So!...and idea...let's all focus on LIVE music gigs once again and forget the 'pie-in-sky' dreams of living off of any royalties from reality Tv shows and other equally mundane brain wasters. Those days are going and gone; at least in North America and much of the rest of the world (let's face it and get real).
> 
> Or, use our computers in new creative ways....screw the corporations and let them wallow in a ton of library music that they all own anyways. There's enough library music available to last for eternity anyways. Are there any producers, directors, or executives left that even remember what live music actually is?
> 
> Gotta' get at the live gigs!


I'm with you fella'!

Reading back over this thread simply underlines the days of policing royalty earnings is well on the decline now as it has indeed been going this direction ever since sample based music started. I remember clearly when the Akai S1000 first started to make its mark!

I lost interest in, as you put it: "mundane brain waster" work a long time ago and concentrate on bespoke composition these days. I even find ad work very unfulfilling even when one does get a runner after 50 pitches! (lol!) it's not so much one is competing with other music writing houses for the work: it is of course the library music companies who now have such vast catalogues of blanket music one is always left hanging at the end of a winning pitch thinking: "OK I wonder which library track they will choose instead of our efforts this time?" !!!

Writing bespoke music is far more rewarding both creatively and financially in the long run. It also requires real musicianship to write which cuts out the computer nerds with their growing collection of auto writing instrument plugins!

Where there is diligent creative content there will always be a demand for bespoke composition especially in film and TV drama. As for performing original music live there's nothing more satisfying for the creative soul!

Isn't it so poignant and ironic that this subject has been highlighted on this very website!

To a greater or lesser extent of course we are all indeed catalysts to this demise when our orchestral based mock ups for example become the finished article putting a smile on a producers face! this along with the inevitable moves of companies like Discovery here.

Perhaps the true composer-musicians among us should feel fortunate enough to have had a good run compared to the old classical composers in previous centuries who never had the luxury of receiving payment every time someone performed their music wether that performance was in the pantomime or dinner party quartets! I doubt they even saw a percentage of manuscript sales either!

Nah! the speeding digital age has certainly rammed more nails into the coffin now for a system fast running out of control in the corporate sector and who's to say this practice won't spread to other areas of music production?


----------



## cmillar

river angler said:


> I'm with you fella'!
> 
> Reading back over this thread simply underlines the days of policing royalty earnings is well on the decline now as it has indeed been going this direction ever since sample based music started. I remember clearly when the Akai S1000 first started to make its mark!
> 
> I lost interest in, as you put it: "mundane brain waster" work a long time ago and concentrate on bespoke composition these days. I even find ad work very unfulfilling even when one does get a runner after 50 pitches! (lol!) it's not so much one is competing with other music writing houses for the work: it is of course the library music companies who now have such vast catalogues of blanket music one is always left hanging at the end of a winning pitch thinking: "OK I wonder which library track they will choose instead of our efforts this time?" !!!
> 
> Writing bespoke music is far more rewarding both creatively and financially in the long run. It also requires real musicianship to write which cuts out the computer nerds with their growing collection of auto writing instrument plugins!
> 
> Where there is diligent creative content there will always be a demand for bespoke composition especially in film and TV drama. As for performing original music live there's nothing more satisfying for the creative soul!
> 
> Isn't it so poignant and ironic that this subject has been highlighted on this very website!
> 
> To a greater or lesser extent of course we are all indeed catalysts to this demise when our orchestral based mock ups for example become the finished article putting a smile on a producers face! this along with the inevitable moves of companies like Discovery here.
> 
> Perhaps the true composer-musicians among us should feel fortunate enough to have had a good run compared to the old classical composers in previous centuries who never had the luxury of receiving payment every time someone performed their music wether that performance was in the pantomime or dinner party quartets! I doubt they even saw a percentage of manuscript sales either!
> 
> Nah! the speeding digital age has certainly rammed more nails into the coffin now for a system fast running out of control in the corporate sector and who's to say this practice won't spread to other areas of music production?



Well said....and needs to be read.


----------



## gsilbers

Micheal Giacchino is on board 





Michael Giacchino (@m_giacchino) | Twitter


The latest Tweets from Michael Giacchino (@m_giacchino). Nerd Film Composer. Rogue One, LOST, Incredibles, Star Trek, UP, Spider-Man, JoJo Rabbit, The Batman, Medal of Honor etc! My last name is pronounced juh-KEE-no. Los Angeles, CA




twitter.com





im terrible w twitter...

here maybe
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Hello <a href="https://twitter.com/DavidZaslav?ref_src=twsrc^tfw">@DavidZaslav</a> based on your profile, you honestly don’t seem like the kind of person who would take advantage of <a href="https://twitter.com/Discovery?ref_src=twsrc^tfw">@Discovery</a> composers in this way.<a href="https://t.co/EIdkCbeLcR">https://t.co/EIdkCbeLcR</a><br><br>Especially 👇🏼<a href="https://t.co/usjb7MSQHb">https://t.co/usjb7MSQHb</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/YourMusicYourFuture?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc^tfw">#YourMusicYourFuture</a><br>@urmusicmurfuture<a href="https://t.co/oMaJp3GjL6">https://t.co/oMaJp3GjL6</a></p>&mdash; Michael Giacchino (@m_giacchino) <a href="">December 16, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


----------



## gsilbers

almost... 


anyways.. he went a long twitter storm.. pretty interesting read.


----------



## gsilbers

and random perspective... 

Discovert paid $25 millino in royalties a year. Ceo makes $128 million in bonuses per year.


----------



## river angler

gsilbers said:


> and random perspective...
> 
> Discovery paid $25 millino in royalties a year. Ceo makes $128 million in bonuses per year.


...you know.. I can't even be bothered to write a sarcastic comment.


----------



## José Herring

gsilbers said:


> and random perspective...
> 
> Discovert paid $25 millino in royalties a year. Ceo makes $128 million in bonuses per year.


Jesus! F×@k these people.


----------



## tmhuud

Fuck them.


----------



## sluggo

Must suck for those composer chop-shop-house outfits (that already suck 50% or more of the PRO writer's share away from the young composers who write for them) to have their royalties threatened like this. You know who you are.


----------



## SillyMidOn

South Thames said:


> He talked about giving up part of the backend by which he’s probably referring to publishers’ share of performing royalties, which is pretty much standard by this point. Far as I know, it is a legal requirement in most European countries that the writers must retain at least 50 percent of performing royalities. In some countries it is higher - Germany stipulates 66 percent for example.


Ok, that was my understanding, thank you.


----------



## givemenoughrope

gsilbers said:


> and random perspective...
> 
> Discovert paid $25 millino in royalties a year. Ceo makes $128 million in bonuses per year.



Do CEOs pull this heist off in other countries or just here? I can’t imagine they wouldn’t get their kids straight up kidnapped.


----------



## gyprock

givemenoughrope said:


> Do CEOs pull this heist off in other countries or just here? I can’t imagine they wouldn’t get their kids straight up kidnapped.


In Australia, Westpac Bank faces a huge fine and its reputation is in tatters after financial crime watchdog AUSTRAC accused it of 23 million breaches of money laundering laws, and failing to properly monitor payments potentially linked to the streaming of child exploitation. The CEO, Mr Hartzer was given 12 months' notice and will still get his $2.7 million salary, but forfeits up to $20 million in bonuses.

As for Australia Post, documents published by a parliamentary committee show the chief executive Ahmed Fahour, earned a whopping $4.4m *salary* plus a $1.2m bonus in the last financial year (2017).

Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce has topped the list of *Australia's highest*-*paid* chief *executives* for 2018, taking home $23.9 million — which is more than 275 times the full-time average wage.

I'm sure the above salaries pale into insignificance in comparison to some of the top jobs in the U.S.


----------



## river angler

gsilbers said:


> and random perspective...
> 
> Discovery paid $25 million in royalties a year. Ceo makes $128 million in bonuses per year.


----------



## GtrString

I think this is another chapter in the “End of work” story, which has been described in the social sciences for several decades now.



“America” is basically just an umbrella term for all of the western countries, as we all comply to the same stupid laizzez faire politics and “trickle down” economics.

Change? The people‘s vote goes to Trump’s, Clinton’s, Putin’s and Johnson’s for fck’s sake! All politicians that that throws peoples assets into the hands of big corp? Will that work, yeah the 1%’ers seem to thrive and enjoy protection of the laws.. example Discovery Network, Netflix, Spotify ect.

Young composers seem happy to work for free and the opportunity of a selfie on social media, craving their identity fix. Maybe that’s all we’ll get in the future, and some free tickets to the bread line.


----------



## Beluga

People think they can fuck over composers and unfortunately, they are right. I mean have a look at the PRO system. Do you think there are many professionals who would accept to get paid if MAYBE the network declares correctly and then MAYBE some institution (PRO) you cannot really talk to collects the money and SOMEHOW calculates your income and then MAYBE will pay you without ANY way of you controlling it?

And have a look at composer agents, I talked to a few now. Anywhere else the agents get their clients actual work. Not so for composers. It's the composer who finds work for the agent. Agents stick around to see if they can make a quick and easy buck off of you. And then it's the composers who actually support this system and say things like, "it's not what the agent can do for you it's what you can do for the agent".. Really read this from composers.

ANY agreement I have been negotiating I always hear, it's standard, it never has been a problem, everyone else accepted these terms. Sure lets you in a bad position to negotiate.

PS: I even had publishers say that my music belonged to them (exclusively - buy-out, no royalties) because if they hadn't ordered it I wouldn't have written it. :D True story.


----------



## MauroPantin

Call me naive but it seems bonkers to me that giving up the writer's share is something that can actually be done. There should be legislation preventing that all together so that it can never be brought to the table. The music is written by the writer. Hence the name of the share.


----------



## marclawsonmusic

MauroPantin said:


> Call me naive but it seems bonkers to me that giving up the writer's share is something that can actually be done. There should be legislation preventing that all together so that it can never be brought to the table. The music is written by the writer. Hence the name of the share.



Google the phrase 'work for hire'.


----------



## gsilbers

MauroPantin said:


> Call me naive but it seems bonkers to me that giving up the writer's share is something that can actually be done. There should be legislation preventing that all together so that it can never be brought to the table. The music is written by the writer. Hence the name of the share.



from what i read, this is something that cannot be done in UK and EU... (i think). because there are laws about it. Therefore, the article and info mentioned only US.


----------



## MauroPantin

marclawsonmusic said:


> Google the phrase 'work for hire'.



Aware of the term. Happy to work for hire if I get the 20% I normally get upfront plus the other 80% I get in back end royalties right now instead of over the course of years to come. But they just want to pay the 20%, so I'm thinking:






If they want the writer's share in exchange for nothing they can very well try and write the damn music themselves. I'm sure some interns can do it. I mean how hard can it be, right? You just wait for "The Orchestra" to be on sale and smash the keyboard every now and then. I'm sure it will fit like a glove with both the zebra documentaries and the "Storage Wars" episodes.



gsilbers said:


> from what i read, this is something that cannot be done in UK and EU... (i think). because there are laws about it. Therefore, the article and info mentioned only US.



Good on them for protecting their artists from these predatory practices. Over the long term, I'm sure it will show as a gap in the quality of the music that is written in different regions.


----------



## ehrenebbage

Composers would be wise to think about the value we bring to a situation beyond whatever inherent value our music might have. It's not about the number of viewers we attract with our names, it's about providing value to the people who hire us.

Think about it this way:


In theory, composers have access to an entire world of 'session players' who would be glad to play on our tracks for 5 bucks. Why haven't all of us exploited this vast sea of cheap labor? Because the prospect of searching for and auditioning them, and then teaching and coaching them through the process, and finally editing their parts into something useable, sounds unpleasant at best and realistically unworkable in a professional situation. It's far better, faster, and ultimately cheaper to hire a tried and true player and pay them a decent rate.

While it's true that many session players have suffered the loss of what was once a comfortable living, other forward-thinking players realized that they could market themselves to producers around the world, not just the ones in their immediate vicinity. Many players have learned that their services are still in demand, and with some adjustment they've figured out how to tap in to different sources of income.

Composers are no different. We help directors, producers and editors do their jobs better and more efficiently. The prospect of sorting through vast libraries of poor quality music is not appealing to anyone, let alone someone who values their time highly. It may be tempting at first, especially for productions on a tight budget, but as long as there are professional people who value quality and their own time we will be a valuable resource.


----------



## gsilbers

so it seems Discovery would get its music from Epidemic sound which gets artists to not sign up for PROs. 

also, use the hashtag #boycottdiscovery


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

JohnG said:


> FWIW, I don't think it's useful or persuasive to cast aspersions on the character and motivations of corporations or executives; expressions like "greedy" attribute motives to people whom we don't know.
> 
> And, anyway, that's capitalism.


No need to personally know people: one only needs to judge them by their actions.
And greed is the main engine of today's capitalism.
And it is driving the planet to the brink of extinction.
What we, as composers, are experiencing is a side effect of the take over of the planet and of its people by the ruling class.
An old story that will be reaching boiling point soon...


----------



## gsilbers

seems we found the responsable party


https://www.linkedin.com/in/shawn-white-a3635639/de

*VP, Global Music and Footage Services at Discovery, Inc.*


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

JohnG said:


> And, anyway, that's capitalism. If we're not going to have a union (and we're not), we have to vote by saying, "no."



The reason why writers have managed to win that battle is because they have an union.
Saying "no" when the next composer says 'yes" is pointless.
So i guess, we'll have to wait until our trade is completely destroyed to look back and wish we had an union.
And by the way, composers protection is much better in Europe, where capitalism is better regulated and not left unchecked like in the US.


----------



## sluggo

gsilbers said:


> seems we found the responsable party
> 
> 
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/shawn-white-a3635639/de
> 
> *VP, Global Music and Footage Services at Discovery, Inc.*



Take a look at his 'specialties'

*"About*
Specialties: Lean Six Sigma Green Belt, negotiations, process improvement, project management, professional development, rights management for global content distribution, production deliverables, music publishing, still images, and footage clearance. "

I'm gonna karate chop you into signing this shitty deal!


----------



## BartonFink

Different people have such different experiences and knowledge of the industry which also makes it hard to come together properly.

I make on average $50,000 per year on backend. This is from a couple hundred or so tracks I’ve written for libraries.

I also get an upfront fee for any library tracks I write as I ONLY accept work from publishers who use that model.

However, this money is purely from tv how we see it today. Anyone who makes a living off backend knows that the streaming royalties on our statements are laughably bad. We’re talking fractions of pennies sometimes...

Everything will be moving online eventually and what really needs to happen is that the law needs to catch up with technology. It hasn’t done that. If not, these streaming giants and networks like Discovery have to make the upfront fee for library and scoring considerably more than it is. To cut working composers’ backend earnings by 90% “just because” is absolutely outrageous.

Unfortunately a huge catalyst is composers who treat this is a side gig and some on this very thread who say outright that music isn’t valuable in the first place. Maybe to you it’s not, but you are completely mistaken. Music is as integral as editing, as cinematography, as lighting, etc. All these professions aren’t getting 90% of their income threatened...

Why? Because hobbyists sell their rights for $100 because nobody has told them that’s not how the business works. They don’t realise they can hold onto their rights, get paid for their time and make thousands of dollars in backend.

People spend more time comparing string libraries than talking business. This is a business for some people, not a hobby. The people who treat it like a hobby have cashed in their leverage and rights so they can spend the buyout on a dinner. When if they held on and kept at it they could’ve bought a house.

What you have is intellectual property, and just like real property you rent it out and get paid every time someone uses it. Bust your ass and write the best 500 tracks on brief you can muster and you’ll have a bunch of great properties to rent out. But instead you’ve sold off a handful of dilapidated studios to the City for a warm meal

Ive been lucky enough to write for big libraries that hire orchestras for their albums, and on top of that use sample
libraries that pay a royalty to their players (Cinesamples). I’ve thrown fellow composers and new composers gigs and they’ve thrown some my way too. We have to support each other wherever we can. This is a great moment to practice that.

Unfortunately so many composers don’t know the value of good music because they don’t see it as a viable living or they’ve been brainwashed by producers to accept their low worth.

Just because a bunch of people can hold down evolve mutation patches and license them doesn’t mean there isn’t a place for awesome, effective, individual music. We have to keep pushing ourselves to be great composers. Editors don’t want to trawl through 10,000 evolve mutation loop based tracks.

Another issue that is killing production music that people don’t talk about is that, even some of the music that gets released on say universal or emi simply isn’t that good (in my opinion.) In fact I’d go far as to say it sucks. I’ve heard better music on royalty free buyout sites sometimes. I listen to a lot of production music for my work and I can’t tell you the amount of times you click on something that sounds so aimless and rushed and lacks any compelling vibe. And these are top shelf composers who are just getting assistants to knock stuff out most of the time. No wonder the networks want to look elsewhere for cheap, low fee, royalty free music.

Sorry, rant over!


----------



## Tice

I don't quite understand why so many here are convinced composers will never unionize. I get that in the US unions don't quite have the same cultural meaning that they have here in Europe, but still, what's up with that? To me it seems like such a no-brainer that unionizing is better.


----------



## JohnG

Tice said:


> I don't quite understand why so many here are convinced composers will never unionize. I get that in the US unions don't quite have the same cultural meaning that they have here in Europe, but still, what's up with that? To me it seems like such a no-brainer that unionizing is better.



Decades ago, the Department of Labor in the USA categorically ruled against composers forming a union. They reasoned that composers were independent contractors.

Their reasoning for accepting the Writers' Guild and not composers is beyond me.

Maybe I've got the facts slightly wrong but the gist of it is that composers have been slapped down here in a categorical way that seems daunting to appeal. 

Maybe in Europe / EU / UK?


----------



## jonathanparham

JohnG said:


> Decades ago, the Department of Labor in the USA categorically ruled against composers forming a union. They reasoned that composers were independent contractors.
> 
> Their reasoning for accepting the Writers' Guild and not composers is beyond me.
> 
> Maybe I've got the facts slightly wrong but the gist of it is that composers have been slapped down here in a categorical way that seems daunting to appeal.
> 
> Maybe in Europe / EU / UK?


^^^^^^
What John said. Also, Brian Ralston has been talking about this on Facebook and talks specifically about this on part two of his last Scorecast Podast episode SCORECASTONLINE. In addition to what the US labor dept has said, the podcast mentions two court cases where composers, including, Elmer Bernstien went to court to be listed as contractors and not staff studio employees.


----------



## gsilbers

sluggo said:


> Take a look at his 'specialties'
> 
> *"About*
> Specialties: Lean Six Sigma Green Belt, negotiations, process improvement, project management, professional development, rights management for global content distribution, production deliverables, music publishing, still images, and footage clearance. "
> 
> I'm gonna karate chop you into signing this shitty deal!




I worked on one of these big media companies and noticed that every so often comes one of these cut throught executives wanting to save money etc so they do these huge changes becuase it makes sense at the time, but then comes full circle when quality suffers... 
the problem is time. i remeber one of these deals where it took almost 2 years to come full circle and everyone at the time forgot why was the push. things disipated and changed and tech made things somewhat diferent. So discovery mgiht save money now using epidemic music and some ocmposers who might agree to the buy out but in a few years time these reality show will have very crappy music and other channels will have much better and some exec will say.. lets get better music.. oh wait.. we cant.. oh well, ratings are still okish. Same deal with discovery trying to make show prodcuers to take out loans to pay for the show and then maybe, if, its good and discovery accepts discovery pays them back. imaging having to take out hundred thousands dollars worth of loans to make a show that maybe it will not be shown. there is a lot of details and there is an articel out there (i thik i linked before) but thats the jisp. make sense for discovery now, but what prodcuer will want to jump on this bandwagon and be ok w it.?! so more and more will jump ship and try to make shows somehwere else.


----------



## Tice

JohnG said:


> Decades ago, the Department of Labor in the USA categorically ruled against composers forming a union. They reasoned that composers were independent contractors.
> 
> Their reasoning for accepting the Writers' Guild and not composers is beyond me.
> 
> Maybe I've got the facts slightly wrong but the gist of it is that composers have been slapped down here in a categorical way that seems daunting to appeal.
> 
> Maybe in Europe / EU / UK?



Wow, that's a raw deal...
Over here in the Netherlands there's a musician's union and several other groups representing the interests of composers and musicians. Not that the Netherlands is doing everything right, far from it.


----------



## Tice

Tice said:


> Wow, that's a raw deal...
> Over here in the Netherlands there's a musician's union and several other groups representing the interests of composers and musicians. Not that the Netherlands is doing everything right, far from it.


Here's a list of organisations and unions we have here:




__





Music organisations and professional associations - Buma/Stemra


What are the other music organisations and professional associations? BCMM BCMM (Professional Association of Multimedia Composers) represents the interests of all Dutch film, TV, games, commercials, tunes & jingle composers. BV POP BV POP is the department of FNV KIEM for pop musicians. Anyone...




www.bumastemra.nl


----------



## gsilbers

JohnG said:


> Decades ago, the Department of Labor in the USA categorically ruled against composers forming a union. They reasoned that composers were independent contractors.
> 
> Their reasoning for accepting the Writers' Guild and not composers is beyond me.
> 
> Maybe I've got the facts slightly wrong but the gist of it is that composers have been slapped down here in a categorical way that seems daunting to appeal.
> 
> Maybe in Europe / EU / UK?




sucks that the current legal atmosphere seems to side more with corporate interests. 
maybe a new push along with uber drivers, amazon wharehouse workers, truck drivers etc against these tech companies and ways of "disrupting tech" etc where the CEOs are getting huuuuge payouts that could easily pay for what we need. 
nov2020 we will se if bernie would be the most against this practice, then elizabeth warren and so on. now seems they are going for more generic-overall issues like healthcare for all for free education for free and so on when we just need better capitalism like some of the laws in EU where CEO cant make certain % more of the lowest paid employee, figure out the contractor/work for hire and so on.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

gsilbers said:


> nov2020 we will se if bernie would be the most against this practice, then elizabeth warren and so on. now seems they are going for more generic-overall issues like healthcare for all for free education for free and so on when we just need better capitalism


God forbid we get free health care and free education...


----------



## river angler

sluggo said:


> Take a look at his 'specialties'
> 
> *"About*
> Specialties: Lean Six Sigma Green Belt, negotiations, process improvement, project management, professional development, rights management for global content distribution, production deliverables, music publishing, still images, and footage clearance. "
> 
> I'm gonna karate chop you into signing this shitty deal!





gsilbers said:


> sucks that the current legal atmosphere seems to side more with corporate interests.
> maybe a new push along with uber drivers, amazon wharehouse workers, truck drivers etc against these tech companies and ways of "disrupting tech" etc where the CEOs are getting huuuuge payouts that could easily pay for what we need.
> nov2020 we will se if bernie would be the most against this practice, then elizabeth warren and so on. now seems they are going for more generic-overall issues like healthcare for all for free education for free and so on when we just need better capitalism like some of the laws in EU where CEO cant make certain % more of the lowest paid employee, figure out the contractor/work for hire and so on.


My churning on this subject comes from Europe but this


BartonFink said:


> Different people have such different experiences and knowledge of the industry which also makes it hard to come together properly.
> 
> I make on average $50,000 per year on backend. This is from a couple hundred or so tracks I’ve written for libraries.
> 
> I also get an upfront fee for any library tracks I write as I ONLY accept work from publishers who use that model.
> 
> However, this money is purely from tv how we see it today. Anyone who makes a living off backend knows that the streaming royalties on our statements are laughably bad. We’re talking fractions of pennies sometimes...
> 
> Everything will be moving online eventually and what really needs to happen is that the law needs to catch up with technology. It hasn’t done that. If not, these streaming giants and networks like Discovery have to make the upfront fee for library and scoring considerably more than it is. To cut working composers’ backend earnings by 90% “just because” is absolutely outrageous.
> 
> Unfortunately a huge catalyst is composers who treat this is a side gig and some on this very thread who say outright that music isn’t valuable in the first place. Maybe to you it’s not, but you are completely mistaken. Music is as integral as editing, as cinematography, as lighting, etc. All these professions aren’t getting 90% of their income threatened...
> 
> Why? Because hobbyists sell their rights for $100 because nobody has told them that’s not how the business works. They don’t realise they can hold onto their rights, get paid for their time and make thousands of dollars in backend.
> 
> People spend more time comparing string libraries than talking business. This is a business for some people, not a hobby. The people who treat it like a hobby have cashed in their leverage and rights so they can spend the buyout on a dinner. When if they held on and kept at it they could’ve bought a house.
> 
> What you have is intellectual property, and just like real property you rent it out and get paid every time someone uses it. Bust your ass and write the best 500 tracks on brief you can muster and you’ll have a bunch of great properties to rent out. But instead you’ve sold off a handful of dilapidated studios to the City for a warm meal
> 
> Ive been lucky enough to write for big libraries that hire orchestras for their albums, and on top of that use sample
> libraries that pay a royalty to their players (Cinesamples). I’ve thrown fellow composers and new composers gigs and they’ve thrown some my way too. We have to support each other wherever we can. This is a great moment to practice that.
> 
> Unfortunately so many composers don’t know the value of good music because they don’t see it as a viable living or they’ve been brainwashed by producers to accept their low worth.
> 
> Just because a bunch of people can hold down evolve mutation patches and license them doesn’t mean there isn’t a place for awesome, effective, individual music. We have to keep pushing ourselves to be great composers. Editors don’t want to trawl through 10,000 evolve mutation loop based tracks.
> 
> Another issue that is killing production music that people don’t talk about is that, even some of the music that gets released on say universal or emi simply isn’t that good (in my opinion.) In fact I’d go far as to say it sucks. I’ve heard better music on royalty free buyout sites sometimes. I listen to a lot of production music for my work and I can’t tell you the amount of times you click on something that sounds so aimless and rushed and lacks any compelling vibe. And these are top shelf composers who are just getting assistants to knock stuff out most of the time. No wonder the networks want to look elsewhere for cheap, low fee, royalty free music.
> 
> Sorry, rant over!


This is positive and I think realistic.

My own chirping on this thread has perhaps seen the extreme boundaries of my attitude toward this aggressive move by Discovery and other companies no doubt in recent times that simply haven't been covered in the media yet.

However, if I am to put my knee-jerk reactions aside, tallying with the admirable post here and trying to think laterally, I think Discovery actually need to be approached directly and convinced that what they are proposing to do will eventually se their own downfall because without quality music visual production suffers. If however Discovery ignore this and are content to let their reputation fall to much lower standards and see far less profit that's their problem: composers and broadcasters will simply look elsewhere.

At the same time "hobbyist" composers must be made fully aware of their folly. They must be fully informed of the sensible practice of selling music. They must be made aware that their current ignorance is hurting the pro composer community and indeed degrading the value of music itself.

As the poster here quite correctly points out, this is the area which is damaging the industry. Selling out music for a quick buck is only going to keep encouraging the likes of Discovery into not only thinking they can get away with it but also lead them to self implode when they wake up wondering why they can no longer sell any product.

If other large production companies follow suit the sad fact is not only will we be loosing 90% of our income as composers but also standing by watching some of our original clients self destruct without being able to do anything about it....

I really hope Discovery see the error of their ways but if they don't and they are allowed to go ahead with this scheme I think the most important thing is to make a clear example of them as they implode, for implode they will! ...They will need to be made an example of to show just how important quality music is in the upkeep of decent standard visual content plus how a composers creative work should get the financial respect it fully deserves as a fundamental cog in the production of quality film and TV.


----------



## BartonFink

river angler said:


> My churning on this subject comes from Europe but this
> 
> This is positive and I think realistic.
> 
> My own chirping on this thread has perhaps seen the extreme boundaries of my attitude toward this aggressive move by Discovery and other companies no doubt in recent times that simply haven't been covered in the media yet.
> 
> However, if I am to put my knee-jerk reactions aside, tallying with the admirable post here and trying to think laterally, I think Discovery actually need to be approached directly and convinced that what they are proposing to do will eventually se their own downfall because without quality music visual production suffers. If however Discovery ignore this and are content to let their reputation fall to much lower standards and see far less profit that's their problem: composers and broadcasters will simply look elsewhere.
> 
> At the same time "hobbyist" composers must be made fully aware of their folly. They must be fully informed of the sensible practice of selling music. They must be made aware that their current ignorance is hurting the pro composer community and indeed degrading the value of music itself.
> 
> As the poster here quite correctly points out, this is the area which is damaging the industry. Selling out music for a quick buck is only going to keep encouraging the likes of Discovery into not only thinking they can get away with it but also lead them to self implode when they wake up wondering why they can no longer sell any product.
> 
> If other large production companies follow suit the sad fact is not only will we be loosing 90% of our income as composers but also standing by watching some of our original clients self destruct without being able to do anything about it....
> 
> I really hope Discovery see the error of their ways but if they don't and they are allowed to go ahead with this scheme I think the most important thing is to make a clear example of them as they implode, for implode they will! ...They will need to be made an example of to show just how important quality music is in the upkeep of decent standard visual content plus how a composers creative work should get the financial respect it fully deserves as a fundamental cog in the production of quality film and TV.



I liken my job as a composer to a plumber. I would never try to haggle with my plumber, offer him exposure for free work, even if it was his “side gig.” He has a skill, a skill he’s developed and spends time and money to make something work better. There might be cheaper plumbers, but will they stop a leak?

When Audrey Hepburn saw “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” with Henry Mancinis score, she wrote him a note. She really sums up the power of music to picture - in it she wrote:

“A movie without music is a little bit like an aeroplane without fuel. However beautifully the job is done, we are still on the ground in the world of reality. Your music has lifted us up and sent us soaring. Anything we cannot say with words or show with actions you have expressed for us. You have done this with so much imagination, fun and beauty.”

I don’t care if I’m pitching for a toilet paper commercial or writing romantic comedy underscore for a library. I want what I do to tell a story and have imagination.

There are storytellers all over the world that want to connect with audiences that same way. If Discovery and the likes want to make fast entertainment with wallpaper music someone sold for $7.99, go for it. Their art will not last very long and those composers will be forever side-gigging.

You can use this news as fuel to get better at your craft, stay competitive, fight for creativity and ethical practices.

In my opinion, even if it’s sub conscious, audiences respond to something with heart and creators want audiences to connect with their product. I hope what prevails is good art and a strong standing force behind it, us.

I implore new composers to respect their craft, their industry and their peers. If you want this as a career, take it seriously and stand up for yourselves, and above all make all this new emerging content soar with your art because the creators will pay good money for that!


----------



## Daryl

The bottom line is that they can only play this trick with "bespoke" music. They have no chance with library music. They are trying the blanket game, but it remains to be seen how successful that is in the long run. On that one, unfortunately all the big players will sign up, as they like doing side deals that cuts out the independent competition. For me, the real battle is to get streaming classed as a broadcast. Without that, all these discussions are, in the long term, meaningless.


----------



## BartonFink

Daryl said:


> The bottom line is that they can only play this trick with "bespoke" music. They have no chance with library music. They are trying the blanket game, but it remains to be seen how successful that is in the long run. On that one, unfortunately all the big players will sign up, as they like doing side deals that cuts out the independent competition. For me, the real battle is to get streaming classed as a broadcast. Without that, all these discussions are, in the long term, meaningless.



I agree, streaming has to simply be classed as broadcast, it’s the same thing. However I think some of the discussions prompted are useful. It’s actually nice to have composers actively discussing their rights and for younger/newer composers to be exposed to the info.

I think one of the main problems is people finding these topics dull, meaningless, useless but I don’t at all. The more composers can be made aware of their earning potential the better it is for all of us.


----------



## river angler

BartonFink said:


> I liken my job as a composer to a plumber. I would never try to haggle with my plumber, offer him exposure for free work, even if it was his “side gig.” He has a skill, a skill he’s developed and spends time and money to make something work better. There might be cheaper plumbers, but will they stop a leak?
> 
> When Audrey Hepburn saw “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” with Henry Mancinis score, she wrote him a note. She really sums up the power of music to picture - in it she wrote:
> 
> “A movie without music is a little bit like an aeroplane without fuel. However beautifully the job is done, we are still on the ground in the world of reality. Your music has lifted us up and sent us soaring. Anything we cannot say with words or show with actions you have expressed for us. You have done this with so much imagination, fun and beauty.”
> 
> I don’t care if I’m pitching for a toilet paper commercial or writing romantic comedy underscore for a library. I want what I do to tell a story and have imagination.
> 
> There are storytellers all over the world that want to connect with audiences that same way. If Discovery and the likes want to make fast entertainment with wallpaper music someone sold for $7.99, go for it. Their art will not last very long and those composers will be forever side-gigging.
> 
> You can use this news as fuel to get better at your craft, stay competitive, fight for creativity and ethical practices.
> 
> In my opinion, even if it’s sub conscious, audiences respond to something with heart and creators want audiences to connect with their product. I hope what prevails is good art and a strong standing force behind it, us.
> 
> I implore new composers to respect their craft, their industry and their peers. If you want this as a career, take it seriously and stand up for yourselves, and above all make all this new emerging content soar with your art because the creators will pay good money for that!


Absa-bloody-lutely!


----------



## JJP

JohnG said:


> Decades ago, the Department of Labor in the USA categorically ruled against composers forming a union. They reasoned that composers were independent contractors.
> 
> Their reasoning for accepting the Writers' Guild and not composers is beyond me.



It was the National Labor Relations Board who ruled against the composers during the Reagan administration. The ruling was perplexing to say the least. Also remember that this was the era of the air traffic controllers strike which was broken by the government.

For those interested in the history, there is a story on the SCL website.


----------



## AlexRuger

I've been reading up on this topic a lot over the past few days, and a few things stuck out to me:

1. Discovery has stated that they want to own their library of music completely.
2. Royalty payments cost them _less than a quarter of a percent per year _in revenue.

Corporations are greedy, but not that greedy. Cutting corners that small has to be a part of a larger play, especially when you consider how much it'll cost to replace the music in _literally all of their content ever._

Consider Amazon's recent entry into the AI music world: it was embarrassing, and stupid -- and got boatloads of press. People smarter than I have been pointing out that the point is not necessarily the tech as it is _now, _but that the music that people will make on the tech will be used to teach their algorithms to not suck so hard. The users of the product are unwittingly being used to give Amazon free test case data.

As CGP Grey pointed out in his video on how machines learn, why do you think every CAPTCHA you've done in the past 5 years has had to do with spotting crosswalks, or traffic lights, or trucks? Because self-driving car technology isn't great, so manual human data (done for free under the guise of security) is used to make it better. Anyone and everyone is using B I G D A T A to invent solutions for...whatever, really. Anything it can be possibly applied to, and even those it really probably can't (at least even sort of well, for the foreseeable future, such as music).

If royalty payments cost Discovery so little, why in the world do they care about creating such a big fuss and bad press to cut it? I admit that I'm not a pro on the subject, but my guess is that, if you want to use music to teach a machine learning algorithm, you need to own the music (I imagine that using The Beatles to teach a composition AI is legally grey at best).

Discovery (and Netflix, and I'm sure others -- remember, Discovery isn't alone here, and Netflix has been pulling this shit for years now) probably want to start getting ahead of music AI _now _by changing the paradigm so that it can use all the music on its shows to develop, or at least gather data to sell for the use of (honestly, the more I think about it, this is more likely), teaching machine learning algorithms to write exactly the kind of fungible music they need. The business pressures are already there -- in fact as everyone here has pointed out, we've been going this direction for _years -- _so they probably see this as a hop and a skip away.

In fact, given the whole Alf Clausen vs Bleeding Fingers debacle, I wouldn't be surprised if we started to see a sort of twisted return to the old days where composers worked directly for studios -- except this time, the work will eventually be used to train the algorithms that will replace them.

I'm not scared of AI taking music jobs -- yet. The problem is too hard and the technology simply isn't there. But what I _am _scared of is companies destroying (err, "disrupting") the entire music composition/publishing/licensing ecosystem in the effort to even just lay the groundwork to be able to afford to develop it.


----------



## JohnG

JJP said:


> It was the National Labor Relations Board who ruled against the composers



right you are -- knew I had the wrong acronym / agency / whatever.


----------



## chillbot

AlexRuger said:


> As CGP Grey pointed out in his video on how machines learn, why do you think every CAPTCHA you've done in the past 5 years has had to do with spotting crosswalks, or traffic lights, or trucks? Because self-driving car technology isn't great, so manual human data (done for free under the guise of security) is used to make it better.


Wow so your whole conspiracy theory behind this Discovery biz is that they are paving the way for AI??  Wait, I'm not mocking you! I actually love your post. Something to think about.

I will ponder that, though I think the answer may be close but a little less cynical than that. To those that have been debating quality vs price/greed and especially those that have been saying "quality is going to win in the end", we are already past that debate. I would say that the quality of music on Discovery in the past few years is so low, no average viewer will notice the difference if they strip out all the music and replace it with crap. I apologize to everyone who has music on Discovery, I have a ton on there myself. But they've already made the switch from commissioned custom music to mostly entirely library music years and years ago.

Let me reiterate, I am not putting down the quality/production/whatever of any current music track on Discovery, please don't take offense. I do have hundreds of hours of music floating around on Discovery. What I mean by "quality of music" is not a well-produced library track. It's that they used to commission music on a show-by-show basis, and half of it may have been scored to picture. You were able to create a 'sound' of a show and they would only use bespoke music in that particular show. What happened in the end is they built a huge library out of this commissioned, work-for-hire music, and started using it all over the place, making it available to every show on the network. This was good for people who had tracks in the library, but not so good for the overall sound of the shows.

This was kind of the start of the end, or the start of the greed, if you will. I have no idea if they think they can use any of their own library to replace music in shows or how they would get around not paying PROs, as I certainly wouldn't sign anything that would allow my music to stop collecting royalties. This switch from custom music was the start, and happened years ago, the Netflix model certainly didn't help, and then acquiring Scripps was the final nail/straw/whatever.


----------



## AlexRuger

chillbot said:


> Wow so your whole conspiracy theory behind this Discovery biz is that they are paving the way for AI?? Wait, I'm not mocking you! I actually love your post. Something to think about.
> 
> I will ponder that, though I think the answer may be close but a little less cynical than that. To those that have been debating quality vs price/greed and especially those that have been saying "quality is going to win in the end", we are already past that debate. I would say that the quality of music on Discovery in the past few years is so low, no average viewer will notice the difference if they strip out all the music and replace it with crap. I apologize to everyone who has music on Discovery, I have a ton on there myself. But they've already made the switch from commissioned custom music to mostly entirely library music years and years ago.
> 
> Let me reiterate, I am not putting down the quality/production/whatever of any current music track on Discovery, please don't take offense. I do have hundreds of hours of music floating around on Discovery. What I mean by "quality of music" is not a well-produced library track. It's that they used to commission music on a show-by-show basis, and half of it may have been scored to picture. You were able to create a 'sound' of a show and they would only use bespoke music in that particular show. What happened in the end is they built a huge library out of this commissioned, work-for-hire music, and started using it all over the place, making it available to every show on the network. This was good for people who had tracks in the library, but not so good for the overall sound of the shows.
> 
> This was kind of the start of the end, or the start of the greed, if you will. I have no idea if they think they can use any of their own library to replace music in shows or how they would get around not paying PROs, as I certainly wouldn't sign anything that would allow my music to stop collecting royalties. This switch from custom music was the start, and happened years ago, the Netflix model certainly didn't help, and then acquiring Scripps was the final nail/straw/whatever.



I think they're preparing for it, yes. As is everyone. Find me an executive who doesn't get a boner by the buzzwords "AI" or "machine learning" and I'll show you one who's going to get voted off the board next quarter. In the tech world, it's a meme at this point that you can put those words on your resume and you'll get hired, even if the closest thing you can actually pull off is writing long IF/THEN statements.

The money aspect of it just doesn't make sense any other way. They're going to spend ungodly amounts of money to replace the music with their shows...for what? Not to shave off a pesky <0.25% of revenue per year. It's so that they can sell the _data -- _that's the key in my post, I don't think that Discovery Studios is going to run an AI lab -- to companies who _do _have the capability to develop AI, such as Amazon. The aforementioned CGP Grey video is a good intro to the topic, and if you take what they're already clearly doing (crowdsourcing music data under the guise of a "product," i.e. a shitty MIDI keyboard, a la the CAPTCHA's from the CGP Grey video), it makes sense that there's a business opportunity ready to be exploited here -- but only if you own tens of thousands of tracks _that are demonstrably achieving their intended purpose, _i.e. effectively (the extent to which we can argue about) scoring a TV show while still remaining musically fungible (for instance, to your point, a single track might be used in multiple places -- that's _super_ valuable data to an AI composer algorithm).

To put it another way: it's clear that this data is worth enough to Amazon for them to go to the trouble of developing its whole AWS DeepComposer as a scheme to get free data, so other savvy companies will see it as an opportunity to sell them (and others like them) data. 

Also to your point: it's clear to them that the baseline level of quality and _specificity _of the music to a given show is low enough that composers might not really be all that necessary in the near future in order to achieve the audience's expected level of quality. So why not try and get ahead of it and unearth some gold along the way? The worst case scenario is that they encourage other companies to do the same and help set the precedent -- a precedent that will eventually be needed once AI composers are competent enough to replace real ones.

I might be giving them too much credit, as this would be pretty clever, but given the amount of software developer job openings on their site and how little financial sense this makes from any other angle, I'm starting to think I'm on to something here.


----------



## ehrenebbage

AlexRuger said:


> I think they're preparing for it, yes. As is everyone. Find me an executive who doesn't get a boner by the buzzwords "AI" or "machine learning" and I'll show you one who's going to get voted off the board next quarter. In the tech world, it's a meme at this point that you can put those words on your resume and you'll get hired, even if the closest thing you can actually pull off is writing long IF/THEN statements.
> 
> The money aspect of it just doesn't make sense any other way. They're going to spend ungodly amounts of money to replace the music with their shows...for what? Not to shave off a pesky <0.25% of revenue per year. It's so that they can sell the _data -- _that's the key in my post, I don't think that Discovery Studios is going to run an AI lab -- to companies who _do _have the capability to develop AI, such as Amazon. The aforementioned CGP Grey video is a good intro to the topic, and if you take what they're already clearly doing (crowdsourcing music data under the guise of a "product," i.e. a shitty MIDI keyboard, a la the CAPTCHA's from the CGP Grey video), it makes sense that there's a business opportunity ready to be exploited here -- but only if you own tens of thousands of tracks _that are demonstrably achieving their intended purpose, _i.e. effectively (the extent to which we can argue about) scoring a TV show while still remaining musically fungible (for instance, to your point, a single track might be used in multiple places -- that's _super_ valuable data to an AI composer algorithm).
> 
> To put it another way: it's clear that this data is worth enough to Amazon for them to go to the trouble of developing its whole AWS DeepComposer as a scheme to get free data, so other savvy companies will see it as an opportunity to sell them (and others like them) data.
> 
> Also to your point: it's clear to them that the baseline level of quality and _specificity _of the music to a given show is low enough that composers might not really be all that necessary in the near future in order to achieve the audience's expected level of quality. So why not try and get ahead of it and unearth some gold along the way? The worst case scenario is that they encourage other companies to do the same and help set the precedent -- a precedent that will eventually be needed once AI composers are competent enough to replace real ones.
> 
> I might be giving them too much credit, as this would be pretty clever, but given the amount of software developer job openings on their site and how little financial sense this makes from any other angle, I'm starting to think I'm on to something here.



Interesting theory. From another quasi-insider's perspective: this seems to be a continuation of a trend that was started years ago, as described by Chillbot. Shawn White was running Scripps this way long before AI was a buzzword. It seems like the Discovery/Scripps deal happened and they looked at the two music leadership options and picked Shawn because of his track record of keeping the music budget line item to a minimum. Probably not much more to it than that.

I can imagine a scenario where AI plays a part, and maybe Discovery is working on a scheme to sell data to Amazon or whoever, but I don't think they are quite so clever as you describe. I'm not even sure they'd need ownership of music to mine its AI data potential. Either way, their current plan is not to take ownership of new music but to license it for free (AFAIK).

As to the question of quality:

It's totally true that they've sacrificed something for the sake of saving a bit of money. That said, there is no way an inexperienced composer is going to meet the needs of a Discovery show, at least not in their current form. The shows may be lacking in originality and a bit of quality control, but most of them are still demanding and require a unique skillset: they need wall to wall music in a variety of styles...there aren't many people who can crank out cue after cue after cue in a wide range of styles over the course of a season, and another season, and another season.

If they go through with this, their only real option is to find libraries who are willing to participate. Few composers with the required skills will take a job on these terms.


----------



## dgburns

It’s getting hard to get motivated to write music these days.


----------



## AlexRuger

ehrenebbage said:


> I can imagine a scenario where AI plays a part, and maybe Discovery is working on a scheme to sell data to Amazon or whoever, but I don't think they are quite so clever as you describe. I'm not even sure they'd need ownership of music to mine its AI data potential. Either way, their current plan is not to take ownership of new music but to license it for free (AFAIK).



Right, this theory kind of lives or dies on whether you need to own the music. However, my point above is that they'd be selling data specifically for scoring (obviously that's going to be the main use of AI music), so they do need to own the music in order to sell it w/r/t how it works in sync with picture -- otherwise PRO's would be jumping down their throats.

Anyways, who knows, but again...making such a momentous change just to shave off a quarter of a percent of revenue per year just does NOT seem worth it unless there's more to it.


----------



## chillbot

AlexRuger said:


> just to shave off a quarter of a percent of revenue per year just does NOT seem worth it unless there's more to it


Quarter percent per year sounds a helluva lot different than $25M just saying...


----------



## dpasdernick

VivianaSings said:


> I'm always the unpopular one but really - everyone kinda did this to themselves.
> 
> First of all, the ranting about the evils of corporations - that makes me laugh. The CEO's job of any company is to maximize profit. He's not there to make people feel good. Now here's the kicker - you're doing the same thing for yourself, just on a vastly smaller scale.
> 
> Why are you on a virtual instrument website wringing hands over which string library to buy? Why are you not hiring a violinist to play your lead melody? At least in America, no matter how rural you are, there's at least a state orchestra, or at the very least a college with a decent music program. Go find out who the violin professor is there and ask them to play on your track. You know why you don't? Because when you get your low/no-budget writing gig and make $100, giving $75 to a violinist to play your melody doesn't work now, does it? You're trying to maximize your profit. Congrats, you're no different than the CEOs you cry about - except you're doing it with a lot less zeros. So instead you come on here and stress about how you keep editing piano roll notation but you can't make a convincing run or tremolo in Joshua Bell. You don't seem too worried about the violinist who's losing out on some session work and their ability to make a living, so don't cry about the CEOs lack of care about yours.
> 
> Second, when you lower the bars to entry and especially when you lower the technical ability needed, what do you think is going to happen? Not only do you have programs that orchestrate for you as you play, you have phrase libraries now. People who can't write their way out of a paper bag are cutting and pasting phrases. So when the guy who has 20 years experience and an expensive music school education is competing against the guy with minimal ability but using Sonokinetic libraries and OT orchestral runs, who do you think the company is going to look at when the end result sounds the same but the guy using the phrase libraries is willing to give his stuff away for pennies because it really didn't cost him much to make in the first place in terms of labor or knowledge, and he's a weekend warrior and makes a living with his day job so money's not a big deal. Now think about the thousands of people like this flooding cheap licensing sites with their pre-baked compositions.
> 
> Third, I saw this coming over two decades ago when I saw the barriers to entry being lowered. I said back then on forums that there should be mandatory licensing for professional musicians and composers, at the very least based on that their sole income is from music and "musician" or "Composer" is listed on their tax return. And that no one but licensed musicians and composers be allowed to take part in any commerce concerning music. Weekend warriors and amateurs can be allowed to compose as much as they like but they shouldn't be allowed to submit work to libraries or take composing gigs under threat of legal action for being unlicensed. I was chased off forums with pitchforks and told that I was "disgustingly elitist" and that I'm a "have" trying to keep the "have-nots" out.
> 
> No, I wasn't elitist, I just saw what happened to photographers when professional stock photographers got destroyed once digital cameras made every half ass weekend warrior photographer capable of taking bad pictures of their food, then photoshopping the heck out of it to fix everything wrong until it looked half as decent as the professional stock photographer who had vast knowledge of lighting and film and hundreds of thousands in equipment and was able to take perfect photos from the onset. And then let these mooks flood stock photo outfits so they could make "extra money" in their spare time. Their "extra money" takes away from someone's living. Now the stock photo market is decimated and even big stock houses like Getty have resorted to selling stock photos for pennies and not paying photographers. All you had to do was transpose that over to the music composing world to see where we were gonna end up.
> 
> Well, you reap what you sow. Not me though because I saw this coming and networked and hitched my wagon to one of the top TV composers out there and have worked steadily for the past decade as his orchestrator and doing a lot of session work for him on top of it, so my work and income remain steady. He's not one of the guys who's going to be affected by this.
> 
> No one's gonna unionize. You're not gonna get this horse back in the barn now that it's out. If you were one of the guys working cheap with your sample libraries to undercut the big composers, don't cry that there's guys under you that will undercut you for the same reason.
> 
> Seriously, it's hilarious to see people crying that rats ate through the hull and the ship is sinking when half of you brought the rats on board with you to begin with.
> 
> I have a bad feeling, like 20 years ago that I'm gonna get flogged for this post, but what I speak of is true and looking at this thread I kind of float between feeling bad for everyone and feeling vindicated after being chased with torches and pitchforks.




Like it or not this is 100% true.


----------



## marclawsonmusic

Patrick de Caumette said:


> God forbid we get free health care and free education...



There is no such thing as free.


----------



## chillbot

dpasdernick said:


> Like it or not this is 100% true.


No. There's so much wrong with this post I just ignored it. Including a healthy dose of survivorship bias, coupled with a complete misunderstanding of how most people make a living in the industry, in addition an insulting prognosis of why most of us are on vi-c to begin with. No.


----------



## dpasdernick

chillbot said:


> No. There's so much wrong with this post I just ignored it. Including a healthy dose of survivorship bias, coupled with a complete misunderstanding of how most people make a living in the industry, in addition an insulting prognosis of why most of us are on vi-c to begin with. No.




With all due respect t i disagree. This is a race to the bottom. If you are making a killing writing music, congratulations. You are one of the few.


----------



## MarcusD

I fear the logistics will outweigh any argument. Company saves money, viewers wont notice or likely care. A.I scoring will get better and networks will likely create it all in-house. Saves them even more money and gives them more control.


----------



## Henu

To cheer you guys even a bit up- I just managed to convince my boss to keep us subscribed to the music library which pays royalties to the composers instead of a newer, competiting library which doesn't do so. 

No names mentioned, but guess which one of those two had absolutely top-quality stuff and which one had stuff which was partially sounding from something taken from Garritan's Personal Orchestra paired with Action Strings.

Luckily, for some people, quality still matters.


----------



## BartonFink

Henu said:


> To cheer you guys even a bit up- I just managed to convince my boss to keep us subscribed to the music library which pays royalties to the composers instead of a newer, competiting library which doesn't do so.
> 
> No names mentioned, but guess which one of those two had absolutely top-quality stuff and which one had stuff which was partially sounding from something taken from Garritan's Personal Orchestra paired with Action Strings.
> 
> Luckily, for some people, quality still matters.



That’s great news! Luckily even the people who choose to go the other route will probably notice after a year that the cheaper option just doesn’t work as well. Thanks for standing up!


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

I saw on Twitter that there was to be a phone meeting yesterday between Discovery and some mid-level composers - does anyone know what came of this?


----------



## sluggo

dpasdernick said:


> With all due respect t i disagree. This is a race to the bottom. If you are making a killing writing music, congratulations. You are one of the few.


How long have we been saying "race to the bottom"?


----------



## BartonFink

sluggo said:


> How long have we been saying "race to the bottom"?



Take a drink every time someone says “race to the bottom.”


----------



## cmillar

dgburns said:


> It’s getting hard to get motivated to write music these days.



Composing/arranging music for live, real musicians is how I started my music career.... that's the greatest motivating force I can think of. 

And, personally, I sure love the ability to experiment with sound design and the ways that digital technology has made home recording possible over the last 30 years. Great stuff!

I read this forum to know what's going on with the V.I. library world, computer problems, etc. etc. This forum is a great resource.

But I'd willingly trash my computer and spend all my time just getting back to real music (...well, I do like my computer to copy out scores and parts!.)

As Jack Black says in 'School of Rock': "Let's rock!....stick it to the man!"

Let's create music and art!....stick it to the man!


----------



## wst3

chillbot said:


> <snip>
> Let me reiterate, I am not putting down the quality/production/whatever of any current music track on Discovery, please don't take offense. I do have hundreds of hours of music floating around on Discovery. What I mean by "quality of music" is not a well-produced library track. It's that they used to commission music on a show-by-show basis, and half of it may have been scored to picture. You were able to create a 'sound' of a show and they would only use bespoke music in that particular show. What happened in the end is they built a huge library out of this commissioned, work-for-hire music, and started using it all over the place, making it available to every show on the network. This was good for people who had tracks in the library, but not so good for the overall sound of the shows.
> <snip>


A parallel observation, from a couple decades ago (should have seen it coming?)

I worked as a broadcast engineer in the early 1980s. At that time almost all our advertisers purchased bespoke music, most through their agencies, some independently, some through us - but having an identifiable theme was deemed critical to advertising success. Not unlike the need to be able to identify the on-air talent from their voice, or their gimmicks. Identity mattered.

Along came the radio consultants. Drake Chaunault was our nemesis, I mean consultant, but they all used the same basic playbook. First order of business was to homogenize the talent - they were no longer allowed to say their names more than once an hour, and they had to give up their gimmicks. Never did understand how that was going to work.

Next up we had to replace all our audio processing with the same gear that "everybody else" used. Didn't make as big a difference as expected, turns out some folks were better at tweaking the Optimod than others.

And then came advertising. On first glance this almost seems sensible, in a twisted sort of way, and we need to ignore the obvious violation of copyright law, but they encouraged our advertisers to use pop music in their ads. This eliminated the need for composers, studios, and to a degree ad agencies. The agencies still wrote the copy (most of the time), and the on-air talent read the copy, and edited in current chart hits.

And everyone sounded pretty much the same. The benefit - perceived benefit was that the station sounded more uniform. Maybe that matters? The downside was that you couldn't tell the difference between the ads from the local furniture store and the ads from a national auto manufacturer - they used the same music, same voice... it was bad.

The initial reaction was positive - advertisers were spending far less on their ads, so they were buying more time, everyone was happy. Until they started to realize that their ads were not as effective. They blamed everyone and everything, except the ads themselves.

A couple mavericks - local advertisers that had a clue - tried to go back to custom music. They recognized an immediate improvement in ad effectiveness... right up until the consultants convinced the program manager to nix the ads.

I understand maximizing profits, but it can't be for the short term - or it shouldn't be!


----------



## dpasdernick

cmillar said:


> ...As Jack Black says in 'School of Rock': "Let's rock!....stick it to the man!"
> 
> Let's create music and art!....stick it to the man!



But ask the man to pay for it?


----------



## gsilbers

another article in indie wire that mentions our push... 

i wrote the LA times to see if they can amplify the story...


----------



## j_kranz

BMI weighs in...









BMI’s Position on Reported New Royalty Policy at Discovery Networks


BMI is very concerned with reports of a policy change at Discovery Networks that would decimate the livelihoods of the composers who create music for their programming. Discovery’s plan would set a very dangerous precedent for all creators and also take advantage of composers who either don’t...




www.bmi.com


----------



## chillbot

To those people who say we should stop calling Discovery "greedy". Stop it.

Likening it to just being a business deal, saying that we are all doing the same thing just on a smaller scale? No.

There's three aspects to this:

1) They don't want to pay royalties anymore going forward. On future deals, that is the prerogative of the composer. If the composer(s) sign this deal (hopefully no) then it is what it is.

2) Threatening to strip out music on old shows and replacing it with royalty-free music, ok that is *their* prerogative. I can't see it happening, but whatever. If they think the logistics are possible, or worth the trouble, fine. (I don't agree, on either count.)

Now examine number 3.

Tens of thousands of cues (maybe more) have been written for Discovery on a work-for-hire basis. What this means is that we write music and Discovery pays for them, they own the publishing and therefore "own" the recording. In the work-for-hire deal, there is an explicit statement that we will maintain the writer's share and make royalties on the writer's share.

Now these tens of thousands of cues that Discovery owns the publishing on and have used to build their own library, they have decided that, as publisher, they will "license" all these tracks to... themselves. And in the license to themselves they will state that they forfeit all PRO collections. Therefore they can use them anywhere and everywhere, royalty-free.

I'm unclear on how they can do this, how the PROs will allow this to happen, or whether or not it violates existing contracts. But they seem to think it's ok. Personally I can't see it happening.

But you're telling me that's just them trying to maximize profits, like any of us would. No. We signed into one deal, and now they're just going to move us into a royalty-free deal. Don't compare that to me trying to shop for the best price on a musician or replacing a musician with a sample library because it's cheaper (I don't actually do this, for what it's worth). That's insulting.


----------



## Daryl

chillbot said:


> To those people who say we should stop calling Discovery "greedy". Stop it.
> 
> Likening it to just being a business deal, saying that we are all doing the same thing just on a smaller scale? No.


Anyone who uses samples is "guilty" of that. In fact sample use has decimated the recording industry, so very few of us are without some semblance of blame in that regard.



chillbot said:


> Now these tens of thousands of cues that Discovery owns the publishing on and have used to build their own library, they have decided that, as publisher, they will "license" all these tracks to... themselves. And in the license to themselves they will state that they forfeit all PRO collections. Therefore they can use them anywhere and everywhere, royalty-free.
> 
> I'm unclear on how they can do this, how the PROs will allow this to happen, or whether or not it violates existing contracts. But they seem to think it's ok. Personally I can't see it happening.


Unless contracts specify otherwise, they can do what they like with the recordings. However legally they are not able just to stop paying performance Royalties, as these have nothing to do with the recordings, as they are for the music contained within the recordings, not the recordings themselves. The only way that can alter this is if the PROs agree a deal where no Royalties are payable on those channels. This is not going to happen.


----------



## Spectator

making vlogs and writing on social media will do f*** all.
setup up a composer rights union that has one and only one objective.
"The legal right to owning at least 50% share in backend royalties on ALL recorded works".
End of


----------



## Alexandre

Spectator said:


> making vlogs and writing on social media will do f*** all.
> setup up a composer rights union that has one and only one objective.
> "The legal right to owning at least 50% share in backend royalties on ALL recorded works".
> End of


Ah finally someone says it! Forget about the victimization ( which might be an all too understandable first reaction of course) instead we need to pull together and act by fighting back!That is the only way.


----------



## BartonFink

Spectator said:


> making vlogs and writing on social media will do f*** all.
> setup up a composer rights union that has one and only one objective.
> "The legal right to owning at least 50% share in backend royalties on ALL recorded works".
> End of



Precisely. A tweet storm from composers isn’t going to change how discovery appeases their share holders. We need to unify like every other discipline has in filmmaking. Especially before streaming becomes the norm.

While we’re at it, can we get a bit of the sync back? Don’t know why that changed either. 😂


----------



## Beluga

Believing AI is not a threat to us is delusional, IMO. I understand the sentiment because sure, your music is better than the AI one and will always be. The problem is: does it matter? How much is "good enough" these days?

It's another great example of how the composers are sawing the branch they are sitting on. Because who is going to tell these machines how composition works? The composers will.

I myself was approached by a firm that develops this technology right now. I refused to work for them telling them I am not going to help machines replace my job, but I know others do and will. And I know that potential employers of composers at a high level are very interested in these technologies and actively developing them as we speak.


----------



## MatFluor

Beluga said:


> Believing AI is not a threat to us is delusional, IMO. I understand the sentiment because sure, your music is better than the AI one and will always be. The problem is: does it matter? How much is "good enough" these days?
> 
> It's another great example of how the composers are sawing the branch they are sitting on. Because who is going to tell these machines how composition works? The composers will.
> 
> I myself was approached by a firm that develops this technology right now. I refused to work for them telling them I am not going to help machines replace my job, but I know others do and will. And I know that potential employers of composers at a high level are very interested in these technologies and actively developing them as we speak.



I keep away from the drama, but as a short anecdote on that general area:
My day job is in the field of computational linguistics. Much of that stuff happened some years ago with translation. Before, human translators worked through the manuals, the software, documentation, and whatnot. Then the machine translation systems got better and better - during my studies I helped develop the neural net translations that currently is used (academically) to break some records. My part in it was fairly small - I just tested and designed some layers etc.
But the whole problem was a huge discussion between translators and us - we effectively replaced a ton of them by the software we made. We were not translators or pure linguists, just "language affine programmers" so to speak (hence the term computational linguistics).
Almost all software manuals are machine-translated nowadays, along with the UI.

On the positive side - human translators still get jobs - MT cannot replace phone calls. Human translators are also still needed to proofread manuals and websites etc. The core job also still exists, but mainly high-profile companies hire them. So - the "low hanging fruit" is gone to the MT systems. But that's also where you see the horrible manuals we all know and love - broken English, wrong terminology and all that.

So - summarized:
- Machine Translation systems now do the jobs that were paid minimally in the first place (where translators said "don't work for so little money"
- Human Translators are still in demand, are paid well, since they get hired on higher profile jobs
- Needed skill to compete is higher - the standard bilingual guy might not get the job anymore, but a professional translator
- Human translators work to revise MT content to make sure it's right. It saves money, it's fast and ensures quality. Think e.g. a composer revising/proofreading AI output for recording/performance of real musicians - or mocking up AI "piano output". KEy point - the translator revising is paid a fair rate.


----------



## BartonFink

And what people are missing with this AI element is that being a media composer is more than just writing wallpaper music.

If you want a drone for your YouTube video or an upbeat song for your corporate film, sure AI can knock one out for you.

But can an AI take notes from a director, have its own personal sound while hitting key emotional moments in film and tv? Does it have a composers ability to work one on one creatively or within a team of people to specific deadlines? Does it sound congruent to the rest of the scene, the film, the brand and vision of the advertiser? Can the AI digest a brief the same way a human can and hit on something unique? Can AI have an actual personal relationship with agencies, directors, music supes, producers and musicians?

AI (for the time being) will probably kill the royalty free market and simple overused beds, underscores, pop and fairly convincing mockups in certain styles. On top of that it’ll probably be a studio tool to orchestrate, demo and sketch.

There is also something completely joyless about removing the creative process and replacing it with AI which, at least for the time being, probably won’t be welcomed in most creative industries.


----------



## YuHirà

I'm getting back to the subject but I was wondering whether there was a risk no to be paid for previous broadcasts on Discovery? (I hope the question has not already been answered)

By checking my tunesat, I realized with surprise that my tracks have been mainly used on the Discovery networks for months. I didn't know I was affected to this point


----------



## Daryl

YuHirà said:


> I'm getting back to the subject but I was wondering whether there was a risk no to be paid for previous broadcasts on Discovery? (I hope the question has not already been answered)
> 
> By checking my tunesat, I realized with surprise that my tracks have been mainly used on the Discovery networks for months. I didn't know I was affected to this point


No, unless you have agreed otherwise, they have to pay you. Also, as your tracks are library tracks, they will still have to pay you, even if this new "deal" is approved.


----------



## BartonFink

YuHirà said:


> I'm getting back to the subject but I was wondering whether there was a risk no to be paid for previous broadcasts on Discovery? (I hope the question has not already been answered)
> 
> By checking my tunesat, I realized with surprise that my tracks have been mainly used on the Discovery networks for months. I didn't know I was affected to this point



Well according to discovery, that’s the “threat.” But I think that is only after you sign a contract - I cannot imagine them sending out thousands of contracts for this to be honest. If they are just going ahead anyway, I don’t know the legal implications of that or how many composers are even aware/the types of deals the publishers have struck.

Discovery networks isn’t that lucrative for me but I know guys who make at least 5k per month from backend from them. So if they do this it’ll be devastating for some people.


----------



## gsilbers

yeah i have a shiat ton of tracks on a few shows. theyll have to contact me i think. i remember my publisher have to make sure the tracks where exclusive. 
Im guessing theyll have to contact me to sign something? not sure if its the publisher who does all that and i might be left out. contracts say i get writers share.. so in theory ill be contacted by them. 

And if discovery would of asked for part of the writers share in this new deal, then maybe i would of thought about it.


----------



## vgamer1982

Spectator said:


> making vlogs and writing on social media will do f*** all.
> setup up a composer rights union that has one and only one objective.
> "The legal right to owning at least 50% share in backend royalties on ALL recorded works".
> End of



Sure it can. We're talking about small fractions of a percent of their gross revenue, and a line item on a spreadsheet that they've looked at and said maybe we can save this there.

Compare that with a PR hit plus key content partners moaning to them (Discovery can be quite picky about music, ironically, when the shows are being made by third parties which most of their shows are, and if this policy restricts them to hiring inexperienced kids their quality will drop hugely)...and they'll quickly recalculate that. There's some indication that they're bluffing, because swapping out the M on the M&E track and remaking the complete deliverables set on a show is expensive, it includes foreign language assets to go to foreign affiliates, and a minefield, because again, most of their shows are made by other production companies for them, including the mix, grade and deliverables. They don't have the infrastructure to replace this en masse.

It doesn't require a union structure (currently illegal under NLRB rulings which aren't likely to change) to educate a small community that you must simply walk away when someone infringes on your writer's share.


----------



## vgamer1982

gsilbers said:


> And if discovery would of asked for part of the writers share in this new deal, then maybe i would of thought about it.



And that's precisely the problem.
Just. Say. No.


----------



## BartonFink

vgamer1982 said:


> And that's precisely the problem.
> Just. Say. No.


 
I agree, however:

You’ve got 20 year old kids signing their rights away and tv producers who don’t even know what “writers share” means. The amount of constant education of new composers has to be upheld some way because every year there’ll be another thousand composers signing whatever’s put in front of them if it means they can tell a girl at a bar they’re a “film composer.”

I actually think it’s worthwhile for young composers to try and get management or representation because although you’ll see 10% of your money go, they will take care of the contracts and educate you. My management is always fighting for me. Whenever I take on jobs solo I realise how dense tv and advertising people are. Most of them don’t understand music licensing at all.

It honestly wouldn’t surprise me if Discovery have no idea what they’ve gotten themselves into. They see it as a fraction on a spreadsheet, not the livelihood of people.


----------



## YuHirà

> Also, as your tracks are library tracks, they will still have to pay you, even if this new "deal" is approved.



Actually, yes, you're right, and I'm aware they have to! But I was wondering whether there were a risk that they don't pay to the PROs what they owe for the previous broadcasts (recently, we lived a similar situation in France with the channel Canal + but fortunately, payments were finally just delayed). But maybe I'm overthinking the situation!


----------



## chillbot

Daryl said:


> Unless contracts specify otherwise, they can do what they like with the recordings. However legally they are not able just to stop paying performance Royalties, as these have nothing to do with the recordings, as they are for the music contained within the recordings, not the recordings themselves. The only way that can alter this is if the PROs agree a deal where no Royalties are payable on those channels. This is not going to happen.


I agree with you, I don't think this is going to happen. I am just relaying that Discovery *thinks* it can relicense all it's tracks to itself to bypass the PROs. And in that regard...


Daryl said:


> Anyone who uses samples is "guilty" of that. In fact sample use has decimated the recording industry, so very few of us are without some semblance of blame in that regard.


Incorrect, I'm not talking about finding a different source going forward or changing as things change, I'm talking about reneging on an agreement/contract or trying to find a loophole around paying royalties on existing music. These are not comparable. The fact that people keep saying "we are the same" is what bugs me.


----------



## Daryl

YuHirà said:


> Actually, yes, you're right, and I'm aware they have to! But I was wondering whether there were a risk that they don't pay to the PROs what they owe for the previous broadcasts (recently, we lived a similar situation in France with the channel Canal + but fortunately, payments were finally just delayed). But maybe I'm overthinking the situation!


No, they have to pay the PROs or they are in breach of contract.


----------



## vgamer1982

BartonFink said:


> I agree, however:
> 
> You’ve got 20 year old kids signing their rights away and tv producers who don’t even know what “writers share” means. The amount of constant education of new composers has to be upheld some way because every year there’ll be another thousand composers signing whatever’s put in front of them if it means they can tell a girl at a bar they’re a “film composer.”
> 
> I actually think it’s worthwhile for young composers to try and get management or representation because although you’ll see 10% of your money go, they will take care of the contracts and educate you. My management is always fighting for me. Whenever I take on jobs solo I realise how dense tv and advertising people are. Most of them don’t understand music licensing at all.
> 
> It honestly wouldn’t surprise me if Discovery have no idea what they’ve gotten themselves into. They see it as a fraction on a spreadsheet, not the livelihood of people.



Actually, representation means little. The agents will usually just forward the terms offered and say "what do you want to do". most of them aren't lawyers. It would be nice if they grew a pair and opposed it en masse and refused to represent any client from their roster who took a deal without writer's share. That would stop this overnight. And the major composers need to go to Berklee, USC, all these places and say kids, don't do this, or you will never make this into a career because in the first few years you will rely on these royalties and so you're killing your own career if you do this. Hans Zimmer saying that to your class will leave a heck of an impression.

And no, Discovery probably have no idea. It's a quarterly payment they pay that somebody has said "how can we get around that". Make it painful enough publicly and from their content partners (who actually make the shows for them) saying "we can't hire good enough composers to hit your music and tone notes under this structure" and they'll back down.


----------



## vgamer1982

Daryl said:


> Anyone who uses samples is "guilty" of that. In fact sample use has decimated the recording industry, so very few of us are without some semblance of blame in that regard.



Not correct. Musicians don't have a legal "right" to record on your music. The public performance portion of copyright is a right in law and exists the moment you write the piece.


----------



## vgamer1982

vgamer1982 said:


> Not correct. Musicians don't have a legal "right" to record on your music. The public performance portion of copyright is a right in law and exists the moment you write the piece.



IE...whilst samples may have hurt recording - that's debatable given the health of orchestral recording today, which other than LA, is thriving, and other factors such as changing tastes and the sheer increase in content being produced - that's a separate issue.

What we're talking about here is a right in law. Whilst the work for hire contract hands many of the copyright aspects over, the retention of the writer's share should simply be non-negotiable.


----------



## Daryl

vgamer1982 said:


> Not correct. Musicians don't have a legal "right" to record on your music. The public performance portion of copyright is a right in law and exists the moment you write the piece.


Nobody said it was legal or illegal. I was just pointing out that because of composers thinking about themselves, the recording industry has been decimated, and as such, we are all to blame for the decline in the perceived value of music, as we have accepted to produce it cheaper and cheaper.


----------



## BartonFink

vgamer1982 said:


> Actually, representation means little. The agents will usually just forward the terms offered and say "what do you want to do". most of them aren't lawyers.



I guess it depends what kind of reps you have. Mine are great at negotiating because they’ve been in the game 30 years and before that worked at the biggest production music houses. I’ve done it with and without and the experience is night and day. Not only that, if one of your clients isn’t paying, your reps will be on them like white on rice until they do.

But I agree, there’s only so much they can do.


----------



## j_kranz

ASCAP too..









ASCAP Statement on Reports of Discovery Networks New Policy Toward Composers


Back end royalties for composers who write for TV, cable and streaming shows are critical to their being able to sustain a livelihood. ASCAP is very alarmed by the reports of Discovery Networks' new policy toward composers which would have a devastating impact on their royalty streams and make...




www.ascap.com


----------



## vgamer1982

Daryl said:


> Nobody said it was legal or illegal. I was just pointing out that because of composers thinking about themselves, the recording industry has been decimated, and as such, we are all to blame for the decline in the perceived value of music, as we have accepted to produce it cheaper and cheaper.



Well, that's really a separate issue, and it's considerably more nuanced than that. Most of the recording centers for music that is traditionally the focus of sampling are busier than ever before, London and Eastern Europe especially, and changing tastes stylistically, technology and so on have played a much bigger role than the concept of sampling, which was coming about either way as a technological certainty.

It's unrealistic to say that sampling is any great evil to live recording; if anything sampling has been a lynchpin in keeping orchestral recording going because it's only with samples that you can get the damn thing approved. We're past the days of "at the piano" demos and orchestral recording is crazy expensive. The problem is some people look at every show or whatever using samples and they say "that should have been an orchestra, you put them out of work". The budget was probably never there for it, it's just that the amount of content being produced has increased exponentially, and if you look at the recording centers, they are thriving and hugely busy. Except LA.

Because again, what we're talking about here is a right that exists in law. Local 47 could say to a bunch of composers, "hey, *now* you like ensuring the backend? What about the AFM's secondary market that you keep asking for a buyout on?"

Except, the right to record on something isn't a right in law and the AFM's original strength was built instead on pretty much a monopoly on quality which disappeared.... whereas the music copyright is literally part of the legal rights surrounding the work from the moment it is made.


----------



## BartonFink

“The problem is some people look at every show or whatever using samples and they say "that should have been an orchestra, you put them out of work". The budget was probably never there for it”

And let’s not forget the ridiculous turnaround time almost all composers face which make it impossible to organise any sort of large scale recording session.

Funnily enough, some of the only times I’ve been given time and budget to full orchestra is production music work!


----------



## Mr. Edinburgh

if you value something at £0.00 then that is what is worth.
The same applies to all these FREE sample libraries I see now. 
Where is the outrage there? 
The Piano sample library market is ruined. 
Oh I forgot, sorry, its' about the "community".


----------



## BartonFink

Response from Christian Henson


----------



## gsilbers

BartonFink said:


> Response from Christian Henson



i didnt agree w a few things there he said. but for the sake of unity he right


----------



## JJP

vgamer1982 said:


> IE...whilst samples may have hurt recording - that's debatable given the health of orchestral recording today, which other than LA, is thriving



Recording is actually up the last few years in LA.

Sorry, back on topic.


----------



## MauroPantin

Good news for the interns at Discovery, I just received a message that The Orchestra is now on sale. I think this is gonna work out for them.


----------



## Spectator

Vlogs and Social Media will do F**k All


----------



## Greg

Damn I really wanted to score this one. I knew exactly where to start the tribal drums and land the cymbal crescendo. 









Is Man vs Bear the weirdest TV show of the year?


In a staggering, strange new series, people take on actual bears in physical tasks and, quite predictably, lose




www.theguardian.com


----------



## Dirk Ehlert

https://pmamusic.com/portfolio-items/pma-discovery-licensing-practices/
Looks like discovery is back peddling

Status update: Discovery reached out to us yesterday and stated that they would like to assure the music community that they are committed to providing compensation to music providers for music in Discovery programming, that they will be continuing to operate under the PRO model for all current and past programming and that music providers will continue receiving royalties through the PRO’s for such programming. They also stated that they will evaluate new programs on a case-by-case basis based on the creative needs of the programs.


----------



## JJP

Dirk Ehlert said:


> https://pmamusic.com/portfolio-items/pma-discovery-licensing-practices/
> Looks like discovery is back peddling



That's rather non-committal. I'd keep pressuring them until they commit to removing the abusive language from their contracts.


----------



## gsilbers

well, they already mentioned Epidemic sounds somehwere. which means they are just going to start working with epidemic sounds to get more of the music which has no PROs. Im guessing reality tv shows with hiphop and that sort of thing. 

or they will work with publishers where they offer upfront and no back end like netlfix... saying stuff like.. hey.. there isnt that much royalties in streaming so here is some money upfront.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

vgamer1982 said:


> IE...whilst samples may have hurt recording - that's debatable given the health of orchestral recording today, which other than LA, is thriving



It is?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

JJP said:


> Recording is actually up the last few years in LA.
> 
> Sorry, back on topic.



But it's nothing like the golden years.


----------



## gsilbers

just re-instating the weird info discovery said

_They also stated that they will evaluate new programs on a case-by-case basis based on the creative needs of the programs._


----------



## Daryl

Nick Batzdorf said:


> But it's nothing like the golden years.


Were't there 17 scoring stages in LA at one point? What is it now 2? 3?


----------



## BartonFink

gsilbers said:


> just re-instating the weird info discovery said
> 
> _They also stated that they will evaluate new programs on a case-by-case basis based on the creative needs of the programs._



So basically 90% of their shows will have wallpaper music from Epidemic Sound on them.


----------



## AlexRuger

BartonFink said:


> And what people are missing with this AI element is that being a media composer is more than just writing wallpaper music.
> 
> If you want a drone for your YouTube video or an upbeat song for your corporate film, sure AI can knock one out for you.
> 
> But can an AI take notes from a director, have its own personal sound while hitting key emotional moments in film and tv? Does it have a composers ability to work one on one creatively or within a team of people to specific deadlines? Does it sound congruent to the rest of the scene, the film, the brand and vision of the advertiser? Can the AI digest a brief the same way a human can and hit on something unique? Can AI have an actual personal relationship with agencies, directors, music supes, producers and musicians?
> 
> AI (for the time being) will probably kill the royalty free market and simple overused beds, underscores, pop and fairly convincing mockups in certain styles. On top of that it’ll probably be a studio tool to orchestrate, demo and sketch.
> 
> There is also something completely joyless about removing the creative process and replacing it with AI which, at least for the time being, probably won’t be welcomed in most creative industries.


With respect, what you're missing is that every single thing you just said is moot.

The point is that -- eventually, and yes there will be exceptions -- "content creators" don't _want _to take notes. They don't _care _about a personal sound (just look at all the music on Discovery -- I don't mean to insult anyone who's written for them, but it's not like the channel is a bastion of musical ingenuity). Congruity can be achieved through editing (eventually something an AI can do at least well enough for a human to finish the job). An AI won't _have _to digest the brief because the content creators will be the ones "programming" it. They don't _care _about having a personal relationship, because that's one less department pushing paperwork to worry about, one less person to coordinate with who can get sick or miss a deadline or be cranky one day. Capitalism likes consistency.

Yes, AI will eventually kill the royalty free market. What you're missing is that _that's clearly the direction that everything going. _"Royalty free" no longer means "some bullshit on Audio Jungle." Every day it's becoming more and more "...what this career is."

If an AI can compose, it can most certainly orchestrate. And achieving a "broadcast-ready," "perfect" mix is nothing more than a technical problem.

Creativity doesn't _have _to be involved in any of this, from the content creator's perspective. And by "content creator" what I'm really talking about is the executive level -- those crafting the budgets, hiring the creatives. To them, they just want a product that can reliably bring in a profit, just like every other business.

As Christian said in his video, sure, an AI can't invent rap. It's not a tool for true, original creation. But one day it _will _be a tool for reproducing fungible, highly-idiomatic music that works _well enough, _and the human side of things -- originality, evolution, inspiration, thinking up new things -- will at best live in the world of hobbyists and at worst be the exclusive domain of those privileged enough to do it (just as it has been for most of Western civilization).

I don't intend to overblow this. I'm not saying this'll be pure dystopia. But what I'm saying is that the drip drip drip is slow enough that we're going to get caught up in the minutia of the drama of the moment and miss the forest for the trees -- that ever so slowly, the middle class "working composer" will slowly go extinct, as it has been for decades. And if we want to have a fighting chance against that forest, rather than being tripped up by each tree (so to speak), we need to understand the problems of the future _now, _we need to organize _now, _we need to unionize _now, _so that we can meet the ball where it's going.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Daryl said:


> Were't there 17 scoring stages in LA at one point? What is it now 2? 3?



...to say nothing of all the smaller studios that were active making albums, commercials, TV shows, demos, etc.


----------



## gsilbers

BartonFink said:


> So basically 90% of their shows will have wallpaper music from Epidemic Sound on them.




yeah i think they are pulling the corporate speak of calm down we dont want to scare social media , we are not doing that, then go and look at what new shows they can do that and see what they can pull off.


----------



## givemenoughrope

Weak, vague backpedal


----------



## vgamer1982

Nick Batzdorf said:


> It is?


Yup. Try booking in London or Nashville, or even some of the Eastern Europe destinations.


----------



## Greg

AlexRuger said:


> With respect, what you're missing is that every single thing you just said is moot.
> 
> The point is that -- eventually, and yes there will be exceptions -- "content creators" don't _want _to take notes. They don't _care _about a personal sound (just look at all the music on Discovery -- I don't mean to insult anyone who's written for them, but it's not like the channel is a bastion of musical ingenuity). Congruity can be achieved through editing (eventually something an AI can do at least well enough for a human to finish the job). An AI won't _have _to digest the brief because the content creators will be the ones "programming" it. They don't _care _about having a personal relationship, because that's one less department pushing paperwork to worry about, one less person to coordinate with who can get sick or miss a deadline or be cranky one day. Capitalism likes consistency.
> 
> Yes, AI will eventually kill the royalty free market. What you're missing is that _that's clearly the direction that everything going. _"Royalty free" no longer means "some bullshit on Audio Jungle." Every day it's becoming more and more "...what this career is."
> 
> If an AI can compose, it can most certainly orchestra. Achieving a "broadcast-ready," "perfect" mix is nothing more than a technical problem.
> 
> Creativity doesn't _have _to be involved in any of this, from the content creator's perspective. And by "content creator" what I'm really talking about is the executive level -- those crafting the budgets, hiring the creatives. To them, they just want a product that can reliably bring in a profit, just like every other business.
> 
> As Christian said in his video, sure, an AI can't invent rip. It's not a tool for creation. But one day it _will _be a tool for reproducing fungible, highly-idiomatic music that works _well enough, _and the human side of things -- originality, evolution, inspiration, thinking up new things -- will at best live in the world of hobbyists and at worst be the exclusive domain of those privileged enough to do it (just as it has been for most of Western civilization).
> 
> I don't intend to overblow this. I'm not saying this'll be pure dystopia. But what I'm saying is that the drip drip drip is slow enough that we're going to get caught up in the minutia of the drama of the moment and miss the forest for the trees -- that ever so slowly, the middle class "working composer" will slowly go extinct, as it has been for decades.



For sure true about corporate network TV, but there is a massive world of creators out there that really give a shit about every aspect of their projects. I get emails from Youtubers almost every day that want to license a special piece of music for their videos for family memories, gaming, school projects, whatever. If they are still inspired by music that makes an effort, then we will be fine. Especially considering Epidemic Music is fucking built into Youtbe


----------



## tebling

Greg said:


> Epidemic Music is fucking built into Youtbe



Whoever came up with that name is a genius or a prophet.


----------



## BartonFink

AlexRuger said:


> With respect, what you're missing is that every single thing you just said is moot.
> 
> The point is that -- eventually, and yes there will be exceptions -- "content creators" don't _want _to take notes. They don't _care _about a personal sound (just look at all the music on Discovery -- I don't mean to insult anyone who's written for them, but it's not like the channel is a bastion of musical ingenuity). Congruity can be achieved through editing (eventually something an AI can do at least well enough for a human to finish the job). An AI won't _have _to digest the brief because the content creators will be the ones "programming" it. They don't _care _about having a personal relationship, because that's one less department pushing paperwork to worry about, one less person to coordinate with who can get sick or miss a deadline or be cranky one day. Capitalism likes consistency.
> 
> Yes, AI will eventually kill the royalty free market. What you're missing is that _that's clearly the direction that everything going. _"Royalty free" no longer means "some bullshit on Audio Jungle." Every day it's becoming more and more "...what this career is."
> 
> If an AI can compose, it can most certainly orchestra. Achieving a "broadcast-ready," "perfect" mix is nothing more than a technical problem.
> 
> Creativity doesn't _have _to be involved in any of this, from the content creator's perspective. And by "content creator" what I'm really talking about is the executive level -- those crafting the budgets, hiring the creatives. To them, they just want a product that can reliably bring in a profit, just like every other business.
> 
> As Christian said in his video, sure, an AI can't invent rip. It's not a tool for creation. But one day it _will _be a tool for reproducing fungible, highly-idiomatic music that works _well enough, _and the human side of things -- originality, evolution, inspiration, thinking up new things -- will at best live in the world of hobbyists and at worst be the exclusive domain of those privileged enough to do it (just as it has been for most of Western civilization).
> 
> I don't intend to overblow this. I'm not saying this'll be pure dystopia. But what I'm saying is that the drip drip drip is slow enough that we're going to get caught up in the minutia of the drama of the moment and miss the forest for the trees -- that ever so slowly, the middle class "working composer" will slowly go extinct, as it has been for decades.



I can’t disagree with your analysis and I wasn’t so much talking about discovery networks programming - there’s no doubt in my mind that AI right now can make all the music for Ice Road Truckers but we have to distinguish what type of media this is aimed at (right now). American Reality shows? Sure, the producers obviously aren’t looking for a unique sound, they want wall to wall stock music to guide the audience and shape the already over-produced narrative.

I’ve just had too many meetings with producers who want fresh music, want a composer to pitch to them how their show should sound. They like the expertise and the collaboration. I’ve also worked on numerous tv projects where they’re actually married to certain pieces of production music

AI can’t be the next Thomas Newman or Daniel Pemberton, but sure, it can write dramatic music beds for The Real Housewives.

I think I just have to be an optimist since I feel like I work way too hard on these projects to think an AI is around the corner to do it all because my bosses would rather not deal with me 😂

In my mind there are just so many forms of interesting content arising that the need for individuality is becoming more important. I’m not sure AI is the best source for that. And the more prominent AI is the more valuable “the human touch” will be.

Maybe I’m delusional though!


----------



## gsilbers

BartonFink said:


> I can’t disagree with your analysis and I wasn’t so much talking about discovery networks programming - there’s no doubt in my mind that AI right now can make all the music for Ice Road Truckers but we have to distinguish what type of media this is aimed at (right now). American Reality shows? Sure, the producers obviously aren’t looking for a unique sound, they want wall to wall stock music to guide the audience and shape the already over-produced narrative.
> 
> I’ve just had too many meetings with producers who want fresh music, want a composer to pitch to them how their show should sound. They like the expertise and the collaboration. I’ve also worked on numerous tv projects where they’re actually married to certain pieces of production music
> 
> AI can’t be the next Thomas Newman or Daniel Pemberton, but sure, it can write dramatic music beds for The Real Housewives.
> 
> I think I just have to be an optimist since I feel like I work way too hard on these projects to think an AI is around the corner to do it all because my bosses would rather not deal with me 😂
> 
> In my mind there are just so many forms of interesting content arising that the need for individuality is becoming more important. I’m not sure AI is the best source for that. And the more prominent AI is the more valuable “the human touch” will be.
> 
> Maybe I’m delusional though!




i think you guys are jumping too much ahead. most likley there is a whole army of music prodcuers in india , bangladesh and pakistan who would do this type of music before AI.


----------



## vgamer1982

AlexRuger said:


> As Christian said in his video, sure, an AI can't invent rip. It's not a tool for creation. But one day it _will _be a tool for reproducing fungible, highly-idiomatic music that works _well enough, _and the human side of things -- originality, evolution, inspiration, thinking up new things -- will at best live in the world of hobbyists and at worst be the exclusive domain of those privileged enough to do it (just as it has been for most of Western civilization).
> 
> I don't intend to overblow this. I'm not saying this'll be pure dystopia. But what I'm saying is that the drip drip drip is slow enough that we're going to get caught up in the minutia of the drama of the moment and miss the forest for the trees -- that ever so slowly, the middle class "working composer" will slowly go extinct, as it has been for decades.




I think this misinterprets where content creation is going and where all signs point to. We're moving to a media landscape where media is plentiful, global and accessible immediately, anywhere. Once you break down distribution barriers, which streaming is doing with a vengeance, then quite frankly, the _only_ thing you have left to differentiate yourself in the marketplace is quality. Which is why you see shows getting better and better. There's a ton of great stuff out there in television. 

At it's core, our industry will go no faster or no slower towards AI, which is woefully behind where some companies tout it as being in terms of entertainment creation. And also, why is a minute of John Williams worth more than a minute of Joe Bloggs out of Berklee? Because, in truth, humans actually do care about it being written by a person, and discovering people's point of view.

Those who just see it as a sausage to be generated by a set of rules....have misread the landscape and the future greatly. Just because AI is getting better doesn't actually mean it's good nor desirable, and those who say "oh people don't care" have missed the point that they actually do care, it's just part of a subliminal whole experience for them such that music and other disciplines aren't called out specifically and don't show up in focus testing or marketing surveys. 

People DO care, even if they don't know they do, and for companies like Discovery, sh*t content means people turn off means less marketing dollars.


----------



## AlexRuger

I feel like some of the nuance of what I was saying is getting lost, as if no one read this part of my post, so I'm just gonna re-post it:

"As Christian said in his video, sure, an AI can't invent rap. It's not a tool for true, original creation. But one day it _will _be a tool for reproducing fungible, highly-idiomatic music that works _well enough, _and *the human side of things -- originality, evolution, inspiration, thinking up new things -- will at best live in the world of hobbyists and at worst be the exclusive domain of those privileged enough to do it (just as it has been for most of Western civilization).*

I don't intend to overblow this. I'm not saying this'll be pure dystopia. But what I'm saying is that the drip drip drip is slow enough that we're going to get caught up in the minutia of the drama of the moment and miss the forest for the trees -- that ever so slowly, the middle class "working composer" will slowly go extinct, as it has been for decades."

You're all repeating my point at me but it feels like you're arguing it or refuting it 

So, yes, "the more prominent AI is the more valuable 'the human touch' will be." But how will the most talented composers stand out, build their resumes, when the early-career/crappy/low-hanging gigs are all gone? The point is that they won't, because the ladder will taken out from under them, and this career will be accessible only to the most privileged. The dirty secret is that we're already halfway there -- it was quite shocking to me after graduating and moving to LA to see how many of my former classmates straight up didn't have to make a living and could just take jobs that interested them. Not surprisingly, they tend to have the best careers. This is nothing new, of course, and to a certain extent there's nothing to be done about it. But we're only ever moving more and more in this direction. It's a feedback loop of gatekeeping.

And to be clear, I'm not taking a dig at those people. No one is responsible for the parents that they're born to, good or bad, rich or poor. But all of these trends point more and more to the ever-increasing consolidation of power, money, and means of making it.


----------



## germancomponist

Our monetary system is becoming more and more inhumane, but has never actually been human. There used to be decency to live and let live. That is over now. If this continues, there will soon be only one company that owns everything and will only pay starvation wages. And then hopefully there will be a revolution that will overcome this pathetic system. Hopefully ... .


----------



## BartonFink

AlexRuger said:


> ."So, yes, "the more prominent AI is the more valuable 'the human touch' will be." But how will the most talented composers stand out, build their resumes, when the early-career/crappy/low-hanging gigs are all gone? The point is that they won't, because the ladder will taken out from under them, and this career will be accessible only to the most privileged.



Okay, this I find very interesting and totally get where you’re coming from.

If you’re LA based, I imagine the type of environment you work in to be very different from say mine which is across the pond and I have no plans on working or living in LA for this career.

I guess if a composer is in under the wire and getting work at the moment, even if it’s production music, do the best you possibly can so you have a catalogue of great work and contacts that can help move you up what’s left of the ladder in the near future!


----------



## Alexandre

AlexRuger said:


> And to be clear, I'm not taking a dig at those people. No one is responsible for the parents that they're born to, good or bad, rich or poor. But all of these trends point more and more to the ever-increasing consolidation of power, money, and means of making it.


So true! and it s a worldwide consolidation phenomenon from the us to europe our democracies are slowly getting weaker


----------



## T-LeffoH

marclawsonmusic said:


> Google the phrase 'work for hire'.



I think that is probably one of the main reasons the abuse exists and most fraught in the area of contractors.

Conceptually, I've never agreed with the idea of a contractor relinquishing more rights in something as it generally contradicts the idea of a market economy - i.e. pay somebody less to do the same or more.

I stated before in this thread,_ all composers should contact their Senators and Representatives to bring this issue to their attention_. MMA passed with unanimous, bipartisan support for a reason. This will grab their attention as a historical and legislative shortcoming since it is based on precedent established on law that hasn't really further developed, even with DMCA, until recently.


----------



## Henu

Re: Epidemic



> "Epidemic Sound achieves low-friction licensing — lower, it argues, than its traditional rivals — by buying outright all the music in its library, paying its composers an average of $500 per track."




Also, no royalties.


----------



## Beluga

I think @AlexRuger makes good points.

It is interesting to notice that we are actually defending library music whereas library music is already the enemy of custom scoring. Library music is everywhere now in every form and fashion and has with its endless possibilities the ability to replace/simulate custom scores.

Now library music with its PRO model has its intrinsic enemy which is a firm like Epidemic, I was sitting next to a potential client raving on about how cheap Epidemic is and how they can license so much music for so little money. With me sitting there, no empathy whatsoever, no realizing what he is actually telling me, a full-time professional composer.

And ultimately the enemy of production music will become AI.

AI replacing composers is also partly possible because our music is so predictable and boring and always doing the same things that you may as well let a machine calculate the few variations we make.

These programs will be integrated into the editing software or the audio engine and will simply replace us, no questions asked.

Sure, you will still need someone who sort of can evaluate the outcome, but it's nothing like composing.

These companies will present themselves not as offering a replacement for composers but making their lives easier.

As do sample library developers.

Some libraries make our lives so easy they almost write the music for us. So anyone can do it in our place.

Again I'm not saying it will be better music, I'm saying the clients won't care if it's "good enough".


----------



## Daryl

Beluga said:


> It is interesting to notice that we are actually defending library music whereas library music is already the enemy of custom scoring.


I could equally argue that custom scoring is the enemy of library music. However, the reality is that both have their place and neither has an exclusive right to any scoring.


----------



## Beluga

Daryl said:


> I could equally argue that custom scoring is the enemy of library music. However, the reality is that both have their place and neither has an exclusive right to any scoring.


Might be worth a spin-off discussion. :D


----------



## Mr. Edinburgh

funny how people never make vlogs about how FREE sample libraries are also destroying areas of the sample library industry.....


----------



## Loïc D

Mr. Edinburgh said:


> funny how people never make vlogs about how FREE sample libraries are also destroying areas of the sample library industry.....



But is it ? Do you have evidences ?


----------



## LamaRose

There's been chum in the economy, and society in general, for a very LONG time... decades... composers seem to be on the tail end of this long cycle. This is the ugly, degenerated side of capitalism... people worried about their own and not the whole... concerned about NOW and not that wisely venerated 7th generation.

In this instance, it will require an unregulated union of musicians, producers, directors, writers, etc to push back, because all of these people ultimately need and want a quality product... and quality is the sum of all the parts.


----------



## Fever Phoenix

ThomasNL said:


> In the Netherlands this is sadly already common practice. Front end fees are very low and backend you have to give up a big part of your rights...


same in Germany, Switzerland, Austria


----------



## AlexRuger

Mr. Edinburgh said:


> funny how people never make vlogs about how FREE sample libraries are also destroying areas of the sample library industry.....


To a much, much, much lower extent. It's not even comparable.

The man hours required to create a true contender of a sample library dictate that it will never be able to be done for free. At worst, free products are just a bait on a hook used to lure people into paid products.

It's not even kind of the same thing.


----------



## Fever Phoenix

LamaRose said:


> There's been chum in the economy, and society in general, for a very LONG time... decades... composers seem to be on the tail end of this long cycle. This is the ugly, degenerated side of capitalism... people worried about their own and not the whole... concerned about NOW and not that wisely venerated 7th generation.
> 
> In this instance, it will require an unregulated union of musicians, producers, directors, writers, etc to push back, because all of these people ultimately need and want a quality product... and quality is the sum of all the parts.


I am considering joining SMECA, which is a Swiss Union for Film Composers, but I don't know how well they are doing. Anyone have experience with union(s) for freelance/self employed conposers/performers/artists?


----------



## flim flam

Mr. Edinburgh said:


> funny how people never make vlogs about how FREE sample libraries are also destroying areas of the sample library industry.....



Some of the other comments here made me want to do a rant ........ but I decided to over-think your analogy instead 

I agree with your argument in principle, but I don't think it's the best analogy to use because people generally buy piano VI's to compete in a highly competitive industry as professional (or wannabe professional) composers, and that means they are always looking for an edge over the competition (other composers), which is why expensive, swanky, new piano VI's will always sell regardless of how many cheap or free ones there are out there. (the competitive nature of the industry is the driving force for Gear Acquisition Syndrome after all).

But people who watch TV generally do so just to relax after work. They do not watch TV shows (and their soundtracks) to compete with other TV watchers in an over saturated industry of 'TV watching'.

So there is no direct incentive (such as career success) for them to seek out shows with the best quality or most innovative soundtracks, lovingly composed by people who have devoted their whole lifetime to the craft. Media companies and Hollywood studios know this which is why they have a tendency to cut corners even if that means a reduction in quality. And they can often make up in other (cheaper) ways to keep the viewer engaged (fast paced editing, CGI, or just high production 'gloss').

If piano VI's were consumed primarily as a form of _home entertainment_ (as TV is) then yes, cheap or free piano VI's would make a huge impact on the sales of swanky expensive piano VI's.

In fact a TV is a replacement for the traditional piano in the corner of the living room (or pub), and most of those pianos used to be old, cheap uprights ... but nobody really cared because their purpose was primarily entertainment - a merry singalong after work or at a social gathering. 

So perhaps a better analogy of the situation would be this ...... 

_Modern technology has enabled tens of thousands of aspiring professional 'bespoke piano makers' to be able to churn out Steinway Concert Grands and then all compete with each other to sell them to the big high street music chains ... who then sell them on to the public to put in the corner of their living rooms.

But those big music chains know that most people (your average consumer) is happy enough with a basic upright piano to have a recreational tinkle on after work, so they source a bunch of cheap uprights instead for a fraction of the price, which leaves thousands of high quality piano makers absolutely furious that nobody wants to invest in their top quality bespoke pianos that they so lovingly crafted in their home workshops. So they all moan and grumble and talk about forming unions etc. "The public deserve better quality pianos!" they all shout. But what they fail to realise is that for the most part the public do not care about piano quality, as long as it basically works._

That's the basic scenario as I see it.

As for this story specifically, if previously negotiated contracts for existing soundtracks are being retroactively violated that's obviously not acceptable (and is presumably illegal too) ..... but other than that it just looks like a case of market forces at play (supply and demand).


----------



## Spectator

everyones done their tweet and the vlog has been made.....
everyone can relax now.


----------



## BartonFink

Mr. Edinburgh said:


> funny how people never make vlogs about how FREE sample libraries are also destroying areas of the sample library industry.....



This isn’t really related at all and even still, the composers on this site must spend hundreds of thousands of dollars collectively on sample libraries.

I don’t know any composers worth their salt who rely on free samples for their job.


----------



## cmillar

Reality check.....

Do we really think that more than 1% of the population actually cares about the quality of the music being played in the background of whatever crappy show or documentary it is that they're watching and listening to while being plugged into their cell phone? (....which is what the majority of the world uses to get their 'content')

Or whatever 'epic' music is being played while they're watching another superhero movie or playing a video game?

All the music that's been 'composed' for most popular TV, Video game, and generic blockbuster films is the style of music that is probably the easiest and most simple formulaic type of music that could be programmed into an AI-driven workplace.

The corporations just want to make money...give people what is proven to make money....and AI can certainly replicate any if not all of today's 'epic' and generic type of scores.

We've done it to ourselves in that regard.


----------



## BartonFink

cmillar said:


> Reality check.....
> 
> Do we really think that more than 1% of the population actually cares about the quality of the music being played in the background of whatever crappy show or documentary it is that they're watching and listening to while being plugged into their cell phone? (....which is what the majority of the world uses to get their 'content')
> 
> Or whatever 'epic' music is being played while they're watching another superhero movie or playing a video game?
> 
> All the music that's been 'composed' for most popular TV, Video game, and generic blockbuster films is the style of music that is probably the easiest and most simple formulaic type of music that could be programmed into an AI-driven workplace.
> 
> The corporations just want to make money...give people what is proven to make money....and AI can certainly replicate any if not all of today's 'epic' and generic type of scores.
> 
> We've done it to ourselves in that regard.



I guarantee you people will only notice it when it’s gone. Maybe not in bottom of the barrel network tv, but to think games and blockbusters don’t benefit from composers like Alan Silvestri, John Debney, Ludvig Forsell, Bobby Krlic, Zimmer, Benjamin Wallfisch doesn’t give the audience enough credit. Especially since soundtrack music as a whole has become so so popular in recent times.

I think a lot of creatives see audiences as way dumber than they actually are. Audiences always respond to great work too. I personally find the likes of Zimmer and his crew have changed a lot of film music for the worse in some places and they tend to all come from the same school and blend into each other but there’s still some truly amazing stuff happening, especially in the game world and it’d be naive to think audiences don’t notice.

I agree with you that the more generic a sound becomes the easier it will be for AI to take over. I don’t doubt the power of AI but it’s more how into the idea creators will be.

At this rate we can eventually just get AI editors to cut trailers and digest every action movie until it can cut together sequences on its own. I don’t really know where we stop with this. AI will probably become exceedingly more threatening to working creatives.

Who knows, right now we have AI writing orchestral music. Maybe in a few years it’ll be making a whole animated movie and scoring it too. Maybe we’ll have AI writing great screenplays too.


----------



## jonnybutter

BartonFink said:


> Who knows, right now we have AI writing orchestral music. Maybe in a few years it’ll be making a whole animated movie and scoring it too. Maybe we’ll have AI writing great screenplays too.



Take out the word 'great' and you have a true statement. The AI music I've heard sounds like shit. AI is not going to write compelling screenplays either, unless it's not really AI.


----------



## chillbot

cmillar said:


> Do we really think that more than 1% of the population actually cares about the quality of the music being played in the background of whatever crappy show or documentary it is that they're watching and listening to while being plugged into their cell phone? (....which is what the majority of the world uses to get their 'content')
> 
> Or whatever 'epic' music is being played while they're watching another superhero movie or playing a video game?
> 
> All the music that's been 'composed' for most popular TV, Video game, and generic blockbuster films is the style of music that is probably the easiest and most simple formulaic type of music that could be programmed into an AI-driven workplace.


Wow you sure know a lot about this.


----------



## Mr. Edinburgh

Spectator said:


> everyones done their tweet and the vlog has been made.....
> everyone can relax now.



im presuming this is sarcastic


----------



## cmillar

BartonFink said:


> ".... but there’s still some truly amazing stuff happening..."
> 
> "....the more generic a sound becomes the easier it will be for AI to take over.
> 
> At this rate we can eventually just get AI editors to cut trailers and digest every action movie until it can cut together sequences on its own. I don’t really know where we stop with this. AI will probably become exceedingly more threatening to working creatives.
> 
> Who knows, right now we have AI writing orchestral music. Maybe in a few years it’ll be making a whole animated movie and scoring it too. Maybe we’ll have AI writing great screenplays too."



I edited the quote from BartonFink, but this is what I'm getting at too.

There really is some great, creative music being composed!

And it's nice to see that people are starting to care a bit more about the quality of sound-reproduction as well (ie: better headphones, more options besides mp3's, etc. etc.)

But....let's face reality.... some composers in the media/film world will make out like bandits from their past contract deals, royalties, etc. etc. 

Reality is that there will be fewer and fewer musicians being able to do any meaningful money-making in the world's of TV and film composing in times to come (...at least, here in North America and most of the rest of the world). It'd probsably be best to become an 'in-house' composer/content maker/audio file editor for some corporation and sit in a little office with no windows somewhere and know how to edit any of the millions and millions of pieces of library music that are sitting in the digital world.

Make your money off of the hard work and labor of others that have come before....that's the corporate model.


----------



## AllanH

I am really surprised that BMI, ASCAP etc. do not take more of an aggressive stance. This also threatens their business, as the Discovery “direct” model skips the PROs entirely.


----------



## AllanH

I have done work in the tech industry as a consultant over at least 15 years. It’s interesting to compare, as it’s somewhat similar:

I’ve gotten hired as an “expert” to work along the company’s team on many occasions. My terms were generally “work for hire” paid on a time-and-materials basis. I had no expectations that I would receive a royalty for anything the product later brought in. By example, I doubt the typical consultant at Microsoft expects a royalty each time a copy of Windows or Office is sold.

The difference, however, is that the up-front “work for hire” was generous and from my perspective worth it even in the long run. I’ve also worked at startups where I traded compensation for founder stock. I that case I was betting on the long-term return on my time and skills. One of them took 8 years before becoming liquid and some never did.

I do not see anything inherently wrong with a “work for hire” arrangement as long as the initial compensation is fair. With Chillbot’s numbers of up-front being 15% of total compensation and royalties the remaining 85%, that is really the difficult adjustment the industry needs to make in order to make “work for hire” viable. But asking to ~6x the upfront payment is probably a no-go for Discovery and most others. I really hope the PROs will use their collective muscle and stand up for their members, as that’s the only option at this point that I can think of.


----------



## AlexRuger

The intellectual property of Windows belongs to Bill Gates and the other share holders. The coders are builders, not architects. Similarly, orchestrators have no rights to IP. This is fine.

In your tech metaphor, this is kind of like the board of Microsoft deciding that Bill Gates can no longer own shares of Microsoft if he wants to sell through Staples. The metaphor gets fuzzy here and doesn’t quite work, but the gist is still right.

The creator of the thing owns the IP. In business, it’s shares of the business. In music, it’s writers and hopefully also publishers shares. It’s more than correct to think of each piece of music we make as a little business unto itself.


----------



## river angler

cmillar said:


> ... It'd probsably be best to become an 'in-house' composer/content maker/audio file editor for some corporation and sit in a little office with no windows somewhere and know how to edit any of the millions and millions of pieces of library music that are sitting in the digital world.
> 
> Make your money off of the hard work and labor of others that have come before....that's the corporate model.


Basically this is the same roll as a robot monitor job in a car factory!

Inviting any decent composer into the roll of a musical administrator of prefabricated generic music is the ultimate insult to a naturally creative musical mind. It is also suggesting that music is destined to be put together in the same way as a book might be generated: the problem here is that the components that one has to choose from, as vast as the choice may be, are only ever going to be paragraphs rather than words and punctuation. It's the very lack of words and punctuation that gives library music it's true meaning! Automated creativity is always going to be limited.

The fact of the matter is that there is always going to be "generic" visual content that requires little more than "generic" musical support- for this sector of the industry I can see how corporations are keen to reap the financial savings by heading for AI.

However for production companies that wish to remain in the much more diligent, edifying, creative echelons of quality entertainment (film and TV drama for example) they are always going to require that human touch that can only be written by a human composer.

AI has been an obsession of man in all industries that will continue ad infinitum because man still hasn't learned that his imperfections are in fact his true "perfection" as a creative being.

Adversely a robots "perfect" binary foundation is in fact it's flaw: the failure to create something "imperfect"... something truly human.

Yes! we are harnessed to a monetary system driven by the capitalist idiom but does this really mean that all creative endeavours will eventually fall into robotic command? Of course not!

Like the frog that endeavours to leap over an 8ft path, first leaping 4ft then half as much each leap following: it will never get to the other side. This will always be the limitation of AI no matter how large the digital resolution it is always going to be restricted by its binary form. AI will be capable of generating ever more sophisticated generic music but it will only ever be generic and never reach the unpredictability of the human creative mind because it is only ever a pre-programmed entity.

The day all companies produce music by AI will be the day we have all become androids anyway and lost all sense of the spontaneous creative human spirit!


----------



## VeePo

Share if you feel inclined:


----------



## Krayh

I personally think this is a good thing! I always thought royalties are a pain in the ass for the industry and consumer. 

If you think about it long enough we are just making a product, why do companies need to pay every time the product is being "used"? It's the same as I build a beautiful chair and sell it. Does the owner have to pay me everytime he sits in it? No of course not that would be silly, why is that different with music?

I'm more than okay with a fixed fee for an assignment/composition. Now don't start complaining that the fee is to low! You don't have to agree with their offer! Find a company that is paying what you think you are worth!


----------



## marclawsonmusic

Krayh said:


> I personally think this is a good thing! I always thought royalties are a pain in the ass for the industry and consumer.
> 
> If you think about it long enough we are just making a product, why do companies need to pay every time the product is being "used"? It's the same as I build a beautiful chair and sell it. Does the owner have to pay me everytime he sits in it? No of course not that would be silly, why is that different with music?
> 
> I'm more than okay with a fixed fee for an assignment/composition. Now don't start complaining that the fee is to low! You don't have to agree with their offer! Find a company that is paying what you think you are worth!



You should look at your work as an _asset _that can be licensed out multiple times... rather than a single-use product.


----------



## JEPA

Krayh said:


> I personally think this is a good thing! I always thought royalties are a pain in the ass for the industry and consumer.
> 
> If you think about it long enough we are just making a product, why do companies need to pay every time the product is being "used"? It's the same as I build a beautiful chair and sell it. Does the owner have to pay me everytime he sits in it? No of course not that would be silly, why is that different with music?
> 
> I'm more than okay with a fixed fee for an assignment/composition. Now don't start complaining that the fee is to low! You don't have to agree with their offer! Find a company that is paying what you think you are worth!


If I would use your method, the price of my music would increase to cover my pension and retirement. > 1minute music = $2000 or more?


----------



## South Thames

> Does the owner have to pay me everytime he sits in it? No of course not that would be silly, why is that different with music?



There are specific things you can do with music that show the limitations of your chair metaphor.

Only one person at a time can sit on your chair, period.

If somebody purchased your music from I-Tunes or on CD, they wouldn't have to pay every time they listened to it.

But if your music was used on primetime TV however it would be heard by millions of people at the same time. 

Music's utility is simply completely different from that of a piece of furniture. However, I'm sure your POV is widely shared in the executive bathrooms at Discovery channel.


----------



## river angler

Krayh said:


> I'm more than okay with a fixed fee for an assignment/composition. Now don't start complaining that the fee is to low! You don't have to agree with their offer! Find a company that is paying what you think you are worth!


Try telling this to Hans Zimmer, John Williams, Ennio Morricone, John Barry (r.i.p.) and countless other composers who's compositions have been heard the world over. And then try telling that to other unknown composers who's work has also been listened to inadvertently the world over!

If you must liken the sale of originally composed music to the sale of an armchair then please understand that just as the more popular armchair designs are also sold the world over why shouldn't any given piece of original music be re-sold the world over too?

I would also ask yourself wether you would be happy to take a once in a lifetime sum for a piece of music you had written that you then found out was being used by every advertising company in the land to sell armchairs, car insurance, tea, holidays, luxury cars or condoms- all to make a stinking profit for the respective companies that represent these commodities ?...! Wouldn't you feel a little hard done by?

This is exactly the kind of naivety that is ruining our profession and devaluing the use of music.


----------



## Daryl

Krayh said:


> If you think about it long enough we are just making a product, why do companies need to pay every time the product is being "used"? It's the same as I build a beautiful chair and sell it. Does the owner have to pay me everytime he sits in it? No of course not that would be silly, why is that different with music?


However, if you spent 10 years coming up with a drug that "cured" cancer, wouldn't you be annoyed of someone just took your formula and made their own product, and you got next to nothing for those 10 years?


----------



## BartonFink

Krayh said:


> I personally think this is a good thing! I always thought royalties are a pain in the ass for the industry and consumer.
> 
> If you think about it long enough we are just making a product, why do companies need to pay every time the product is being "used"? It's the same as I build a beautiful chair and sell it. Does the owner have to pay me everytime he sits in it? No of course not that would be silly, why is that different with music?
> 
> I'm more than okay with a fixed fee for an assignment/composition. Now don't start complaining that the fee is to low! You don't have to agree with their offer! Find a company that is paying what you think you are worth!



With all due respect, it’s ignorance like this which is part of the downfall of this industry.


----------



## JEPA

Krayh said:


> Now don't start complaining that the fee is to low! You don't have to agree with their offer! Find a company that is paying what you think you are worth!


that is when bad business behaviour gets in... musicians against musicians


----------



## Krayh

JEPA said:


> If I would use your method, the price of my music would increase to cover my pension and retirement. > 1minute music = $2000 or more?



So??? Point if your prices are to LOW, and you cant live of your music then maybe you should choose a different career path! I see this happening all over the place, people demanding they need to get paid right. Hello wake up call its a business, you're an entrepreneur. If cant get ends meet then your music isn't that special, I'm sorry to burst peoples dream but people have to see it as a business. Businesses come an go. If you cant handle a business go work for a boss.

Let me tell you a story. 25 years ago I had my own design/internet business. Mosty doing website design. I had 2 people on the payroll, things were going very well until a lot of other people were doing the same thing for way cheaper prices, was it the same quality? No, but did people care, no.

I couldn't compete with those prices and to make a long story short I went bankrupt, did that suck hell ya, it was the one of the most depressing times of my life. I got my things together and started another business eventually.

So will the music quality will go down for some shows. Of Course if they are paying peanuts they are getting monkeys. Until some producers will see in that for better quality they will hire better composers.


----------



## Krayh

South Thames said:


> There are specific things you can do with music that show the limitations of your chair metaphor.
> 
> Only one person at a time can sit on your chair, period.
> 
> If somebody purchased your music from I-Tunes or on CD, they wouldn't have to pay every time they listened to it.
> 
> But if your music was used on primetime TV however it would be heard by millions of people at the same time.
> 
> Music's utility is simply completely different from that of a piece of furniture. However, I'm sure your POV is widely shared in the executive bathrooms at Discovery channel.



So? You got paid for it the first place right? If you think your music will be listened to that many people I doubt you are asking peanuts. So why do you need to be paid again? If my chair was in a public place and 1000's of people used the chair, does the owner need to pay me every time someone sits in it? Still silly isn't it!


----------



## Krayh

JEPA said:


> that is when bad business behaviour gets in... musicians against musicians



Welcome to the real world, you are a competitor.


----------



## river angler

Krayh said:


> So? You got paid for it the first place right? If you think your music will be listened to that many people I doubt you are asking peanuts. So why do you need to be paid again? If my chair was in a public place and 1000's of people used the chair, does the owner need to pay me every time someone sits in it? Still silly isn't it!


Please re-read...

_Try telling this to Hans Zimmer, John Williams, Ennio Morricone, John Barry (r.i.p.) and countless other composers who's compositions have been enjoyed in cinemas and private homes the world over And then try telling that to other unknown composers who's work has also been listened to inadvertently the world over!

If you must liken the value of originally composed music to the sale of an armchair then please understand that just as the more popular armchair designs are also sold the world over why shouldn't any given piece of original music be re-sold the world over too?

I would also ask yourself wether you would be happy to take a once in a lifetime sum for a piece of music you had written that you then found out was being used by every advertising company in the land to sell armchairs, car insurance, tea, holidays, luxury cars or condoms- all to make a stinking profit for the respective companies that represent these commodities ?...! Wouldn't you feel a little hard done by?

This is exactly the kind of naivety that is ruining our profession and devaluing the use of music._


----------



## river angler

I might also add: do you really think that a composer should no longer be entitled to a royalty payment every time a CD or digital download is sold with his or her music on it? That CD or download only sells BECAUSE OF THE COMPOSERS MUSIC!


----------



## chillbot

Krayh said:


> It's the same as I build a beautiful chair and sell it. Does the owner have to pay me everytime he sits in it?


Bad analogies are like potatoes from Delaware.


----------



## South Thames

Krayh said:


> So? You got paid for it the first place right? If you think your music will be listened to that many people I doubt you are asking peanuts. So why do you need to be paid again? If my chair was in a public place and 1000's of people used the chair, does the owner need to pay me every time someone sits in it? Still silly isn't it!



The chair comparison is ludicrous, yes. 

You don’t seem to understand the distinction between intellectual property which is licensed, and regular property which is sold. Or you’re saying there should be no difference. In which case, authors, composers, screenwriters, directors, product designers - anyone incentivised to do something well by a stake in the ongoing success of a piece of work - would be far less incentivised. Presumably you’d apply the same to patents etc.

Well, good luck with that. With that kind of nous, I’m surprised you’ve had only one business fail.


----------



## Krayh

South Thames said:


> The chair comparison is ludicrous, yes.
> 
> You don’t seem to understand the distinction between intellectual property which is licensed, and regular property which is sold. Or you’re saying there should be no difference. In which case, authors, composers, screenwriters, directors, product designers - anyone incentivised to do something well by a stake in the ongoing success of a piece of work - would be far less incentivised. Presumably you’d apply the same to patents etc.
> 
> Well, good luck with that. With that kind of nous, I’m surprised you’ve had only one business fail.



Bingo! There is no difference! You might not like it, but things are going that way and for the greater good!

Also by building that chair I spend 400 hours on it, did I sell it for 50 bucks no of course not, its a beautiful chair and worth at least 5000. When I sold it to my customer, he wanted me to sign a contract that he would own the right of reproduction to the chair. And so we negotiated a new price. If I did not manage to sell it for 5000 was the incentive gone for a new chair? Probably, but, If I did not sell it for 5000 it probably wasn't worth that much in the first place!

One more example. A couple of years a go I wanted to watch episodes of tour of duty. The music in those show was replaced by generic music, because the original license for the music was not valid any more. The show was awful to watch!!!

So you guys would say see, there you have it no more good music for tv shows. If there were no licenses involved the music would still be there!

Then you would say the rolling stones would never just sold their music for the title song to the tour of duty producers, we dont know that. Maybe they would ask to much, could be. Maybe the producers bought something from an unknown band with the same style of music, maybe their music was really really good, and when the show was a success more work would come their way. Did they got paid peanuts? Probably? Will they still get peanuts after that, probably not. So in the end it was a good thing for the unknown band and the consumer. See royalties are actually getting in the way for new producers/artists... 

By the way

All my businesses are thriving above and beyond!


----------



## Krayh

river angler said:


> I might also add: do you really think that a composer should no longer be entitled to a royalty payment every time a CD or digital download is sold with his or her music on it? That CD or download only sells BECAUSE OF THE COMPOSERS MUSIC!



If they sold all rights to the buyer no they would no longer be entitled! If the buyer wants all rights for peanuts, then just dont sell!!!

If I sell my music to a record label, why do I need to be paid again and again? If I sold my rights of the arm chair to a manufacturer why do I need to be paid again and again?


----------



## chillbot

Your chair analogy is so dumb I don't know where to begin.

But let me begin here, the person who bought the chair is not renting it out for millions of other people to sit on and profiting from them sitting on it. Why would you sell it to him for $5,000 when you could sell it to him for $500 plus get a nickel for every person who sits on it. God dammit I can't believe I went to the chair example what is wrong with me.

When someone writes a hit track or scores a hit show, millions of people watch it, the networks and radio stations sell ads because of it, you get a tiny piece of the profits that you helped generate.

Everything else worth saying has been said SO MANY times already in this thread, I hate myself for responding again.

So many people are popping into this thread to give their opinion on something they have zero experience with, maybe it's just trolling I dunno.


----------



## Krayh

chillbot said:


> Your chair analogy is so dumb I don't know where to begin.
> 
> But let me begin here, the person who bought the chair is not renting it out for millions of other people to sit on and profiting from them sitting on it. Why would you sell it to him for $5,000 when you could sell it to him for $500 plus get a nickel for every person who sits on it. God dammit I can't believe I went to the chair example what is wrong with me.
> 
> When someone writes a hit track or scores a hit show, millions of people watch it, the networks and radio stations sell ads because of it, you get a tiny piece of the profits that you helped generate.
> 
> Everything else worth saying has been said SO MANY times already in this thread, I hate myself for responding again.
> 
> So many people are popping into this thread to give their opinion on something they have zero experience with, maybe it's just trolling I dunno.



But what if he was letting millions of other people sitting in that chair, would you have sold it for 5000???

The buyer DID NOT WANT to pay me a nickel every time someone sits in it! So that's why I asked 5000! Its business!!!


----------



## river angler

chillbot said:


> Your chair analogy is so dumb I don't know where to begin.
> 
> But let me begin here, the person who bought the chair is not renting it out for millions of other people to sit on and profiting from them sitting on it. Why would you sell it to him for $5,000 when you could sell it to him for $500 plus get a nickel for every person who sits on it. God dammit I can't believe I went to the chair example what is wrong with me.
> 
> When someone writes a hit track or scores a hit show, millions of people watch it, the networks and radio stations sell ads because of it, you get a tiny piece of the profits that you helped generate.
> 
> Everything else worth saying has been said SO MANY times already in this thread, I hate myself for responding again.
> 
> So many people are popping into this thread to give their opinion on something they have zero experience with, maybe it's just trolling I dunno.



feel the same buddy!... I actually think our honourable posters armchair theory here should be quoted and made an example of the exact ignorance which is fast depleting a composers livelihood and more importantly degrading the roll of music in society let alone it's deserved intrinsic value in a capitalist world.


----------



## South Thames

> Bingo! There is no difference! You might not like it, but things are going that way and for the greater good!



The distinction between intellectual property/copyright and ordinary goods is enshrined in law at multiple levels. In no foreseeable future will the terms of exchange for a chair and a copyright be on an equal footing; to believe otherwise is to be delusional. Not to say that the specifics of some royalty-based models aren't under threat, but the basic necessity of the distinction and its future are quite secure.



> Then you would say the rolling stones would never just sold their music for the title song to the tour of duty producers, we dont know that. Maybe they would ask to much, could be.



A combination of frequent exclamation marks, dodgy grammar and this kind of muddle-headed goofiness makes me wonder how old you are. Even the examples you choose are incoherent in the world of your own making. In your world, the producer buying a Rolling Stones record would entitle him to do whatever he wanted with it, so licensing it for a production wouldn't be necessary anyway. After all, he purchased the music on CD fair and square, and the Rolling Stones should have factored all the possible things a purchaser might want to do with the music into the CD price, right! It's just like that chair! 



> All my businesses are thriving above and beyond!



Good, I hear chairs are selling well at the moment.


----------



## Krayh

South Thames said:


> The distinction between intellectual property/copyright and ordinary goods is enshrined in law at multiple levels. In no foreseeable future will the terms of exchange for a chair and a copyright be on an equal footing; to believe otherwise is to be delusional. Not to say that the specifics of some royalty-based models aren't under threat, but the basic necessity of the distinction and its future are quite secure.



No it's becoming more clear that companies dont want to go that route any more and choose differently see discovery.




South Thames said:


> A combination of frequent exclamation marks, dodgy grammar and this kind of muddle-headed goofiness makes me wonder how old you are. Even the examples you choose are incoherent in the world of your own making. In your world, the producer buying a Rolling Stones record would entitle him to do whatever he wanted with it, so licensing it for a production wouldn't be necessary anyway. After all, he purchased the music on CD fair and square, and the Rolling Stones should have factored all the possible things a purchaser might want to do with the music into the CD price, right! It's just like that chair!



And I'm a child??? No purchasing the CD does not give you the right, to use it in your tv show. That right is not included in the contract (CD) 

And english is my 3th language, so pardon me for incorrect grammar.


----------



## South Thames

> And I'm a child??? No purchasing the CD does not give you the right, to use it in your tv show. That right is not included in the contract (CD)



But why not? It's just like a chair, after all. If I buy a chair, I don't have to pay the seller if I want to put that chair in a TV show or have someone really famous sit on it. After all, there's no difference between music and a chair, right?!


----------



## mc_deli

gsilbers said:


> so it seems Discovery would get its music from Epidemic sound which gets artists to not sign up for PROs.
> 
> also, use the hashtag #boycottdiscovery


Yes this. I found out a few years ago that Epidemic had the Nordic broadcasters and prod companies sewn up (including Finnish state broadcaster totally at odds with their remit)... I wonder if it is still the case...?


----------



## mc_deli

Henu said:


> Re: Epidemic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, no royalties.


And then monthly all you can eat subscriptions for prod companies. 

I take it epidemic has taken off in the US, or is Discovery their big push?


----------



## gsilbers

mc_deli said:


> And then monthly all you can eat subscriptions for prod companies.
> 
> I take it epidemic has taken off in the US, or is Discovery their big push?


From what I’ve seen, pond5 seems the go to for most editors.
my guess is cuz many editors do a lot of stuff for YouTube and Facebook so they go for this royalty free site and then stay w it for other stuff.


----------



## Henu

Anyone who actually defends this business model gives me instantly impression of being either (former) unsuccesful musician or paying for services like Epidemic himself. But of course I'm happily being proven wrong!


----------



## South Thames

> Anyone who actually defends this business model gives me instantly impression of being either (former) unsuccesful musician or paying for services like Epidemic himself. But of course I'm happily being proven wrong!



Looking at Epidemic's terms, it's interesting to note that their composers are getting shafted even on their own terms. Composers get upfront plus a 50% of streaming - but no percentage of any revenue deriving from other sources (syncs, blankets etc). So the company has a stake in the ongoing exploitation of the work outside streaming, but the composer doesn't. Doesn't take a genius to figure out who wins, given the very low rates payable for streaming (though Epidemic is still loss-making, propped up by venture capital). One of the great things about the traditional library model is that it is generally very equitable for libraries and composers.


----------



## river angler

South Thames said:


> Looking at Epidemic's terms, it's interesting to note that their composers are getting shafted even on their own terms. Composers get upfront plus a 50% of streaming - but no percentage of any revenue deriving from other sources (syncs, blankets etc). So the company has a stake in the ongoing exploitation of the work outside streaming, but the composer doesn't. Doesn't take a genius to figure out who wins, given the very low rates payable for streaming (though Epidemic is still loss-making, propped up by venture capital). One of the great things about the traditional library model is that it is generally very equitable for libraries and composers.


"Epidemic" what an apt/ironic name for a company proposing such charlatan practice!


----------



## Daryl

This thread seems to have branched out, and leaving aside the "chair" comparison, there are actually two Royalty issues.

1. Should Royalties exist at all?
2. Should the creators be entitled to any of the Royalties, if they exist.

It seems to me that extreme libertarians would say "no" to the first point, but pretty much every corporation, as well as most creatives, in any field, would say "yes".

However, when it comes to the second point, most corporations would probably say "no", particularly as this is is the case in may other fields. However, as those other fields are not primarily using freelance practitioners, the situation is slightly different. It is also interesting to note that even when there is an ownership, because of prior payment, recently the courts have ruled that this does not necessarily mean that the creator is not entitled to share in the success.

My 3rd point would be that there are some composers who have been willfully destroying the Royalties model, either by hiring, or acting as "ghost" writers. If the Royalty model is to continue, this practice has to stop. Not only is it illegal in many countries, all it does is set the precedent that the creator doesn't need to get any Royalties.


----------



## gsilbers

Daryl said:


> My 3rd point would be that there are some composers who have been willfully destroying the Royalties model, either by hiring, or acting as "ghost" writers. If the Royalty model is to continue, this practice has to stop. Not only is it illegal in many countries, all it does is set the precedent that the creator doesn't need to get any Royalties.



i think this is hans zimmer / junkie xl whole business model. but you might be refering to something else?


----------



## NoamL

chillbot said:


> Your chair analogy is so dumb I don't know where to begin.
> 
> But let me begin here, the person who bought the chair is not renting it out for millions of other people to sit on and profiting from them sitting on it. Why would you sell it to him for $5,000 when you could sell it to him for $500 plus get a nickel for every person who sits on it. God dammit I can't believe I went to the chair example what is wrong with me.
> 
> When someone writes a hit track or scores a hit show, millions of people watch it, the networks and radio stations sell ads because of it, you get a tiny piece of the profits that you helped generate.
> 
> Everything else worth saying has been said SO MANY times already in this thread, I hate myself for responding again.
> 
> So many people are popping into this thread to give their opinion on something they have zero experience with, maybe it's just trolling I dunno.



This thread has become really stupid, but I just wanted to underline that *I'm on your "side" *in the discussion regarding royalties.

I was not comparing a *chair* to a *music master* to say that music is a mundane good for which we only deserve a one time payment.

I was comparing *carpentry* to *composition* to say that other people who perform a highly skilled trade, reflecting a lifetime mastery of their craft, don't get angsty about their product needing to be the output of a "tormented genius" like people were saying in that thread.

I have worked with and observed almost a dozen professional composers and I've never witnessed them pouring their unrequited love (or any other passion that would inspire an English poet in 1846) into their work. As you know yourself because you're an incredibly prolific and productive composer, REAL composers do this work on a deadline, sometimes without inspiration, but hopefully always with craft. 

People have taken this analogy and run with it in exactly the wrong direction so I don't blame you 🤷‍♂️


----------



## NoamL

Shit, was the chair thing in Christian's thread that got moved to politics? Maybe I'M the asshat....


----------



## chillbot

NoamL said:


> Shit, was the chair thing in Christian's thread that got moved to politics? Maybe I'M the asshat....


Yes, this is not the chair thing that you are looking for.


----------



## South Thames

> i think this is hans zimmer / junkie xl whole business model. but you might be refering to something else?



I'm no Zimmer fan, but in total fairness, his cue sheets are littered with the names of his collaborators -- composers, engineers, programmers. He's not cheating anyone out of ownership/financial participation in the fruits of their labour.


----------



## ed buller

cmillar said:


> Reality check.....
> 
> Do we really think that more than 1% of the population actually cares about the quality of the music being played in the background of whatever crappy show or documentary it is that they're watching and listening to while being plugged into their cell phone? (....which is what the majority of the world uses to get their 'content')
> 
> Or whatever 'epic' music is being played while they're watching another superhero movie or playing a video game?
> 
> All the music that's been 'composed' for most popular TV, Video game, and generic blockbuster films is the style of music that is probably the easiest and most simple formulaic type of music that could be programmed into an AI-driven workplace.
> 
> The corporations just want to make money...give people what is proven to make money....and AI can certainly replicate any if not all of today's 'epic' and generic type of scores.
> 
> We've done it to ourselves in that regard.



hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...I really wonder if a computer could replace John Williams ?


best

ed


----------



## ed buller

South Thames said:


> I'm no Zimmer fan, but in total fairness, his cue sheets are littered with the names of his collaborators -- composers, engineers, programmers. He's not cheating anyone out of ownership/financial participation in the fruits of their labour.



Hans has helped Launch the careers of many Hollywood composers. he is very generous with cue sheet too.

best

ed


----------



## gsilbers

South Thames said:


> I'm no Zimmer fan, but in total fairness, his cue sheets are littered with the names of his collaborators -- composers, engineers, programmers. He's not cheating anyone out of ownership/financial participation in the fruits of their labour.



no one said he was cheating. just about ghost writers.


----------



## South Thames

> just about ghost writers.



I don't pretend to have in depth knowledge of his practices, but, far as i can see, he credits them on the cue sheet and, where appropriate, in the film credits (additional music). Not sure in what sense it can be described as ghost writing therefore.


----------



## mc_deli

gsilbers said:


> From what I’ve seen, pond5 seems the go to for most editors.
> my guess is cuz many editors do a lot of stuff for YouTube and Facebook so they go for this royalty free site and then stay w it for other stuff.


The point with Epidemic AFAIK is it is out of the hands of the editors. Epidemic makes attractive as-much-as-you-can-eat deals with prod cos or broadcasters that make programming. They pay monthly for access to the whole Epidemic library.

Editors then have no choice. They are told they can use whatever they want - as long as it’s from Epidemic.

A few years ago this meant that editors were annoyed by the lack of choice and also because the same cues they would use would appear on competitors’ programming!

Epidemic makes the monthly sub for the producers massively attractive compared to their current library spend. While making a loss. It’s classic disruptive buying market share (see Uber etc.). It’s a free market. But it’s really very effing annoying when if involves a state broadcaster...


----------



## South Thames

> However, when it comes to the second point, most corporations would probably say "no", particularly as this is is the case in may other fields. However, as those other fields are not primarily using freelance practitioners, the situation is slightly different. It is also interesting to note that even when there is an ownership, because of prior payment, recently the courts have ruled that this does not necessarily mean that the creator is not entitled to share in the success.



Doesn’t the distinction often, if not always, come down to the creativity deemed to be involved? 

If you’re paying a journalist to report on the financial markets, there’s a sort of understanding that what you produce is owned by the company who pays your salary, and chances are, if someone else had written it, it wouldn’t be much different. Likewise, if you’re a team of scientists researching a new medicine, typically the patent will be owned by the research institution. 

But, on the other hand, if you’re a writer for a network TV show, a novelist, a screenplay writer, a director, a playwright etc. there’s recognition that there is something somewhat personal and individual in what you create, and therefore you should have an ongoing stake in the success of it.


----------



## gsilbers

South Thames said:


> I don't pretend to have in depth knowledge of his practices, but, far as i can see, he credits them on the cue sheet and, where appropriate, in the film credits (additional music). Not sure in what sense it can be described as ghost writing therefore.



i do. and i think its a very good practice. it enables remote control to get almost all big scores from studios since it helps deliver on time very good scores. still called ghost writers though but everythign in the back end is all sqaured and good. but i think we are going off the orignal meaning of the comment about ghost writers which is why i asked.


----------



## South Thames

> still called ghost writers though but everythign in the back end is all sqaured and good. but i think we are going off the orignal meaning of the comment about ghost writers which is why i asked



So you're saying there are cues in Zimmer scores whose authors are not credited on the film credits (as additional music or some such)? A credited ghostwriter is pretty much a contradiction in terms, but if they don't receive film credit (however deeply buried) then yes, I guess ghost-writing would be the appropriate term.


----------



## gsilbers

mc_deli said:


> The point with Epidemic AFAIK is it is out of the hands of the editors. Epidemic makes attractive as-much-as-you-can-eat deals with prod cos or broadcasters that make programming. They pay monthly for access to the whole Epidemic library.
> 
> Editors then have no choice. They are told they can use whatever they want - as long as it’s from Epidemic.
> 
> A few years ago this meant that editors were annoyed by the lack of choice and also because the same cues they would use would appear on competitors’ programming!
> 
> Epidemic makes the monthly sub for the producers massively attractive compared to their current library spend. While making a loss. It’s classic disruptive buying market share (see Uber etc.). It’s a free market. But it’s really very effing annoying when if involves a state broadcaster...




interesting so its like a boutique library of roaylty free sounds with no re-titling. 

and yeah, its like uber - lets do the disruptive- full capitalist- thing of winner takes all an the bigger the more power. 
i mean, i was looking to dump some very old tracks to one of this royalty free services and epidemic looked interesting. now i know better but imo there should be law about not taking away writers share and if there are co-writers they had to actually have done music stuff. not that ting of sharing writers share cuz a bigger publisher wanted to take all piublishing. 

or a lot more information about this services. for a dude making hiphop in montana these services of getting about $300 per track seems like a good deal but if they knew the back end could generate a lot more maybe theyll ask for more and level more the playing field. with more info we all could raise the collective price of music... (hey.. a man can dream!)


----------



## JEPA

Krayh said:


> So??? Point if your prices are to LOW, and you cant live of your music then maybe you should choose a different career path! I see this happening all over the place, people demanding they need to get paid right. Hello wake up call its a business, you're an entrepreneur. If cant get ends meet then your music isn't that special, I'm sorry to burst peoples dream but people have to see it as a business. Businesses come an go. If you cant handle a business go work for a boss.


You have a point there and I am very happy to be my own Boss


----------



## JEPA

Krayh said:


> Welcome to the real world, you are a competitor.


to be a competitor doesn't exclude to be a FAIR competitor. The real world I know since a lot of years ago. The as%&$les are everywhere...


----------



## AlexRuger

South Thames said:


> A credited ghostwriter is pretty much a contradiction in terms, but if they don't receive film credit (however deeply buried) then yes, I guess ghost-writing would be the appropriate term.


Yes this practice is more than common. It's absurdly common. People who are writing (sometimes the bulk of the cues) are credited with "MIDI programming," "synth programming," "music programming," "arranging," stuff like that. "Additional music" can sometimes be withheld until you've worked on enough projects with that person to "warrant" it, or it might require other duties beyond writing.

True, real-deal ghost-writing still occurs, but in my experience, it's more common to just be credited incorrectly and told to be thankful that you're even getting that.

Credit is a super political thing. I've never understood it or liked it -- in my view, if you write less than 50% of the score, you should be credited as "additional music," and should always retain 100% writer's share of what you wrote, period -- but it's the unfortunate reality.


----------



## AlexRuger

@Krayh, you are woefully out of your element here. To keep it short and simple, and somehow make your ill-informed chair metaphor work:

A _composition_ is analogous to a copyrighted _design _for a chair. That is intellectual property. You can not reproduce it without paying the owner a licensing fee. Take, for example, the Herman Miller Aeron. I'm not a pro in the chair market, but I highly doubt that you can make a clone of that and get away with it.

A _recording _is analogous to the chair itself. Hence why a customer doesn't owe a licensing fee to the seller of the chair -- they just but it and they're done with it. However, if the chair _seller_ is _licensing_ and _building _a design of a chair that they themselves did not design, they need to pay a licensing fee in order to reproduce and sell the chairs.

It's kind of like franchising. You can start your own restaurant all you want, but if you want to call it a Subway, you've gotta pay someone.

So.

If a TV show wants to use a piece of intellectual property, such as a composition/a recording of a composition (two sides to the same coin), in sync with their product, they need to pay the owner of the IP. If, for example, they deem it less expensive to pay to reproduce their own copy of the composition, they can pay one half of that fee and then go to the trouble of recording the composition themselves (hence why you see covers of popular songs in TV and movies -- it's cheaper to re-record the Beatles than to license the recording, though you still have to license the composition).

There's a lot more to it if you care to get into it, but that's the basic premise for why royalty payments are a thing.

Your argument is absurd, baseless, and founded in nothing but ignorance, so you'd be doing yourself and everyone else a favor if you cut it out and just accepted that you're out of your depth and completely in the wrong.


----------



## Alexandre

AlexRuger said:


> @Krayh, you are woefully out of your element here. To keep it short and simple, and somehow make your ill-informed chair metaphor work:
> 
> A _composition_ is analogous to a copyrighted _design _for a chair. That is intellectual property. You can not reproduce it without paying the owner a licensing fee. Take, for example, the Herman Miller Aeron. I'm not a pro in the chair market, but I highly doubt that you can make a clone of that and get away with it.
> 
> A _recording _is analogous to the chair itself. Hence why a customer doesn't owe a licensing fee to the seller of the chair -- they just but it and they're done with it. However, if the chair _seller_ is _licensing_ and _building _a design of a chair that they themselves did not design, they need to pay a licensing fee in order to reproduce and sell the chairs.
> 
> It's kind of like franchising. You can start your own restaurant all you want, but if you want to call it a Subway, you've gotta pay someone.
> 
> So.
> 
> If a TV show wants to use a piece of intellectual property, such as a composition/a recording of a composition (two sides to the same coin), in sync with their product, they need to pay the owner of the IP. If, for example, they deem it less expensive to pay to reproduce their own copy of the composition, they can pay one half of that fee and then go to the trouble of recording the composition themselves (hence why you see covers of popular songs in TV and movies -- it's cheaper to re-record the Beatles than to license the recording, though you still have to license the composition).
> 
> There's a lot more to it if you care to get into it, but that's the basic premise for why royalty payments are a thing.
> 
> Your argument is absurd, baseless, and founded in nothing but ignorance, so you'd be doing yourself and everyone else a favor if you cut it out and just accepted that you're out of your depth and completely in the wrong.


Thank you so much for all your insights so glad you're around!


----------



## Thundercat

Mike Fox said:


> I think the ideal solution would be for composers to refuse these kinds of contracts until Netflix/Discovery re-think their approach. Unfortunately, there's some straight up desperate people out there that will give in to this horse sh$!.
> 
> Maybe this really is the inevitable start/future of large production companies using stock music, instead of hiring a real composer. First it's no royalties, then it's no composers.


Only until AI gets good enough to produce many cues. Don’t fool yourself - that’s absolutely coming, sooner than we thunk.


----------



## Mike Fox

Thundercat said:


> Only until AI gets good enough to produce many cues. Don’t fool yourself - that’s absolutely coming, sooner than we thunk.


We'll see.


----------



## chillbot

AlexRuger said:


> Your argument is absurd, baseless, and founded in nothing but ignorance, so you'd be doing yourself and everyone else a favor if you cut it out and just accepted that you're out of your depth and completely in the wrong.


Thank you.


----------



## vgamer1982

Krayh said:


> Welcome to the real world, you are a competitor.



Since nobody who has received a decent size royalty check would ever make your argument, I'm assuming you might not be a competitor to him, per se....


----------



## vgamer1982

The point being that I doubt there's a major composer out there who hasn't at some point kept the ship afloat with royalties.


----------



## Alexandre

vgamer1982 said:


> The point being that I doubt there's a major composer out there who hasn't at some point kept the ship afloat with royalties.


I'm anything but a major composer but my royalties have always kept me afloat...even if barely!


----------



## Thundercat

IMO, blaming the composers or the corporations or technology is completely misplaced. 

To blame is the system that exacts ever increasing efficiencies for making profits. I dare cry wolf on capitalism; it’s a terrible system that swallows people whole in the name of profits. Why are we surprised that business people will do whatever it takes to turn a buck? Thus is how the game is setup.

We are seeing market forces at work here that have hit every industry. And I’m afraid even if we do unionize, at some not too distant point in the future a lot of music will be made by AI anyway.

I hope this can be turned around.


----------



## Thundercat

Krayh said:


> So? You got paid for it the first place right? If you think your music will be listened to that many people I doubt you are asking peanuts. So why do you need to be paid again? If my chair was in a public place and 1000's of people used the chair, does the owner need to pay me every time someone sits in it? Still silly isn't it!


So you think Microsoft should be paid once, for one copy of Office, and then everybody gets to user that copy free after that?

your analogy doesn’t work for digital products or IP. It’s a different world entirely. What if your chair you made could be magically copied and given to tons of people, with the need to only buy one copy?


----------



## AlexRuger

Thundercat said:


> So you think Microsoft should be paid once, for one copy of Office, and then everybody gets to user that copy free after that?
> 
> your analogy doesn’t work for digital products or IP. It’s a different world entirely. What if your chair you made could be magically copied and given to tons of people, with the need to only buy one copy?


Stand down, I already tore his argument a new asshole above


----------



## AlexRuger

Thundercat said:


> IMO, blaming the composers or the corporations or technology is completely misplaced.
> 
> To blame is the system that exacts ever increasing efficiencies for making profits. I dare cry wolf on capitalism; it’s a terrible system that swallows people whole in the name of profits. Why are we surprised that business people will do whatever it takes to turn a buck? Thus is how the game is setup.
> 
> We are seeing market forces at work here that have hit every industry. And I’m afraid even if we do unionize, at some not too distant point in the future a lot of music will be made by AI anyway.
> 
> I hope this can be turned around.


One of the best descriptions of capitalism I've ever heard was actually topical to this thread: that it's a profit-maximizing AI.

It's a somewhat artful but no less accurate description, meant to be interpreted in the spirit of the "paper clip-maximizing AI," a cautionary tale. As with most examples of AI and machine learning, "AI" in this sense can be understood as "a complex system of decision-making (to put it really simply, basically lots of if/then statements) that, over time, can with the illusion of rationality achieve a goal. That's all that intelligence really is, on any scale, if you zoom out far enough.

For anyone that hasn't heard of it, the paper clip AI is a machine built to...obviously, make paper clips. In the thought experiment, the AI eventually wipes out all life on earth in the pursuit of making as many paper clips as possible, as efficiently as possible -- and that means removing all road blocks to the prime directive, including any activities by humans that use energy that could be re-directed, and eventually even humans themselves.

It's funny and ridiculous but also a fair warning. The point is to illustrate the difficulty of correctly posing problems (and finding appropriate solutions), understanding complex systems, and that _any _system external to maximizing our _real _goals -- quality of life, sustainable resource management, etc -- is likely to get so wrapped up in its goal, and the sub-systems and sub-routines it naturally develops in order to sustain itself so complex and self-sustaining themselves, etc etc etc (entropy in action, basically), that it will end up following the fate of the paper clip-maximizer. 

Unfortunately, it seems that capitalism is a lot like that. It maximizes profit at all costs, including the very systems that support it, such as a social fabric you can put your faith in, a healthy ecosystem, etc.

I'd amend your post to say "unregulated capitalism" instead of just "capitalism," since, though we probably can't stop the march towards self-annihilation completely, healthy institutions such as unions, a functioning democratic government, and good stuff like that can at least stem the tide.

However, it seems that those are under attack as well, probably from the same urge that drives capitalism -- greed and self-interest. Human beings could probably be described as self-interest-maximizing AI.

_The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.
-- _Ralph Waldo Emerson

Anyways, point being, I totally agree with you, and it keeps me up at night. I think that we composers should unionize, but I also totally accept that that solution (if it could ever work at all) could only work until the next asshole comes along.

Apologies for all the bleak posts in this thread. I'm fun at parties, I swear.


----------



## Thundercat

Krayh said:


> If they sold all rights to the buyer no they would no longer be entitled! If the buyer wants all rights for peanuts, then just dont sell!!!
> 
> If I sell my music to a record label, why do I need to be paid again and again? If I sold my rights of the arm chair to a manufacturer why do I need to be paid again and again?


Yes but WHY would you sell those rights?
And just saying “charge more or don’t sell” is ridiculous. So I should charge $100,000


AlexRuger said:


> Stand down, I already tore his argument a new asshole above


so I noticed. I just read the whole 15 pages and responded in order.

good response you made.


----------



## Thundercat

AlexRuger said:


> One of the best descriptions of capitalism I've ever heard was actually topical to this thread: that it's a profit-maximizing AI.
> 
> It's a somewhat artful but no less accurate description, meant to be interpreted in the spirit of the "paper clip-maximizing AI," a cautionary tale. As with most examples of AI and machine learning, "AI" in this sense can be understood as "a complex system of decision-making (to put it really simply, basically lots of if/then statements) that, over time, can with the illusion of rationality achieve a goal. That's all that intelligence really is, on any scale, if you zoom out far enough.
> 
> For anyone that hasn't heard of it, the paper clip AI is a machine built to...obviously, make paper clips. In the thought experiment, the AI eventually wipes out all life on earth in the pursuit of making as many paper clips as possible, as efficiently as possible -- and that means removing all road blocks to the prime directive, including any activities by humans that use energy that could be re-directed, and eventually even humans themselves.
> 
> It's funny and ridiculous but also a fair warning. The point is to illustrate the difficulty of correctly posing problems (and finding appropriate solutions), understanding complex systems, and that _any _system external to maximizing our _real _goals -- quality of life, sustainable resource management, etc -- is likely to get so wrapped up, and the sub-systems and sub-routines it naturally develops in order to sustain itself, that it will end up following the fate of the paper clip-maximizer.
> 
> Unfortunately, it seems that capitalism is a lot like that. It maximizes profit at all costs, including the very systems that support it, such as a social fabric you can put your faith in, a healthy ecosystem, etc.
> 
> I'd amend your post to say "unregulated capitalism" instead of just "capitalism," since, though we probably can't stop the march towards self-annihilation completely, healthy institutions such as unions, a functioning democratic government, and good stuff like that can at least stem the tide.
> 
> However, it seems that those are under attack as well, probably from the same urge that drives capitalism -- greed and self-interest. Human beings could probably be described as self-interest-maximizing AI.
> 
> _The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.
> -- _Ralph Waldo Emerson
> 
> Anyways, point being, I totally agree with you, and it keeps me up at night. I think that we composers should unionize, but I also totally accept that that solution (if it could ever work at all) could only work until the next asshole comes along.
> 
> Apologies for all the bleak posts in this thread. I'm fun at parties, I swear.


You’re a hoot dude! And very well spoken. Thanks.


----------



## Krayh

AlexRuger said:


> @Krayh, you are woefully out of your element here. To keep it short and simple, and somehow make your ill-informed chair metaphor work:
> 
> A _composition_ is analogous to a copyrighted _design _for a chair. That is intellectual property. You can not reproduce it without paying the owner a licensing fee. Take, for example, the Herman Miller Aeron. I'm not a pro in the chair market, but I highly doubt that you can make a clone of that and get away with it.
> 
> A _recording _is analogous to the chair itself. Hence why a customer doesn't owe a licensing fee to the seller of the chair -- they just but it and they're done with it. However, if the chair _seller_ is _licensing_ and _building _a design of a chair that they themselves did not design, they need to pay a licensing fee in order to reproduce and sell the chairs.
> 
> It's kind of like franchising. You can start your own restaurant all you want, but if you want to call it a Subway, you've gotta pay someone.
> 
> So.
> 
> If a TV show wants to use a piece of intellectual property, such as a composition/a recording of a composition (two sides to the same coin), in sync with their product, they need to pay the owner of the IP. If, for example, they deem it less expensive to pay to reproduce their own copy of the composition, they can pay one half of that fee and then go to the trouble of recording the composition themselves (hence why you see covers of popular songs in TV and movies -- it's cheaper to re-record the Beatles than to license the recording, though you still have to license the composition).
> 
> There's a lot more to it if you care to get into it, but that's the basic premise for why royalty payments are a thing.
> 
> Your argument is absurd, baseless, and founded in nothing but ignorance, so you'd be doing yourself and everyone else a favor if you cut it out and just accepted that you're out of your depth and completely in the wrong.



What you and others still dont understand. Rights and Royalties are not the same thing. Never did i say anywhere the one who buys the chair is entitled to copy the design and make the same chair and sell it. Unless the contract says so!

But why is it so hard to understand the methaphor? I compose/create a chair and get a one time fee. The user is entitled to use it, can show it in a movie. (people who see the movie might even see the chair and like it so much and buy from me as well!) The user however is not legible to reproduce the chair unless we agreed otherwise!

If i sell my design to a manufacturer and the chair becomes really popular, am i going to whine to the manufacturer to get a percentage everytime he sells a chair? No if i thougt it would be become a hot chair i should have asked more for the chair design! Would there be a chance if i just started out as a designer that i could not sell the design for much? Yes! Would there be a chance if the chair became really hot that my next design would sell for more? Definitely!

So again what is wrong with a one time fee!?!

Also you can call me whatever you like, think I’m an a**** I dont care, this is a business! I’m not your buddy or your friend. Royalties are going to be a thing of the past, and if that does mean you are going out of business, thats a good thing for me! Less competitors!


----------



## Daryl

AlexRuger said:


> Yes this practice is more than common. It's absurdly common. People who are writing (sometimes the bulk of the cues) are credited with "MIDI programming," "synth programming," "music programming," "arranging," stuff like that. "Additional music" can sometimes be withheld until you've worked on enough projects with that person to "warrant" it, or it might require other duties beyond writing.
> 
> True, real-deal ghost-writing still occurs, but in my experience, it's more common to just be credited incorrectly and told to be thankful that you're even getting that.
> 
> Credit is a super political thing. I've never understood it or liked it -- in my view, if you write less than 50% of the score, you should be credited as "additional music," and should always retain 100% writer's share of what you wrote, period -- but it's the unfortunate reality.


Agreed, and any composer who uses ghost writers and doesn't put them on the cue sheet has no right to complain when, in future projects, all their Royalties are withheld, and retained by the company that commissioned the show.

One of the strengths of being a PRS members is that this is just just not possible for us.


----------



## Krayh

Thundercat said:


> Yes but WHY would you sell those rights?
> And just saying “charge more or don’t sell” is ridiculous. So I should charge $100,000
> 
> so I noticed. I just read the whole 15 pages and responded in order.
> 
> good response you made.



If you think your production/composition is worth that much, you definitaly should! But you probably start whining no producer is going to give me that! Well than your compesitions are probably not worth that much or you are not popular enough.


----------



## Daryl

Krayh said:


> If you think your production/composition is worth that much, you definitaly should! But you probably start whining no producer is going to give me that! Well than your compesitions are probably not worth that much or you are not popular enough.


However, the fact that you seem so keen to get rid of Royalties, does make think that is because you are not successful enough to receive any in the first place. In which case, it would seem that your music is not very "popular". Therefore, when all the other composers are brought down to your level, you will be bankrupt. Again...!


----------



## river angler

AlexRuger said:


> ...Apologies for all the bleak posts in this thread. I'm fun at parties, I swear.


LOL!


----------



## Krayh

Daryl said:


> However, the fact that you seem so keen to get rid of Royalties, does make think that is because you are not successful enough to receive any in the first place. In which case, it would seem that your music is not very "popular". Therefore, when all the other composers are brought down to your level, you will be bankrupt. Again...!



Perhaps you are right, perhaps my productions will not be good enough to sell in the future for a sustainable price. Then I’ll quit that business. But however I have multiple businesses and continue with those, I wont put all my eggs in one basket again.


----------



## marclawsonmusic

This thread reminds me of a quote...

_All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then success is sure._

― Mark Twain


----------



## Thundercat

Krayh said:


> If you think your production/composition is worth that much, you definitaly should! But you probably start whining no producer is going to give me that! Well than your compesitions are probably not worth that much or you are not popular enough.


Very few people in the entire world could command a $100,000 fee up front for music, except A-list composers.

I finally understand - you are just dead set against royalties of any kind. For composers to be able to survive and thrive, back end royalties are paramount. Actors get them. Authors get them. Software companies get them. Etc. and the issue you keep skirting is that up front fees are typically woefully small, and raising those fees by 10-20% doesn’t allow a composer to even survive.

telling me to hold out for the fee I’m worth Doesn’t work either as there is always someone ready to undercut. And no it doesn’t mean my music sucks.

I almost get the feeling you are working for Discovery.

I’m not going to engage further with you. But I wish you well.


----------



## river angler

Krayh said:


> If i sell my design to a manufacturer and the chair becomes really popular, am i going to whine to the manufacturer to get a percentage everytime he sells a chair? No if i thougt it would be become a hot chair i should have asked more for the chair design! Would there be a chance if i just started out as a designer that i could not sell the design for much? Yes! Would there be a chance if the chair became really hot that my next design would sell for more? Definitely!
> 
> So again what is wrong with a one time fee!?!


The point you are missing (apart from many others on this subject!) is that when a composer writes a piece of music he has no idea how popular that piece of music is going to be- that is: how often it is going to be synced to an advert, sung by an artist, re-arranged and played by an orchestra on tour, or played in an elevator (just to name a few scenarios from a much longer list!).

A composer has no idea how "coverable" his piece of music is until he puts it out there for tender. If he simply sells it on for "a one time fee" he will never know! So any composer would be a fool to sell out for "a one time fee"...

To put this into context... For example: the main reason a composer submits a piece of music to a library company (usually on a 50% royalty contract) is because that library company potentially has the connections to place that piece of music into many different scenarios hence generating far much more revenue on that piece of music than would be gained from the composer selling it on for "a one time fee".

From what you have been bleating on ad nausea here I can only surmise you don't have much faith in the music you compose yourself nor much respect for music in general which is a pity.

Rather than bleat away myself ad nausea at your misguided remarks I encourage you to have more faith in the importance of any music you may write yourself and give it the respect it potentially deserves harnessed by the royalty system. If you are successful at selling chairs that's great! Selling music however requires a lot more diligence.


----------



## Henu

We still haven't heard of this guy's music. I was wondering if he could actually tell us what he's done in order to back up the comments and claims he does, but then I rememberd Staypuft's recent "demos" and thought "not again".


----------



## Daryl

river angler said:


> To put this into context... For example: the main reason a composer submits a piece of music to a library company (usually on a 50% royalty contract) is because that library company potentially has the connections to place that piece of music into many different scenarios hence generating far much more revenue on that piece of music than would be gained from the composer selling it on for "a one time fee".



Agreed, but what we have to remember is that the profession is being assaulted from all sides by companies wishing to pay less, or nothing, for the use of music.

1. Companies that have licence only models, and keep (or don't collect) Broadcast Royalties
2. Companies that charge no licence fee (or keep it themselves) and only "allow" payments of Broadcast Royatlies
3. Companies that insist that streaming is not broadcast, so shouldn't have to pay much, if anything.

In all three scenarios the composer is the loser, and, in my view, actively trying to destroy the traditional Royalty model is playing with fire, as it's the only thing keeping many people afloat. Whilst I understand that this model is not somehow "the word of God", it is very shortsighted to tear it down, without having something to replace it with, and so far, there is nothing that works well for composers, in spite of what some of the part-timers tell us.


----------



## Krayh

river angler said:


> The point you are missing (apart from many others on this subject!) is that when a composer writes a piece of music he has no idea how popular that piece of music is going to be- that is: how often it is going to be synced to an advert, sung by an artist, re-arranged and played by an orchestra on tour, or played in an elevator (just to name a few scenarios from a much longer list!).
> 
> A composer has no idea how "coverable" his piece of music is until he puts it out there for tender. If he simply sells it on for "a one time fee" he will never know! So any composer would be a fool to sell out for "a one time fee"...
> 
> To put this into context... For example: the main reason a composer submits a piece of music to a library company (usually on a 50% royalty contract) is because that library company potentially has the connections to place that piece of music into many different scenarios hence generating far much more revenue on that piece of music than would be gained from the composer selling it on for "a one time fee".
> 
> From what you have been bleating on ad nausea here I can only surmise you don't have much faith in the music you compose yourself nor much respect for music in general which is a pity.
> 
> Rather than bleat away myself ad nausea at your misguided remarks I encourage you to have more faith in the importance of any music you may write yourself and give it the respect it potentially deserves harnessed by the royalty system. If you are successful at selling chairs that's great! Selling music however requires a lot more diligence.



You still havent read it or did not comprehend it. If you sell ALL rights to the producer, so he can do whatever he wants with it, you definitely should calculate this in the price! There is nothing more i can say on the subject, either you will get or you dont, but you better adapt!

Merry Christmas Everyone!


----------



## river angler

Daryl said:


> Agreed, but what we have to remember is that the profession is being assaulted from all sides by companies wishing to pay less, or nothing, for the use of music.
> 
> 1. Companies that have licence only models, and keep (or don't collect) Broadcast Royalties
> 2. Companies that charge no licence fee (or keep it themselves) and only "allow" payments of Broadcast Royatlies
> 3. Companies that insist that streaming is not broadcast, so shouldn't have to pay much, if anything.
> 
> In all three scenarios the composer is the loser, and, in my view, actively trying to destroy the traditional Royalty model is playing with fire, as it's the only thing keeping many people afloat. Whilst I understand that this model is not somehow "the word of God", it is very shortsighted to tear it down, without having something to replace it with, and so far, there is nothing that works well for composers, in spite of what some of the part-timers tell us.


I absolutely agree with you!

I'm actually not a fan of library music and only used this typical capitalist exploitive scenario as an attempt to get through to the "business man" orientated poster to explain why the royalty system is in place.

Ideally we wouldn't have library music companies and all music would be written bespokely!


----------



## Daryl

river angler said:


> Ideally we wouldn't have library music companies and all music would be written bespokely!


I disagree. I earn my living by writing library music, and wouldn't go back to writing bespoke music. I have control over what I write, and when I do it. Suits me.


----------



## river angler

Krayh said:


> If you sell ALL rights to the producer, so he can do whatever he wants with it, you definitely should calculate this in the price! There is nothing more i can say on the subject, either you will get or you dont, but you better adapt!


HOW CAN A COMPOSER POSSIBLY "CALCULATE" THE POTENTIAL MONETARY VALUE OF A PIECE OF MUSIC WITHOUT PUTTING IT OUT TO TENDER FIRST?...


Daryl said:


> I disagree. I earn my living by writing library music, and wouldn't go back to writing bespoke music. I have control over what I write, and when I do it. Suits me.


I respect that of course. I too have a few library tracks out there however library music has in recent times become over used and that over use is somewhat bringing down the quality of visual content. Off the shelf music does indeed have its uses but not to the extent where it is over used: where bespoke music should be in place to better the tell the story and potentially better help pin point the message that is being conveyed in the content.


----------



## Daryl

river angler said:


> I too have a few library tracks out there however library music has in recent times become over used and that over use is somewhat bringing down the quality of visual content. Off the shelf music does indeed have its uses but not to the extent where it is over used: where bespoke music should be in place to better the tell the story and potentially better help pin point the message that is being conveyed in the content.


Whilst I agree that bespoke music can sometimes better tell a story, should it need to do so, the idea that using good library music can somehow bring the quality of a product down is just not the case, in my experience. What is much more likely to ruin a product is badly composed music, written too quickly, and using badly programmed samples. Using bad music, badly produced music, and inappropriately placed music is mostly the cause of music dragging down a production. Nothing to do with library vs. bespoke.


----------



## Krayh

river angler said:


> HOW CAN A COMPOSER POSSIBLY "CALCULATE" THE POTENTIAL MONETARY VALUE OF A PIECE OF MUSIC WITHOUT PUTTING IT OUT TO TENDER FIRST?...



How does every other designer creator does that?!? I CAN! I DID! and I will CONTINUE to do so!!!


----------



## Pablocrespo

Please don’t feed the troll. The subject is very important to keep debating in circles.


----------



## Daryl

Krayh said:


> How does every other designer creator does that?!? I CAN! I DID! and I will CONTINUE to do so!!!


Hang on a second. Didn't you say your business failed? Or was that the previous one?

We also need to be talking about like for like. I don't want to put you on the spot, but how much revenue are we talking about, when you promote your business model?


----------



## Vashi

Wadding in, some of the thread issues are
1. accepting work for hire terms is akin to breaking the union line
2. there should be a campaign advocating/indoctrinating composers to refuse to do work for hire,
3. this thread is part of the campaign
4. what is the rationale for not accepting work for hire terms
5. counter arguments for accepting work for hire, being on the job and paid rather than being on strike and not paid...

I believe the situation being discussed has many parallels to other industries and its maybe quicker to make references to them to allow crafting a succinct set of messages for the campaign cos we are at page 17 already.

Moving forward, the group has to organise themselves properly and having the group take steps to bring about legislation to have governmental enforcement of the group's objectives.

There seems to be some of group being form but (to me) they appear to be reticient about what they need to be about, mincing their words. Become a pressure point on politicians to bring about desired legislation or enforcing them. Bring about awareness of the issue is only a small initial step. Explaining why "unionising"or lobby will work is important as this point was raised quite a few times, negatively.

Again, there are many fine examples of minority/small groups are able effect legislative changes for their benefit not least the Israel Lobby and the tactics and strategies should be studied and applied where applicable. Making people understanding that it is not a lost cause by referring to them can help with "line breaking" I think. Going on strike must make sense, be deemed viable for achieving the group's goals.

The Yellow Vests have been at it for how long now? I don't think they have been that effective. I would argue the group would/should want to be like the Israel Lobby and get things done.

Spotify vs the record companies, etc, etc were all IP battles and there should be lessons applicable.


----------



## river angler

Pablocrespo said:


> Please don’t feed the troll. The subject is very important to keep debating in circles.





Daryl said:


> Using bad music, badly produced music, and inappropriately placed music is mostly the cause of music dragging down a production. Nothing to do with library vs. bespoke.


Absolutely! Don't get me wrong! I do appreciate good quality library music but by its very nature being pre-written, library music does lay open a potential mistake in it's choice of and placement of in sync. Of course there have been countless scenarios where bespokely written music has either been poorly written or has been written under inappropriate briefing and badly edited to boot! However overall I'm certainly not the only one who believes that library music has been over used in recent times.


----------



## Daryl

river angler said:


> However overall I'm certainly not the only one who believes that library music has been over used in recent times.


Of course you're not, and I'm not the only one who thinks there is too much commissioned music around, when library music would do a better job.


----------



## reddognoyz

know what?? fuck them. I won't do it.You shouldn't either. Money grabbing assholes the lot of them.


----------



## river angler

reddognoyz said:


> know what?? fuck them. I won't do it.You shouldn't either. Money grabbing assholes the lot of them.


At the end of the day we all feel this way buddy!


----------



## AlexRuger

Alright dude, bear with me and imagine for a moment that everyone but yourself in fact isn’t an idiot, and that this whole IP thing actually makes sense and exists for a reason.



Krayh said:


> You still havent read it or did not comprehend it. If you sell ALL rights to the producer, so he can do whatever he wants with it, you definitely should calculate this in the price!



You do realize that the producer/filmmaker/etc isn't the one paying out the royalties, right? 

They themselves are licensing their _own _intellectual property to the networks, whose business model is broadcasting. The broadcasters air the stuff and have to pay the creators to do so. 

(We call these payments "royalties" when we want to feel fancy, or "residuals" when we want to be more accurate. They really are the "residual," definition "remaining after the greater part or quantity has gone," i.e. the idea is really that they're _supplemental _to the up-front payment which hypothetically pays for the logistical problems of _creating _the work, but hey that too has been ground down to a nub and is a problem for another day. Let me know when you start arguing that we shouldn't be paid upfront either and I'll be happy to spell it out for you).

So, with that in mind: is your argument seriously that the broadcasters should buyout all intellectual property that they're airing? Because if so, you haven't thought it through. At all.

As pointed out by @river angler above, a buyout is essentially putting a number on the potential lifetime earnings of a piece of intellectual property. Thing is, that is impossible to accurately calculate. What you're arguing for -- having the broadcasters buyout _everything _-- is essentially saying, "Pay every creator the maximum, best-case scenario lifetime earnings for their IP, every time." Because anything else is theoretically a loss for the creators, which -- if the agreement is now "fuck reality, let's earn what we think we _can _earn" -- is completely unacceptable. 

So, now it costs the broadcasters infinite money to broadcast _The Santa Clause 2 _one time at 3am on a Tuesday.

It's _shifting the risk _to the broadcasters instead of the creators. Why would they want that? The system of IP we have now says to those who want to exploit the work, "you can profit off of this work by paying $x, n times," and if _n _is lower, the broadcaster pays less; i.e. if the work isn't popular, or deemed good by the customers of the broadcaster (the audience), then the broadcaster won't pay to broadcast it again. It works.

In your dream scenario of "no royalties for anything ever," the untenable position of the creators now equally demanding near _infinite _money per work makes the broadcasters go "lol" and it instead turns into a race to the bottom. Whoever accepts the lowest payment wins the gig. Which, as we've seen, is precisely the case with royalty-free IP. Because it's theoretically worth everything, it's now worth nothing -- or at least as close to nothing as those with power can get away with paying for. It breaks supply and demand, because there are now no guard rails demanding that pay be commensurate with said demand, regardless of how high or low the supply is. It fucks the very idea of capitalism by completely un-leveling the playing field in favor of the gatekeepers. 

So, what you're arguing, really, is that film/music/any other form of intellectual property isn't a viable form of business -- by refusing to see how illogical and badly thought out your position is and presenting it as "that's just business, folks!" you're completely dismantling the very idea of a functioning economy on any level. 

Find me a business that doesn't engage in intellectual property in some way, and I'll explain to you yet another case in which you're wrong. Intellectual property is the very root of our economy's social contract, the most basic floodgate against devolving into "if I can take it, it's mine."

It's almost like all this stuff exists for a reason. Weird.



Krayh said:


> How does every other designer creator does that?!? I CAN! I DID! and I will CONTINUE to do so!!!


No, every other designer/creator _doesn't _do that. Your understanding of this topic, and seemingly most of the world, is unbelievably out of whack. Every designer/creator you've ever heard of has held onto their intellectual property rights -- otherwise, _you wouldn't have heard of them.

You are very simply wrong._

So, let me get this straight: you think that by not only willingly engaging in, but _actively pushing for, _a to-the-death race-to-the-bottom, will somehow make you _competitive? _You think that by choosing to make less money, potentially by _multiple orders of magnitude, _that by giving over what is essentially a passive income money-printing machine, you're going to be the _last man standing?_

To quote someone's response to an equally stupid idea: *good luck*.

Well, at the very least, I'll thank you for pointing out, in your words, that there's one less competitor for me.

You argue like someone who probably buys into a lot of just-world, Ayn Rand bullshit, but your argument destroys the very idea of a free market. The only way it can end up is complete and total vertical integration, where filmmakers/musicians/etc are all employees of the broadcasters. It kills innovation. Whereas what we have now, unlike a lot of things in this weird metastization of a late-stage capitalist economy, is about as close to a Libertarian wet dream as you can think of. The only reason a person would make the argument you're making is if they truly want a closed off, vertically integrated, wealth-consolidating economy; or if they're just mind-blowingly stupid and like to be a contrarian for the fun of it. Honestly I'm not sure where you're leaning on that one.

PS Your name wouldn't happen to be Dunning Kruger, would it?


----------



## VivianaSings

AlexRuger said:


> You argue like someone who probably buys into a lot of just-world, Ayn Rand bullshit, but your argument destroys the very idea of a free market. The only way it can end up is complete and total vertical integration, where filmmakers/musicians/etc are all employees of the broadcasters. It kills innovation. Whereas what we have now, unlike a lot of things in this weird metastization of a late-stage capitalist economy, is about as close to a Libertarian wet dream as you can think of. The only reason a person would make the argument you're making is if they truly want a closed off, vertically integrated, wealth-consolidating economy; or if they're just mind-blowingly stupid and like to be a contrarian for the fun of it. Honestly I'm not sure where you're leaning on that one.



I don't know - buying into the Ayn Rand bullshit is why I'm in the position I'm in and thankfully not the position you're in.


----------



## gsilbers

Vashi said:


> Wadding in, some of the thread issues are
> 1. accepting work for hire terms is akin to breaking the union line
> 2. there should be a campaign advocating/indoctrinating composers to refuse to do work for hire,
> 3. this thread is part of the campaign
> 4. what is the rationale for not accepting work for hire terms
> 5. counter arguments for accepting work for hire, being on the job and paid rather than being on strike and not paid...
> 
> I believe the situation being discussed has many parallels to other industries and its maybe quicker to make references to them to allow crafting a succinct set of messages for the campaign cos we are at page 17 already.
> 
> Moving forward, the group has to organise themselves properly and having the group take steps to bring about legislation to have governmental enforcement of the group's objectives.
> 
> There seems to be some of group being form but (to me) they appear to be reticient about what they need to be about, mincing their words. Become a pressure point on politicians to bring about desired legislation or enforcing them. Bring about awareness of the issue is only a small initial step. Explaining why "unionising"or lobby will work is important as this point was raised quite a few times, negatively.
> 
> Again, there are many fine examples of minority/small groups are able effect legislative changes for their benefit not least the Israel Lobby and the tactics and strategies should be studied and applied where applicable. Making people understanding that it is not a lost cause by referring to them can help with "line breaking" I think. Going on strike must make sense, be deemed viable for achieving the group's goals.
> 
> The Yellow Vests have been at it for how long now? I don't think they have been that effective. I would argue the group would/should want to be like the Israel Lobby and get things done.
> 
> Spotify vs the record companies, etc, etc were all IP battles and there should be lessons applicable.




well put. imo its same as latin american politics, (and general politics of course) the issue is that there is WAY too much talking and side points and random comments that brings in no clear and simple message. so placing these issues and more concise terms and in bullts points where we all can get behind and later act on the best way to deliver this message, in theory would work best.

now, we also learn a few things as well. someone mentioned that there was a push to get composers to unionize but it failed due to some judge or law... (sorry dont remember clearly) but something along those lines. so looking at our past might help.


----------



## gsilbers

Krayh said:


> What you and others still dont understand. Rights and Royalties are not the same thing. Never did i say anywhere the one who buys the chair is entitled to copy the design and make the same chair and sell it. Unless the contract says so!
> 
> But why is it so hard to understand the methaphor? I compose/create a chair and get a one time fee. The user is entitled to use it, can show it in a movie. (people who see the movie might even see the chair and like it so much and buy from me as well!) The user however is not legible to reproduce the chair unless we agreed otherwise!
> 
> If i sell my design to a manufacturer and the chair becomes really popular, am i going to whine to the manufacturer to get a percentage everytime he sells a chair? No if i thougt it would be become a hot chair i should have asked more for the chair design! Would there be a chance if i just started out as a designer that i could not sell the design for much? Yes! Would there be a chance if the chair became really hot that my next design would sell for more? Definitely!
> 
> So again what is wrong with a one time fee!?!
> 
> Also you can call me whatever you like, think I’m an a**** I dont care, this is a business! I’m not your buddy or your friend. Royalties are going to be a thing of the past, and if that does mean you are going out of business, thats a good thing for me! Less competitors!




its a valid point. even though it sounds like trolling and triggering a few folks here. its not only a valid point but a point being brought by the stdios and prodcution companies etc. that sort of "disrupt economy" tech companies are so good atthat we loved at the start and now we get uber which is the other extreme. so these tech and broadcasters trying to copmete w tech are sayign things like , why should it be so complicated and expensive. and i think thats what we are battling here. so its good someone brings it up.

the chair analogy might be derailing the point. Music has also the intangible song copyright and tangible/master rights and sync and its digital so that complicates things a bit.

but you can see how movie studios dont just sell their movie to theatrs for just $10,000 and thats it. you see movie box offive numbers every week for the movie. so they share ticket sales. 
producers also share points on the revenue of the movie. same as actors.

so thats only the idea of different ways and analogies can go on more IP and all that creative stuff.


as for the topic, its a valid point. why cant i just pay a composer to do a track and that composer charges their hourly rate which includes his years of experience (like a plumber) and thats it.
like a musician charges a composer a flat rate and thats it. why does compansation have to be tied to the success of my project. 

its interesting to read the counter arguments because this question is exactly what netflix and discovery are arguing. not only that, they are finding odd ways to go around it. in netlfix case they are courting the hell out of minorities composers with the whole "woke" argument but imo seems like its a back hand way of getting these composers, who woudnt be able to negotiate a back end deal, to agree to the upfront only.


----------



## chillbot

VivianaSings said:


> I don't know - buying into the Ayn Rand bullshit is why I'm in the position I'm in and thankfully not the position you're in.


You manage to convey so much survivorship bias in so few words, fantastic.


----------



## NoamL

VivianaSings said:


> I don't know - buying into the Ayn Rand bullshit is why I'm in the position I'm in and thankfully not the position you're in.



I have no idea who you really are but I know who Alex is and he knows what he's talking about. 

Maybe you are successful in real life, in which case congratulations, but your idea of a composer guild & a licensing barrier to entry is still awful. What right do you or I have to bar the gates to people coming into this field a year or ten years later than us? Were I the most successful composer in Hollywood I would yet have no right to determine the careers of others. Artistry and skill are what qualify people, not a license. If you truly are competing with people who slap together Sonokinetic and runs-based libraries to create orchestral works, well... up your game.


----------



## Thundercat

AlexRuger said:


> Alright dude, bear with me and imagine for a moment that everyone but yourself in fact isn’t an idiot, and that this whole IP thing actually makes sense and exists for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that the producer/filmmaker/etc isn't the one paying out the royalties, right?
> 
> They themselves are licensing their _own _intellectual property to the networks, whose business model is broadcasting. The broadcasters air the stuff and have to pay the creators to do so.
> 
> (We call these payments "royalties" when we want to feel fancy, or "residuals" when we want to be more accurate. They really are the "residual," definition "remaining after the greater part or quantity has gone," i.e. the idea is really that they're _supplemental _to the up-front payment which hypothetically pays for the logistical problems of _creating _the work, but hey that too has been ground down to a nub and is a problem for another day. Let me know when you start arguing that we shouldn't be paid upfront either and I'll be happy to spell it out for you).
> 
> So, with that in mind: is your argument seriously that the broadcasters should buyout all intellectual property that they're airing? Because if so, you haven't thought it through. At all.
> 
> As pointed out by @river angler above, a buyout is essentially putting a number on the potential lifetime earnings of a piece of intellectual property. Thing is, that is impossible to accurately calculate. What you're arguing for -- having the broadcasters buyout _everything _-- is essentially saying, "Pay every creator the maximum, best-case scenario lifetime earnings for their IP, every time." Because anything else is theoretically a loss for the creators, which -- if the agreement is now "fuck reality, let's earn what we think we _can _earn" -- is completely unacceptable.
> 
> So, now it costs the broadcasters infinite money to broadcast _The Santa Clause 2 _one time at 3am on a Tuesday.
> 
> It's _shifting the risk _to the broadcasters instead of the creators. Why would they want that? The system of IP we have now says to those who want to exploit the work, "you can profit off of this work by paying $x, n times," and if _n _is lower, the broadcaster pays less; i.e. if the work isn't popular, or deemed good by the customers of the broadcaster (the audience), then the broadcaster won't pay to broadcast it again. It works.
> 
> In your dream scenario of "no royalties for anything ever," the untenable position of the creators now equally demanding near _infinite _money per work makes the broadcasters go "lol" and it instead turns into a race to the bottom. Whoever accepts the lowest payment wins the gig. Which, as we've seen, is precisely the case with royalty-free IP. Because it's theoretically worth everything, it's now worth nothing -- or at least as close to nothing as those with power can get away with paying for. It breaks supply and demand, because there are now no guard rails demanding that pay be commensurate with said demand, regardless of how high or low the supply is. It fucks the very idea of capitalism by completely un-leveling the playing field in favor of the gatekeepers.
> 
> So, what you're arguing, really, is that film/music/any other form of intellectual property isn't a viable form of business -- by refusing to see how illogical and badly thought out your position is and presenting it as "that's just business, folks!" you're completely dismantling the very idea of a functioning economy on any level.
> 
> Find me a business that doesn't engage in intellectual property in some way, and I'll explain to you yet another case in which you're wrong. Intellectual property is the very root of our economy's social contract, the most basic floodgate against devolving into "if I can take it, it's mine."
> 
> It's almost like all this stuff exists for a reason. Weird.
> 
> 
> No, every other designer/creator _doesn't _do that. Your understanding of this topic, and seemingly most of the world, is unbelievably out of whack. Every designer/creator you've ever heard of has held onto their intellectual property rights -- otherwise, _you wouldn't have heard of them.
> 
> You are very simply wrong._
> 
> So, let me get this straight: you think that by not only willingly engaging in, but _actively pushing for, _a to-the-death race-to-the-bottom, will somehow make you _competitive? _You think that by choosing to make less money, potentially by _multiple orders of magnitude, _that by giving over what is essentially a passive income money-printing machine, you're going to be the _last man standing?_
> 
> To quote someone's response to an equally stupid idea: *good luck*.
> 
> Well, at the very least, I'll thank you for pointing out, in your words, that there's one less competitor for me.
> 
> You argue like someone who probably buys into a lot of just-world, Ayn Rand bullshit, but your argument destroys the very idea of a free market. The only way it can end up is complete and total vertical integration, where filmmakers/musicians/etc are all employees of the broadcasters. It kills innovation. Whereas what we have now, unlike a lot of things in this weird metastization of a late-stage capitalist economy, is about as close to a Libertarian wet dream as you can think of. The only reason a person would make the argument you're making is if they truly want a closed off, vertically integrated, wealth-consolidating economy; or if they're just mind-blowingly stupid and like to be a contrarian for the fun of it. Honestly I'm not sure where you're leaning on that one.
> 
> PS Your name wouldn't happen to be Dunning Kruger, would it?


Your brilliant., cogent arguments are lost on this individual. 

As someone already said, don’t feed the troll.

personally he sounds like he might actually be part of discovery or a disinformation campaign.


----------



## Thundercat

gsilbers said:


> its a valid point. even though it sounds like trolling and triggering a few folks here. its not only a valid point but a point being brought by the stdios and prodcution companies etc. that sort of "disrupt economy" tech companies are so good atthat we loved at the start and now we get uber which is the other extreme. so these tech and broadcasters trying to copmete w tech are sayign things like , why should it be so complicated and expensive. and i think thats what we are battling here. so its good someone brings it up.
> 
> the chair analogy might be derailing the point. Music has also the intangible song copyright and tangible/master rights and sync and its digital so that complicates things a bit.
> 
> but you can see how movie studios dont just sell their movie to theatrs for just $10,000 and thats it. you see movie box offive numbers every week for the movie. so they share ticket sales.
> producers also share points on the revenue of the movie. same as actors.
> 
> so thats only the idea of different ways and analogies can go on more IP and all that creative stuff.
> 
> 
> as for the topic, its a valid point. why cant i just pay a composer to do a track and that composer charges their hourly rate which includes his years of experience (like a plumber) and thats it.
> like a musician charges a composer a flat rate and thats it. why does compansation have to be tied to the success of my project.
> 
> its interesting to read the counter arguments because this question is exactly what netflix and discovery are arguing. not only that, they are finding odd ways to go around it. in netlfix case they are courting the hell out of minorities composers with the whole "woke" argument but imo seems like its a back hand way of getting these composers, who woudnt be able to negotiate a back end deal, to agree to the upfront only.


I hear you. It sounds reasonable at first blush.

But what is lost is the inestimable value of the work of art. Inestimable, because it’s value is not known at the point if creation.

A chair does not generally become more and more valuable over time - unless an antique or bespoke - it ge really loses value.

IP can go either way.

It reminds me of a movie with two brothers. One decides to buy a lottery ticket,but he is short $.25 for buying the ticket. Apparently the ticket was $.50 in the movie.

So the brother lends him a quarter, and his brother then buys a lottery ticket and wins a gazillion dollars.

The rest of the movie is a hilarious play between the two. The one insisting he is due half the winnings; the other feeling he only owes his brother a quarter.

Somehow this applies to this argument...


----------



## South Thames

> as for the topic, its a valid point. why cant i just pay a composer to do a track and that composer charges their hourly rate which includes his years of experience (like a plumber) and thats it.
> like a musician charges a composer a flat rate and thats it. why does compansation have to be tied to the success of my project.



The earnings of any piece of music in any medium (or indeed music alone) are generally tied to how many times it is 'performed' in front of an audience, of whatever size and however defined. Royalties are paid in the context of a medium where the music is effectively 'performed'.

If you question why this should be the case when music is 'performed' in the context of a film or TV show, then you should logically question why should composers be paid when their music is performed, for example, at stadium or orchestra concerts or on music radio or in any other kind of presentation of the music alone.

Once you effectively relinquish the connection between creation and the subsequent 'success' (defined in terms of how many people it is performed to) of that creation, in doing so you basically are questioning the entire system that undergirds artistic/commercial creation of many kinds, not just that of music. 

The interesting thing is that the very people questioning it - Discovery - are in many ways just as dependent on that basic system of rewards and incentives as composers are. I doubt many of them have considered the wider consequences of beginning to unpick that system.


----------



## Thundercat

South Thames said:


> The interesting thing is that the very people questioning it - Discovery - are in many ways just as dependent on that basic system of rewards and incentives as composers are.


EXACTLY!

the broadcasters get revenue every time a show airs. Why shouldn’t the composer too?

there are stories of people selling their music for a pittance up front fee, and then that song going on to earn millions and millions.

It just wouldn’t be fair for the composers not to be able to share in the success.


----------



## Mike Fox

Happy Holidays everyone!


----------



## CT

Mike Fox said:


> Happy Holidays everyone!



NO U


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer

Happy holidays everyone!

There are a number of really good points being made in this thread, as well as some completely devoid of logic. Apologies for the ones that I am about to repeat, and I hope most of mine fall in the former category rather than the latter. Disclaimer - I write bespoke, commissioned music exclusively and have not written any production music, so bear that in mind, as what I am about to describe might not necessarily apply precisely in the same manner.

The basic point I want to make can be summarized in two words: *profit participation.*

The composer is a filmmaker. A part of a team, just like the writer, or the director. I am not a tradesman who pops in and out of a project, quickly does their thing and moves on. I am along for the ride for a significant portion of the entire project, often joining the team while the script is still being written. What I bring to the table is a unique point of view, creative input and expertise, cooperating with the other creatives to make a final product - the film.

For example, let's say there's a new film being made. The producers do their thing and hustle, and manage to secure a hypothetical $5M budget. I am not going to base this example on the enormous budgets that the top 1% of films have, but something much more down to earth and common. Now, everybody involved needs to be paid. The producers figure out how much they can spend on each department and approach the composer with a figure - let's say it's 1% of the total budget - 50k. Perhaps half of that is your fee and the rest goes to associated costs - musicians, studio rent etc. They also figure out how much they can pay the director, the writer and so on.

According to the flawed chair analogy offered above, this would be the point where the composer would throw a tantrum, claim that their true worth is far higher and make some wild predictions about the *potential* success of the film, demanding more money. But there isn't more money to go around at this stage. It's highly likely that the producers agree with your assessment that your music is in fact worth more than what they can pay, but they simply can't afford to set aside more money for you, or else some other department would suffer. It's a take it or leave it situation (although, clever negotiation can of course make the terms more favourable..). It's also highly likely, that the director should be paid more, because their work is worth more than they are getting paid. Same goes for the writers. And the cinematographer. You get the point.

Once the film is completed, the producers and distributors will publish and sell the film. Maybe the film tanks and even the director's own mother is reluctant to pay for a ticket to see the film. Maybe it is a box office hit and makes millions upon millions. At this point the people who put in time and effort to make the film start seeing a return for all their hard work. Royalties! Or residuals. Call them what you will. The bottom line is people are paying for the product. And the profits are being divided up between the people who made the product. As pointed out by @AlexRuger , it's not the other filmmakers having to pay you royalties. It's whoever is selling to the final customer, like the cinema collecting money from ticket sales, or distributor selling physical copies, and they set aside a percentage which will eventually make its way back to the filmmakers. 

We're in it together with the other filmmakers. We all take a risk, which may or may not pay off. We all reap the rewards, or suffer the lack of such.


----------



## South Thames

> We're in it together with the other filmmakers. We all take a risk, which may or may not pay off. We all reap the rewards, or suffer the lack of such.



The important question this begs is why composers/why music? The production designer, editor, costume designer, cinematographer etc. don't participate in the risk / profit (at least not typically) so why music and composers?

This is what I tried to address in my post above.


----------



## BartonFink

I’m just amazed that the type of debate this discovery news has raised isn’t wether we should unionise or not, it’s “do we even need royalties anyway?”

Like it’s not even open debate in my opinion.

We need to unionise before streaming has an even larger market share. That’s basically it.

Anyone who’s questioning the value of music clearly doesn’t do this for a living

Happy holidays everyone! Wishing us all a prosperous new year.


----------



## South Thames

> I’m just amazed that the type of debate this discovery news has raised isn’t wether we should unionise or not, it’s “do we even need royalties anyway?”
> 
> Like it’s not even open debate in my opinion.



I think it's important that anyone who depends on the system for a living is able to explain, logically and consistently, why it's necessary, and not just in terms of their own livelihoods. If people on this forum are asking the question, others will, and it's vital we be able to make a watertight case.

So, to that extent, I think the thread has been quite useful and clarifying.

Happy holidays to you to you too, sir.


----------



## givemenoughrope

(I’m trying to read this thread while sitting here at the most trademarked place on earth.)


----------



## kenose

AlexRuger said:


> Alright dude, bear with me and imagine for a moment that everyone but yourself in fact isn’t an idiot, and that this whole IP thing actually makes sense and exists for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that the producer/filmmaker/etc isn't the one paying out the royalties, right?
> 
> They themselves are licensing their _own _intellectual property to the networks, whose business model is broadcasting. The broadcasters air the stuff and have to pay the creators to do so.
> 
> (We call these payments "royalties" when we want to feel fancy, or "residuals" when we want to be more accurate. They really are the "residual," definition "remaining after the greater part or quantity has gone," i.e. the idea is really that they're _supplemental _to the up-front payment which hypothetically pays for the logistical problems of _creating _the work, but hey that too has been ground down to a nub and is a problem for another day. Let me know when you start arguing that we shouldn't be paid upfront either and I'll be happy to spell it out for you).
> 
> So, with that in mind: is your argument seriously that the broadcasters should buyout all intellectual property that they're airing? Because if so, you haven't thought it through. At all.
> 
> As pointed out by @river angler above, a buyout is essentially putting a number on the potential lifetime earnings of a piece of intellectual property. Thing is, that is impossible to accurately calculate. What you're arguing for -- having the broadcasters buyout _everything _-- is essentially saying, "Pay every creator the maximum, best-case scenario lifetime earnings for their IP, every time." Because anything else is theoretically a loss for the creators, which -- if the agreement is now "fuck reality, let's earn what we think we _can _earn" -- is completely unacceptable.
> 
> So, now it costs the broadcasters infinite money to broadcast _The Santa Clause 2 _one time at 3am on a Tuesday.
> 
> It's _shifting the risk _to the broadcasters instead of the creators. Why would they want that? The system of IP we have now says to those who want to exploit the work, "you can profit off of this work by paying $x, n times," and if _n _is lower, the broadcaster pays less; i.e. if the work isn't popular, or deemed good by the customers of the broadcaster (the audience), then the broadcaster won't pay to broadcast it again. It works.
> 
> In your dream scenario of "no royalties for anything ever," the untenable position of the creators now equally demanding near _infinite _money per work makes the broadcasters go "lol" and it instead turns into a race to the bottom. Whoever accepts the lowest payment wins the gig. Which, as we've seen, is precisely the case with royalty-free IP. Because it's theoretically worth everything, it's now worth nothing -- or at least as close to nothing as those with power can get away with paying for. It breaks supply and demand, because there are now no guard rails demanding that pay be commensurate with said demand, regardless of how high or low the supply is. It fucks the very idea of capitalism by completely un-leveling the playing field in favor of the gatekeepers.
> 
> So, what you're arguing, really, is that film/music/any other form of intellectual property isn't a viable form of business -- by refusing to see how illogical and badly thought out your position is and presenting it as "that's just business, folks!" you're completely dismantling the very idea of a functioning economy on any level.
> 
> Find me a business that doesn't engage in intellectual property in some way, and I'll explain to you yet another case in which you're wrong. Intellectual property is the very root of our economy's social contract, the most basic floodgate against devolving into "if I can take it, it's mine."
> 
> It's almost like all this stuff exists for a reason. Weird.
> 
> 
> No, every other designer/creator _doesn't _do that. Your understanding of this topic, and seemingly most of the world, is unbelievably out of whack. Every designer/creator you've ever heard of has held onto their intellectual property rights -- otherwise, _you wouldn't have heard of them.
> 
> You are very simply wrong._
> 
> So, let me get this straight: you think that by not only willingly engaging in, but _actively pushing for, _a to-the-death race-to-the-bottom, will somehow make you _competitive? _You think that by choosing to make less money, potentially by _multiple orders of magnitude, _that by giving over what is essentially a passive income money-printing machine, you're going to be the _last man standing?_
> 
> To quote someone's response to an equally stupid idea: *good luck*.
> 
> Well, at the very least, I'll thank you for pointing out, in your words, that there's one less competitor for me.
> 
> You argue like someone who probably buys into a lot of just-world, Ayn Rand bullshit, but your argument destroys the very idea of a free market. The only way it can end up is complete and total vertical integration, where filmmakers/musicians/etc are all employees of the broadcasters. It kills innovation. Whereas what we have now, unlike a lot of things in this weird metastization of a late-stage capitalist economy, is about as close to a Libertarian wet dream as you can think of. The only reason a person would make the argument you're making is if they truly want a closed off, vertically integrated, wealth-consolidating economy; or if they're just mind-blowingly stupid and like to be a contrarian for the fun of it. Honestly I'm not sure where you're leaning on that one.
> 
> PS Your name wouldn't happen to be Dunning Kruger, would it?


I would just like the commend the patience you must have to write a response like this. Well said.


----------



## river angler

AlexRuger said:


> Alright dude, bear with me and imagine for a moment that everyone but yourself in fact isn’t an idiot, and that this whole IP thing actually makes sense and exists for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that the producer/filmmaker/etc isn't the one paying out the royalties, right?
> 
> They themselves are licensing their _own _intellectual property to the networks, whose business model is broadcasting. The broadcasters air the stuff and have to pay the creators to do so.
> 
> (We call these payments "royalties" when we want to feel fancy, or "residuals" when we want to be more accurate. They really are the "residual," definition "remaining after the greater part or quantity has gone," i.e. the idea is really that they're _supplemental _to the up-front payment which hypothetically pays for the logistical problems of _creating _the work, but hey that too has been ground down to a nub and is a problem for another day. Let me know when you start arguing that we shouldn't be paid upfront either and I'll be happy to spell it out for you).
> 
> So, with that in mind: is your argument seriously that the broadcasters should buyout all intellectual property that they're airing? Because if so, you haven't thought it through. At all.
> 
> As pointed out by @river angler above, a buyout is essentially putting a number on the potential lifetime earnings of a piece of intellectual property. Thing is, that is impossible to accurately calculate. What you're arguing for -- having the broadcasters buyout _everything _-- is essentially saying, "Pay every creator the maximum, best-case scenario lifetime earnings for their IP, every time." Because anything else is theoretically a loss for the creators, which -- if the agreement is now "fuck reality, let's earn what we think we _can _earn" -- is completely unacceptable.
> 
> So, now it costs the broadcasters infinite money to broadcast _The Santa Clause 2 _one time at 3am on a Tuesday.
> 
> It's _shifting the risk _to the broadcasters instead of the creators. Why would they want that? The system of IP we have now says to those who want to exploit the work, "you can profit off of this work by paying $x, n times," and if _n _is lower, the broadcaster pays less; i.e. if the work isn't popular, or deemed good by the customers of the broadcaster (the audience), then the broadcaster won't pay to broadcast it again. It works.
> 
> In your dream scenario of "no royalties for anything ever," the untenable position of the creators now equally demanding near _infinite _money per work makes the broadcasters go "lol" and it instead turns into a race to the bottom. Whoever accepts the lowest payment wins the gig. Which, as we've seen, is precisely the case with royalty-free IP. Because it's theoretically worth everything, it's now worth nothing -- or at least as close to nothing as those with power can get away with paying for. It breaks supply and demand, because there are now no guard rails demanding that pay be commensurate with said demand, regardless of how high or low the supply is. It fucks the very idea of capitalism by completely un-leveling the playing field in favor of the gatekeepers.
> 
> So, what you're arguing, really, is that film/music/any other form of intellectual property isn't a viable form of business -- by refusing to see how illogical and badly thought out your position is and presenting it as "that's just business, folks!" you're completely dismantling the very idea of a functioning economy on any level.
> 
> Find me a business that doesn't engage in intellectual property in some way, and I'll explain to you yet another case in which you're wrong. Intellectual property is the very root of our economy's social contract, the most basic floodgate against devolving into "if I can take it, it's mine."
> 
> It's almost like all this stuff exists for a reason. Weird.
> 
> 
> No, every other designer/creator _doesn't _do that. Your understanding of this topic, and seemingly most of the world, is unbelievably out of whack. Every designer/creator you've ever heard of has held onto their intellectual property rights -- otherwise, _you wouldn't have heard of them.
> 
> You are very simply wrong._
> 
> So, let me get this straight: you think that by not only willingly engaging in, but _actively pushing for, _a to-the-death race-to-the-bottom, will somehow make you _competitive? _You think that by choosing to make less money, potentially by _multiple orders of magnitude, _that by giving over what is essentially a passive income money-printing machine, you're going to be the _last man standing?_
> 
> To quote someone's response to an equally stupid idea: *good luck*.
> 
> Well, at the very least, I'll thank you for pointing out, in your words, that there's one less competitor for me. ... ...





AlexRuger said:


> Alright dude, bear with me and imagine for a moment that everyone but yourself in fact isn’t an idiot, and that this whole IP thing actually makes sense and exists for a reason.
> 
> You do realize that the producer/filmmaker/etc isn't the one paying out the royalties, right?
> 
> They themselves are licensing their _own _intellectual property to the networks, whose business model is broadcasting. The broadcasters air the stuff and have to pay the creators to do so.
> 
> (We call these payments "royalties" when we want to feel fancy, or "residuals" when we want to be more accurate. They really are the "residual," definition "remaining after the greater part or quantity has gone," i.e. the idea is really that they're _supplemental _to the up-front payment which hypothetically pays for the logistical problems of _creating _the work, but hey that too has been ground down to a nub and is a problem for another day. Let me know when you start arguing that we shouldn't be paid upfront either and I'll be happy to spell it out for you).
> 
> So, with that in mind: is your argument seriously that the broadcasters should buyout all intellectual property that they're airing? Because if so, you haven't thought it through. At all.
> 
> As pointed out by @river angler above, a buyout is essentially putting a number on the potential lifetime earnings of a piece of intellectual property. Thing is, that is impossible to accurately calculate. What you're arguing for -- having the broadcasters buyout _everything _-- is essentially saying, "Pay every creator the maximum, best-case scenario lifetime earnings for their IP, every time." Because anything else is theoretically a loss for the creators, which -- if the agreement is now "fuck reality, let's earn what we think we _can _earn" -- is completely unacceptable.
> 
> So, now it costs the broadcasters infinite money to broadcast _The Santa Clause 2 _one time at 3am on a Tuesday....
> 
> So, what you're arguing, really, is that film/music/any other form of intellectual property isn't a viable form of business -- by refusing to see how illogical and badly thought out your position is and presenting it as "that's just business, folks!" you're completely dismantling the very idea of a functioning economy on any level.
> 
> Find me a business that doesn't engage in intellectual property in some way, and I'll explain to you yet another case in which you're wrong. Intellectual property is the very root of our economy's social contract, the most basic floodgate against devolving into "if I can take it, it's mine."
> 
> It's almost like all this stuff exists for a reason. Weird.
> 
> 
> No, every other designer/creator _doesn't _do that. Your understanding of this topic, and seemingly most of the world, is unbelievably out of whack. Every designer/creator you've ever heard of has held onto their intellectual property rights -- otherwise, _you wouldn't have heard of them.
> 
> You are very simply wrong._
> 
> So, let me get this straight: you think that by not only willingly engaging in, but _actively pushing for, _a to-the-death race-to-the-bottom, will somehow make you _competitive? _You think that by choosing to make less money, potentially by _multiple orders of magnitude, _that by giving over what is essentially a passive income money-printing machine, you're going to be the _last man standing?_
> 
> To quote someone's response to an equally stupid idea: *good luck*.
> 
> Well, at the very least, I'll thank you for pointing out, in your words, that there's one less competitor for me.
> 
> PS Your name wouldn't happen to be Dunning Kruger, would it?


You have the patience of a saint sir! to spell this out! Thanks for all your informative input, seasonal greetings!


----------



## river angler

Mihkel Zilmer said:


> Happy holidays everyone!
> 
> There are a number of really good points being made in this thread, as well as some completely devoid of logic. Apologies for the ones that I am about to repeat, and I hope most of mine fall in the former category rather than the latter. Disclaimer - I write bespoke, commissioned music exclusively and have not written any production music, so bear that in mind, as what I am about to describe might not necessarily apply precisely in the same manner.
> 
> The basic point I want to make can be summarized in two words: *profit participation.*
> 
> The composer is a filmmaker. A part of a team, just like the writer, or the director. I am not a tradesman who pops in and out of a project, quickly does their thing and moves on. I am along for the ride for a significant portion of the entire project, often joining the team while the script is still being written. What I bring to the table is a unique point of view, creative input and expertise, cooperating with the other creatives to make a final product - the film.
> 
> For example, let's say there's a new film being made. The producers do their thing and hustle, and manage to secure a hypothetical $5M budget. I am not going to base this example on the enormous budgets that the top 1% of films have, but something much more down to earth and common. Now, everybody involved needs to be paid. The producers figure out how much they can spend on each department and approach the composer with a figure - let's say it's 1% of the total budget - 50k. Perhaps half of that is your fee and the rest goes to associated costs - musicians, studio rent etc. They also figure out how much they can pay the director, the writer and so on.
> 
> According to the flawed chair analogy offered above, this would be the point where the composer would throw a tantrum, claim that their true worth is far higher and make some wild predictions about the *potential* success of the film, demanding more money. But there isn't more money to go around at this stage. It's highly likely that the producers agree with your assessment that your music is in fact worth more than what they can pay, but they simply can't afford to set aside more money for you, or else some other department would suffer. It's a take it or leave it situation (although, clever negotiation can of course make the terms more favourable..). It's also highly likely, that the director should be paid more, because their work is worth more than they are getting paid. Same goes for the writers. And the cinematographer. You get the point.
> 
> Once the film is completed, the producers and distributors will publish and sell the film. Maybe the film tanks and even the director's own mother is reluctant to pay for a ticket to see the film. Maybe it is a box office hit and makes millions upon millions. At this point the people who put in time and effort to make the film start seeing a return for all their hard work. Royalties! Or residuals. Call them what you will. The bottom line is people are paying for the product. And the profits are being divided up between the people who made the product. As pointed out by @AlexRuger , it's not the other filmmakers having to pay you royalties. It's whoever is selling to the final customer, like the cinema collecting money from ticket sales, or distributor selling physical copies, and they set aside a percentage which will eventually make its way back to the filmmakers.
> 
> We're in it together with the other filmmakers. We all take a risk, which may or may not pay off. We all reap the rewards, or suffer the lack of such.


*Mihkel Zilmer... thanks very much for this! It's an accurate and positive description of how it is from a fellow bespoke composers perspective! Seasons greetings to you! HF*


----------



## river angler

South Thames said:


> The important question this begs is why composers/why music? The production designer, editor, costume designer, cinematographer etc. don't participate in the risk / profit (at least not typically) so why music and composers?
> 
> This is what I tried to address in my post above.


Yes! It's amazing how the composer who has such an intrinsic roll in the creative process and icing on the cake of any film production is still the first one to be scrutinised for pay!

But hey! bro! it's not like we aren't used to this eh! that's why it's good we are all discussing the issue here! 

If unionisation amongst composers as such does not happen it is fundamental at the very least both established composers and those starting out are reminded of the true value of their work.

Threads like this one are great because they reveal the ignorance and then hopefully put it to right!

Best wishes to you! HF


----------



## AlexRuger

VivianaSings said:


> I don't know - buying into the Ayn Rand bullshit is why I'm in the position I'm in and thankfully not the position you're in.


Err, what position is that?


----------



## lokotus

Krayh said:


> I personally think this is a good thing! I always thought royalties are a pain in the ass for the industry and consumer.
> 
> If you think about it long enough we are just making a product, why do companies need to pay every time the product is being "used"? It's the same as I build a beautiful chair and sell it. Does the owner have to pay me everytime he sits in it? No of course not that would be silly, why is that different with music?
> 
> I'm more than okay with a fixed fee for an assignment/composition. Now don't start complaining that the fee is to low! You don't have to agree with their offer! Find a company that is paying what you think you are worth!



Lets start from the beginning: PRO is there to protect you from unlicensed use. 

You go into a 5 star restaurant and you hear your music. People enjoy this and stay longer for dinner, buying more drinks, eating more etc. 
Imagine you are eating there too and you hear your music being used for this purpose. You receive your expensive bill in this 5 star restaurant for the delicious dinner - what would you think ? 
a) great, they are using my music (but nobody cares about the composer so no advertising)
b) what a great atmosphere in this restaurant, I knew my music had a purpose, unfortunately this bill is so expensive, I cant even pay for my appetizer menu
c) wait a minute, they played my whole album and x amount of people payed x amount of dinner bills during this time and they didn't even ask me if they could you use my music for this purpose?
Lets talk to the restaurant owner, in fact, lets talk to all owners and all restaurants that they are supposed to ask me to use my music. (At least they should advertise me as a composer even if they do not pay me) Impossible to do this for every composer, and thats where PROs come into play.

You really find c) as a point of view unfair and want to compare your music to the chairs being used in the restaurant ?


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer

South Thames said:


> The important question this begs is why composers/why music? The production designer, editor, costume designer, cinematographer etc. don't participate in the risk / profit (at least not typically) so why music and composers?
> 
> This is what I tried to address in my post above.



Good question!

In most European countries cinematographers now get residuals by default. Editors are often unionized and many union contracts also include residuals, although there are exceptions. Maybe other departments will have such arrangements in place one day, too.


----------



## Vashi

gsilbers said:


> now, we also learn a few things as well. someone mentioned that there was a push to get composers to unionize but it failed due to some judge or law... (sorry dont remember clearly) but something along those lines. so looking at our past might help.



A couple of the comments on forming a union or guild is basically fat hopes on doing this or it ever coming about, etc. But there are actors, directors guilds, etc. But there is little elaboration on why a composer guild is fat hopes.

So yeah, why?


----------



## AlexRuger

This page has some of the history about past attempts at a composer union: https://thescl.com/mission-and-history/


----------



## Thundercat

South Thames said:


> The important question this begs is why composers/why music? The production designer, editor, costume designer, cinematographer etc. don't participate in the risk / profit (at least not typically) so why music and composers?
> 
> This is what I tried to address in my post above.


I think the simple answer is we are part creator of the work. As co-creators, why shouldn't we share in the profits?

Maybe other disciplines should share too, but the bottom line is we are partially responsible for the finished work and deserve a share in the spoils. Why should the actors and directors and producers be the only ones with ongoing royalties?

I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

This thread made me think a lot about this subject. What I realized is, there's no "right or wrong" way to go about any of this. We can sell our music outright if we wish, or ask for a share in the ongoing profits. Either is valid, but the residuals model is much more lucrative and also respects the value of our art more fully.

There is no "watertight case" as you suggested - how could there be? It's all subjective. But it goes to the heart of fairness and fair share in equity.

But I think this thread has completely derailed. We need to be talking about how to unionize.


----------



## river angler

Thundercat said:


> I think the simple answer is we are part creator of the work. As co-creators, why shouldn't we share in the profits?
> 
> Maybe other disciplines should share too, but the bottom line is we are partially responsible for the finished work and deserve a share in the spoils. Why should the actors and directors and producers be the only ones with ongoing royalties?
> 
> I don't think it's any more complicated than that.
> 
> This thread made me think a lot about this subject. What I realized is, there's no "right or wrong" way to go about any of this. We can sell our music outright if we wish, or ask for a share in the ongoing profits. Either is valid, but the residuals model is much more lucrative and also respects the value of our art more fully.
> 
> There is no "watertight case" as you suggested - how could there be? It's all subjective. But it goes to the heart of fairness and fair share in equity.
> 
> But I think this thread has completely derailed. We need to be talking about how to unionize.


I agree. Most of us understandably reacted to the only poster contradicting the general consensus to the debacle. We leave him to his own opinion and move on.

Unionisation should indeed be something all composers should be at the very least invited to join as aggressive company strategies like this will inevitably come up again in the future.

A composers union will help to protect the value of all composers work and ultimately sustain a sense of artistic merit in what we do as fellow creators.

I thank *gsilbers* for starting this thread and hope we can persuade the administrators of this website to support our cause with a new forum title that reads: "Composers Rights" or perhaps "Composers Union" or something similar.


----------



## Alexandre

BartonFink said:


> I’m just amazed that the type of debate this discovery news has raised isn’t wether we should unionise or not, it’s “do we even need royalties anyway?”
> 
> Like it’s not even open debate in my opinion.
> 
> We need to unionise before streaming has an even larger market share. That’s basically it.
> 
> Anyone who’s questioning the value of music clearly doesn’t do this for a living
> 
> Happy holidays everyone! Wishing us all a prosperous new year.


As far as I'm concerned this is so much the elephant in the room! However important and interesting all of this thread is , this is what needs to be addressed and I would not be surprised if Epidemic has a few of their elements here simply to disrupt and make sure this very issue is avoided as much as possible...and instead diverge into questioning our right to make a living as composers. Because this is what it's about. Period! Royalties/residuals are our livelihood and t's been very clearly explained why in this important thread.
And if it isn't legal to be in a trade that is represented by a union then it shows that we all need to fight for our rights whether there is an epidemic of AI or no... This very fight to be unionised should be at the center of our attention!


----------



## Krayh

gsilbers said:


> its a valid point. even though it sounds like trolling and triggering a few folks here. its not only a valid point but a point being brought by the stdios and prodcution companies etc. that sort of "disrupt economy" tech companies are so good atthat we loved at the start and now we get uber which is the other extreme. so these tech and broadcasters trying to copmete w tech are sayign things like , why should it be so complicated and expensive. and i think thats what we are battling here. so its good someone brings it up.
> 
> the chair analogy might be derailing the point. Music has also the intangible song copyright and tangible/master rights and sync and its digital so that complicates things a bit.
> 
> but you can see how movie studios dont just sell their movie to theatrs for just $10,000 and thats it. you see movie box offive numbers every week for the movie. so they share ticket sales.
> producers also share points on the revenue of the movie. same as actors.
> 
> so thats only the idea of different ways and analogies can go on more IP and all that creative stuff.
> 
> 
> as for the topic, its a valid point. why cant i just pay a composer to do a track and that composer charges their hourly rate which includes his years of experience (like a plumber) and thats it.
> like a musician charges a composer a flat rate and thats it. why does compansation have to be tied to the success of my project.
> 
> its interesting to read the counter arguments because this question is exactly what netflix and discovery are arguing. not only that, they are finding odd ways to go around it. in netlfix case they are courting the hell out of minorities composers with the whole "woke" argument but imo seems like its a back hand way of getting these composers, who woudnt be able to negotiate a back end deal, to agree to the upfront only.



Finally someone who gets it


----------



## Alexandre

river angler said:


> I agree. Most of us understandably reacted to the only poster contradicting the general consensus to the debacle. We leave him to his own opinion and move on.
> 
> Unionisation should indeed be something all composers should be at the very least invited to join as aggressive company strategies like this will inevitably come up again in the future.
> 
> A composers union will help to protect the value of all composers work and ultimately sustain a sense of artistic merit in what we do as fellow creators.
> 
> I thank *gsilbers* for starting this thread and hope we can persuade the administrators of this website to support our cause with a new forum title that reads: "Composers Rights" or perhaps "Composers Union" or something similar.


GREAT IDEA!!


----------



## Krayh

AlexRuger said:


> So, with that in mind: is your argument seriously that the broadcasters should buyout all intellectual property that they're airing? Because if so, you haven't thought it through. At all.



Sigh... you still dont get it do you. 

Composer sells a product to Producer for a one time fee with the right to use the product for the film only. Not to sell the music by it self or do other stuff with the music. Its tied to the film/alone. 

Producer sells final product to a broadcast company for a one time fee. To use the product only to air on their tv station. Not to sell the movie or do other stuff with the movie. Its tied to airing on that tv station alone. 

So again whats the problem?!?

Also the broadcasting company liked the music want to use it for a commercial goes to the composer to get a contract for the commercial. 

So again whats the problem?!?

Composer sold all rights to the producer. So the broadcaster goed to the producer for a new contract.

Again whats the problem?!?

Producer sold all rights to the broadcaster. The broadcaster can do whatever he pleases. 

So again whats the problem?!?


----------



## Thundercat

Krayh said:


> Finally someone who gets it


Nope.

I think what you’re failing to recognize is that the entertainment industry generates a SHIT LOT of money.

And those who are the co-creators deserve to share in the success.


Krayh said:


> Sigh... you still dont get it do you.
> 
> Composer sells a product to Producer for a one time fee with the right to use the product for the film only. Not to sell the music by it self or do other stuff with the music. Its tied to the film/alone.
> 
> Producer sells final product to a broadcast company for a one time fee. To use the product only to air on their tv station. Not to sell the movie or do other stuff with the movie. Its tied to airing on that tv station alone.
> 
> So again whats the problem?!?
> 
> Also the broadcasting company liked the music want to use it for a commercial goes to the composer to get a contract for the commercial.
> 
> So again whats the problem?!?
> 
> Composer sold all rights to the producer. So the broadcaster goed to the producer for a new contract.
> 
> Again whats the problem?!?
> 
> Producer sold all rights to the broadcaster. The broadcaster can do whatever he pleases.
> 
> So again whats the problem?!?


the problem is you are hell bent on destroying a profitable business model that has worked well for decades.

why do you get to decide we shouldn’t be paid well for our efforts? Because that’s what it comes down to.

It’s a free country. You can sell your work for an up front pittance. Or hell, just give it away since you think it’s worth so little.

but don’t come into a public forum and tell everyone we’re full of shit because we don’t want to give up back end royalties that other creators like actors, writers, and producers enjoy. And by adopting your model we lose out on our livelihood. Sample libraries and gear ain’t cheap, and as has been pointed out to you already, although you refuse to hear it, composers cannot generally be paid well up front for two simple reasons:

1) money isn’t there up front because the production hasn’t made any yet;

2) the worth of the music is tied to the success of the production, so it can’t yet be quantified fairly.

many a songwriter has sold his/her songs for an up front pittance, only to have that song go platinum and they lost out on millions.

I really begin to think you are a corporate shill for discovery. We are not interested in your untenable “solution”.

please go back to making chairs or whatever it is that you do so well.

meantime, boys and girls, let’s try to switch back to what matters. Unionizing.


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer

Krayh said:


> Sigh... you still dont get it do you.
> 
> Composer sells a product to Producer for a one time fee with the right to use the product for the film only.
> 
> So again whats the problem?!?



The problem is the producer does not have enough money to pay the composer what you suggest they should ask for.


----------



## Krayh

lokotus said:


> Lets start from the beginning: PRO is there to protect you from unlicensed use.
> 
> You go into a 5 star restaurant and you hear your music. People enjoy this and stay longer for dinner, buying more drinks, eating more etc.
> Imagine you are eating there too and you hear your music being used for this purpose. You receive your expensive bill in this 5 star restaurant for the delicious dinner - what would you think ?
> a) great, they are using my music (but nobody cares about the composer so no advertising)
> b) what a great atmosphere in this restaurant, I knew my music had a purpose, unfortunately this bill is so expensive, I cant even pay for my appetizer menu
> c) wait a minute, they played my whole album and x amount of people payed x amount of dinner bills during this time and they didn't even ask me if they could you use my music for this purpose?
> Lets talk to the restaurant owner, in fact, lets talk to all owners and all restaurants that they are supposed to ask me to use my music. (At least they should advertise me as a composer even if they do not pay me) Impossible to do this for every composer, and thats where PROs come into play.
> 
> You really find c) as a point of view unfair and want to compare your music to the chairs being used in the restaurant ?



Pffffff we really go around in circles dont we.

a. Great they bought my cd! 

b. Were they entitled to play it in their restaurant for creating atmosphere. Yes. Did I got compensated Yes. Look they even bought my chairs. Are they also part of the atmosphere? Did I got compensated for the design? Yes.

c. Damn these people are sitting in my chairs again and again, maybe I should have asked more for the designWere they entitled to let people sit in it again and again.? Yes.


----------



## Krayh

Mihkel Zilmer said:


> The problem is the producer does not have enough money to pay the composer what you suggest they should ask for.



Sell to a different producer!


----------



## Krayh

Thundercat said:


> Nope.
> 
> I think what you’re failing to recognize is that the entertainment industry generates a SHIT LOT of money.
> 
> And those who are the co-creators deserve to share in the success.
> 
> the problem is you are hell bent on destroying a profitable business model that has worked well for decades.
> 
> why do you get to decide we shouldn’t be paid well for our efforts? Because that’s what it comes down to.
> 
> It’s a free country. You can sell your work for an up front pittance. Or hell, just give it away since you think it’s worth so little.
> 
> but don’t come into a public forum and tell everyone we’re full of shit because we don’t want to give up back end royalties that other creators like actors, writers, and producers enjoy. And by adopting your model we lose out on our livelihood. Sample libraries and gear ain’t cheap, and as has been pointed out to you already, although you refuse to hear it, composers cannot generally be paid well up front for two simple reasons:
> 
> 1) money isn’t there up front because the production hasn’t made any yet;
> 
> 2) the worth of the music is tied to the success of the production, so it can’t yet be quantified fairly.
> 
> many a songwriter has sold his/her songs for an up front pittance, only to have that song go platinum and they lost out on millions.
> 
> I really begin to think you are a corporate shill for discovery. We are not interested in your untenable “solution”.
> 
> please go back to making chairs or whatever it is that you do so well.
> 
> meantime, boys and girls, let’s try to switch back to what matters. Unionizing.



To bad for you then. The same royalties issue should apply to the actors etc ofcourse.

The last thing I have to say is this. I'm making an excellent living for selling my music for a one time fee. I still have some true gems in the closet. Am I going to sell them for peanuts? No iam waiting for a producer who is going to pay me for what i think its worth...

Also more work for me, cause most of you demanding royalties. And I sell without them. Always have and always will! Good luck to you all, you are going to need it!


----------



## South Thames

Krayh said:


> To bad for you then. The same royalties issue should apply to the actors etc ofcourse.
> 
> The last thing I have to say is this. I'm making an excellent living for selling my music for a one time fee. I still have some true gems in the closet. Am I going to sell them for peanuts? No iam waiting for a producer who is going to pay me for what i think its worth...
> 
> Also more work for me, cause most of you demanding royalties. And I sell without them. Always have and always will! Good luck to you all, you are going to need it!



You dodged the question about your revenue previously. Also where you live is relevant - English being your third language. Excellent money for you might be peanuts for folks in other countries.

My guess is you have no idea of the differential. And that you probably wouldn’t stand much chance in the far more competitive mainstream market.


----------



## Henu




----------



## Krayh

South Thames said:


> You dodged the question about your revenue previously. Also where you live is relevant - English being your third language. Excellent money for you might be peanuts for folks in other countries.
> 
> My guess is you have no idea of the differential. And that you probably wouldn’t stand much chance in the far more competitive mainstream market.



I,m sorry forgot about that one. So much is written .I roughly make 40.000 euro per year net. Thats about 6 compositions and some small work on advertisements and docus. When i just started out i did a lot of work for free. But again i have more businesses so i did not have to rely on my music for income.


----------



## lokotus

Krayh said:


> Pffffff we really go around in circles dont we.
> 
> a. Great they bought my cd!
> 
> b. Were they entitled to play it in their restaurant for creating atmosphere. Yes. Did I got compensated Yes. Look they even bought my chairs. Are they also part of the atmosphere? Did I got compensated for the design? Yes.
> 
> c. Damn these people are sitting in my chairs again and again, maybe I should have asked more for the designWere they entitled to let people sit in it again and again.? Yes.



And here starts the problem in my opinion. Please think about this

a) Awesome, they spend (and did not want to spend) more the 15 dollar for my album and play it in a cycle all day long, NO PRO Involved, so no money backend. 

b) Great, I got compensated 15 dollar. Easting there costs me 200 dollar unfortunately

c) I will be smart. I have designed and sold 20 times one chairs for 100 dollar (made 2000 $ in total. 
I will go to the next restaurant and because I have spent more time on a new design and manufacturing instead of composing a new album I will sell them one chair for 150 dollar. 
You will see the next restaurant agrees (even if they don't, 1oo dollar for on chair is still a good deal), but paying 150 dollar for your album is going to be too expensive for them. 
You will end up putting your whole energy in manufacturing and designing better chairs for the rest of your life. Music becomes a hobby you will do for 2 weeks a year.
Too Bad, you had a dream becoming a composer, now you are Chair manufacturer. Maybe something will change in the future and your kid is going to be a composer. But you will certainly tell him how great it is to sell chairs so he probably will do that too...

...Just think a bit about the second and third order consequences... Nobody cares and has time to listen and think about the quality and your own time spend on your music album but they appreciate and see the quality of your chairs instantly ....


----------



## river angler

Krayh said:


> Sell to a different producer!


There we have it!... This guy has zero respect for music!

A singular piece of music is not a pancake that can be tossed at will down the throats of any given producer!

By this very statement he is inferring that one piece of music will potentially appeal to any producer on any project regardless of the musical genre required! If one producer doesn't want it just try shoving it down the throat of the next one in line! ...Absolutely absurd!

*SO PLEASE WILL ALL COMPOSERS HERE COMPLETELY IGNORE HIM RATHER THAN CONTINUE TO RISE TO THE RIDICULOUS NOTIONS HE KEEPS FIRING AT US!*


----------



## river angler

*We all need to move on from defending our position as working composers...*

*THINK: UNIONISATION NOT JUSTIFICATION FOR IT *!


----------



## JEPA

Krayh said:


> Also more work for me, cause most of you demanding royalties. And I sell without them. Always have and always will! Good luck to you all, you are going to need it!


Bye bye, Adios!


----------



## Alexandre

river angler said:


> *We all need to move on from defending our position as working composers...*
> 
> *THINK: UNIONISATION NOT JUSTIFICATION FOR IT *!


Could not agree more!!!


----------



## Krayh

lokotus said:


> a) Awesome, they spend (and did not want to spend) more the 15 dollar for my album and play it in a cycle all day long, NO PRO Involved, so no money backend.
> 
> b) Great, I got compensated 15 dollar. Easting there costs me 200 dollar unfortunately



a. Again so? The freaking chairs are being used all day long to!

b. So you only sold one cd? No wonder you cant make a living as a musician. What are you doing there in the first place? You should have gone to mcdonalds!


----------



## Krayh

river angler said:


> There we have it!... This guy has zero respect for music!
> 
> A singular piece of music is not a pancake that can be tossed at will down the throats of any given producer!
> 
> By this very statement he is inferring that one piece of music will potentially appeal to any producer on any project regardless of the musical genre required! If one producer doesn't want it just try shoving it down the throat of the next one in line! ...Absolutely absurd!
> 
> *SO PLEASE WILL ALL COMPOSERS HERE COMPLETELY IGNORE HIM RATHER THAN CONTINUE TO RISE TO THE RIDICULOUS NOTIONS HE KEEPS FIRING AT US!*


You are not listening...again. You do work on an assignment do you? If a producer cant AFFORD you, dont work for him!!! Simple!!! The few gems I keep can be used if the occasion presents it self and can be sold for the right price. And yes they can be tossed around!


----------



## mc_deli

As much as I hate it - and I don’t have a legacy of making hay - the problem ”you” have is there are tens of thousands of quasi-talented adults, kids and graduates who don’t recognise ”your” history of royalties and rights and who will sign anything.

Then, on the corporate side, there are surely thousands of companies that employ creatives in every other discipline than music on a work for hire basis, wondering WTF music should be any different - especially when so many game/app companies already pay for music via wages.

As much as Epidemic are chancers, the whole legacy composition model seems on very thin ice.

Unionize now obviously but so much more is needed, in the schools, colleges with the gaming industry... is it really possible to defend this position?


----------



## Henu

Krayh said:


> If a producer cant AFFORD you, dont work for him!!! Simple!!!



Apparently, this guy lives in a magical video game world where you can just dance and hop your way through a mystic forest filled with mystical "Producer flowers" (Lat. "Flora Excecutivus Importantus"), pick whatever you want and live happily ever after.

(Please pay no attention to the 10-second bad chord loop you hear in the forest, it was because they didn't get anyone decent to actually compose any music for the background.)


----------



## river angler

Henu said:


> Apparently, this guy lives in a magical video game world where you can just dance and hop your way through a mystic forest filled with mystical "Producer flowers" (Lat. "Flora Excecutivus Importantus"), pick whatever you want and live happily ever after.
> 
> (Please pay no attention to the 10-second bad chord loop you hear in the forest, it was because they didn't get anyone decent to actually compose any music for the background.)


As amusing as your analogy is I think we should all move on and waste no more energy either trying to convince this guy he is simply wrong nor more importantly be distracted from what we all know to be a just cause for composer unionisation.


----------



## gsilbers

Again, even if it sounds like Krayh is trolling, its a very valid point. I dont agree... but its the same point discovery and netflix are making.. so arguing with him is like arguing w every producer out there. but prodcuers will not engage of course, they will just find the person who will do it for upfront pay.


now, ill give in my two cents.


Performance royalties is different than say.. a chair design (not the best analogy but seems to be sticking).. becuse as the name implies, there is a performance. so if that chair had a recording of a santa song then the company will indeed have to pay royalties, becuase.. of the performance.

sounds wierd and why not a design of the chair? well, also the design. because there are also patents, trade marks and franchises who have been set up to proect the design or any invented work. if you make an herman miller chair and sold it, then you have to pay herman miller company for every chair sold.
And what about herman miller? he doesnt make the chairs, some chinese company w offices in USA makes them and pays herman miller. And if you made a the same chair and sold it then you have to pay or be sued. That system of copyright, trademarks and patents have been placed a long time ago. We just have to push for our rights.
Of course these have issues like, maybe it wasnt herman miller who designed it, it was one of his employees hired to design chairs and out of hundreds the Aeron became big. so the same issue persists on other industries.


With music performance, they setup the broadcast royalties becuase music is "performed" every time its shown on TV. so broadcasters setup the performance roaylties so copyright can be exploited and be a fair value based on amount of views and share costs this way.

Now with netflix, it gets more complicated. And this might be a little hard to understand.

When netflix came out, it was sending DVDs via mail, and later did the streaming.
when DVDs where a thing you coudnt charge a "performance royalty" because if one household bought titanic and saw it once and another household has a horny teenager watching leonardo every night, how would you collect those royalties? so now we enter "HOME ENTERTAINEMT"

Home Entertainment might not sound like much. but in FOX for example, its hundreds of employees with VP And executives earning hundred of thousands a year. Disney also has one and sony etc.
home entertainment therefore its a whole different thing. and with DVDs they decided not to pay royalties.


http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=39



So this home entertainment sector changed dramatically with streaming. now it has SVOD, AVOD, TVOD, (here is more info https://clipbucket.com/2019/03/07/u...-tvod-and-the-difference-between-vod-and-ott/) and dvd is now called "physical HE" or something like it. oddly enough, japan is the main player here.



Then came video games who did a buyout becuase of the same reasoning of DVDs. you cannot know how many times your music will be played.

but both scenarios of physical dvds/games the same issue happened... composers never fought this like they did when broadcasting came along decades earlier. so every prodcuers said the same thing.. why not just pay upfront and not have to deal with royalties.

Enter netflix today. netflix has become, in their opinion, home entertainment which follows this rule of no royalties. but BMI/ascap obvuously was like - hey - this is kinda like broadcasting. and netflix was like.. hmm ok here some cents so you shut up. and bmi and ascap for at least a decade where like, ok cool thanks, cable seems like it need more out attention and its giving real $$$ .

And no one noticed... except me... yep... thats right. i had the chance to see how much netflix paid in licenses to stream shows, in 2008 and then in 2012 and then 2016... at the beginning it was about $1000 per movie. fox licensed netflix some old crap everyone forgot for $1000 so therefore netflix was like.. hey bmi we cant pay that much for this old crap. and bmi was like... whatevs, cable is the biz knees so whatever.
in 2016 things reached a dramatic change... fox was licensing the same show, the same period and the same time than any other broadcaster in the world. from BBC and sky italia and starz and hbo and netflxi was paying per country these licenses. yet... BMI and ascap were like.. streaming math made by the streaming companies, sure.. i guess streaming is different, follows home entertainment model and its paid per stream and not with ads and LOOK at the bunny over there in cable... seems like cable is making money , lets pay attention to _that_.

And then at the same time this was going on, facebook and youtube was showing videos of poeple uploading their own thing and saying same thing about royalties, they later paid but cents.
And since its being uploaded by poeple, not them, they didnt fall under "home entertainment" or broadcasting. just some random share thing no one thought it was going to get big.

so all this history and entertainment biz lesson is showing that there was a system in place back in the day... because same of the performance roaylties, a chair that has a designer who gets paid for the desing on every chair, musicians where getting paid per each performance, since it has the copyright of the song and master recording being shown in sync with audiovisuals.

Music, same as design, or a patent on your iPhone wifi tehcnology,, all of those pay some sort of royalties. You just dont see it.

What im trying to show you w some of the history and labels in entertianment business, is that we as composers didnt know and didnt fight to keep these roaytlies and issues at bay. "video games was different", producers who have the $$$capital$$$ say, or "hey why do all of this royalty thing, we are different", "music is like anything else," and so on... so basically we failed at negotiating. and in DVD it was the same.

we only have BMI and ASCAP. ascap is non profit so they dont really care beyong a certain limit. bmi has been fighting a big battle but you do realize its just one company who only knows about broadcast roaylties and its fighting legally against, netflix, google, walmart, apple, facebook, HP, microsoft, every game developer, every movie studios, and so on. BEcause all of those companies have a HUGE interest to PAY LESS.

as a composer we dont know. not really our job. we dont know what AVOD is and whats going no with royalties and upfronts with that. we dont know that netflix has more money that the BBC, starz, televisa, skyitalia, japan broadcasters, hbo, COMBINED and can easily be paying the same amount of roaylties as these broadcasters if we just band together and just say, hey... just pay up the correct streaming royalties. It comes down to a simple act: WE HAVE TO FIGHT TO GET BETTER ROYALTIES. Regardless of the deal and if there way too many composers you could pay less upfront, the main idea is to get the system in place to get paid the proper royalties, just like intel employees, just like guy who invented the codec to see these movies etc. The whole concept, in general, is to advance ideas by exploiting them. unless you are in cuba, this is important.

The system is in place for us to get royoalties just like the indian dude who invented USB. well, he could of at least. him and intel made it open source.








The guy who invented USB didn’t make a dime off of it — but here's why he’s OK with that


Ajay Bhatt is the man responsible for creating the USB technology. He didn't make a dime off the technology, but he's fine with it.




www.businessinsider.com




but shows how these tech have to also pay royalties.

In other words, for all this long chat..

-we setup broadcast roaylties and that was good.
-we drop the ball on DVD roaylties.
-we drop the ball on video game roaylties.
-we dropped the ball on streaming roaylties.
-we suddenly are getting our roaylties taken away and we dont know why and dont like it.


and the issue is not why should a prodcuer pay royalties and not pay it like a " physical thing". the issue is that all these poeple dont think music is a copyright and should pay royalties in the first place because we didnt fight for our rights back in the day.

its very obvious that tech, like any business wil not want to pay more royalties since netflix has to pay also royalties for the silverlight player thingy and licenses, they also also know that BMI and ascap are now diging into why netflix is paying so little roaylties if they have so much money.
and braodcastersa are looking at streaming as a threat and trying to lower costs, so royalties are also a way to lower costs. since tech seems to be able to get away with it, discovery and others suddenly said.. hey.. whats all this with roaylty free music i keep hearing about. Which is another way "someone" was clever and made an uber-like shceme to not pay that much or roaylties. They obvously are not musicians. and all of these poeple are convincing every producer, director, movie studio etc that music and roaylties shouldnt go together.

So basically, the whole point, is that we need to fight for our rights. the system is in place, but if we dont do it... no one will.


----------



## Krayh

gsilbers said:


> Again, even if it sounds like Krayh is trolling, its a very valid point. I dont agree... but its the same point discovery and netflix are making.. so arguing with him is like arguing w every producer out there. but prodcuers will not engage of course, they will just find the person who will do it for upfront pay.
> 
> 
> now, ill give in my two cents.
> 
> 
> Performance royalties is different than say.. a chair design (not the best analogy but seems to be sticking).. becuse as the name implies, there is a performance. so if that chair had a recording of a santa song then the company will indeed have to pay royalties, becuase.. of the performance.
> 
> sounds wierd and why not a design of the chair? well, also the design. because there are also patents, trade marks and franchises who have been set up to proect the design or any invented work. if you make an herman miller chair and sold it, then you have to pay herman miller company for every chair sold.
> And what about herman miller? he doesnt make the chairs, some chinese company w offices in USA makes them and pays herman miller. And if you made a the same chair and sold it then you have to pay or be sued. That system of copyright, trademarks and patents have been placed a long time ago. We just have to push for our rights.
> Of course these have issues like, maybe it wasnt herman miller who designed it, it was one of his employees hired to design chairs and out of hundreds the Aeron became big. so the same issue persists on other industries.
> 
> 
> With music performance, they setup the broadcast royalties becuase music is "performed" every time its shown on TV. so broadcasters setup the performance roaylties so copyright can be exploited and be a fair value based on amount of views and share costs this way.
> 
> Now with netflix, it gets more complicated. And this might be a little hard to understand.
> 
> When netflix came out, it was sending DVDs via mail, and later did the streaming.
> when DVDs where a thing you coudnt charge a "performance royalty" because if one household bought titanic and saw it once and another household has a horny teenager watching leonardo every night, how would you collect those royalties? so now we enter "HOME ENTERTAINEMT"
> 
> Home Entertainment might not sound like much. but in FOX for example, its hundreds of employees with VP And executives earning hundred of thousands a year. Disney also has one and sony etc.
> home entertainment therefore its a whole different thing. and with DVDs they decided not to pay royalties.
> 
> 
> http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=39
> 
> 
> 
> So this home entertainment sector changed dramatically with streaming. now it has SVOD, AVOD, TVOD, (here is more info https://clipbucket.com/2019/03/07/u...-tvod-and-the-difference-between-vod-and-ott/) and dvd is now called "physical HE" or something like it. oddly enough, japan is the main player here.
> 
> 
> 
> Then came video games who did a buyout becuase of the same reasoning of DVDs. you cannot know how many times your music will be played.
> 
> but both scenarios of physical dvds/games the same issue happened... composers never fought this like they did when broadcasting came along decades earlier. so every prodcuers said the same thing.. why not just pay upfront and not have to deal with royalties.
> 
> Enter netflix today. netflix has become, in their opinion, home entertainment which follows this rule of no royalties. but BMI/ascap obvuously was like - hey - this is kinda like broadcasting. and netflix was like.. hmm ok here some cents so you shut up. and bmi and ascap for at least a decade where like, ok cool thanks, cable seems like it need more out attention and its giving real $$$ .
> 
> And no one noticed... except me... yep... thats right. i had the chance to see how much netflix paid in licenses to stream shows, in 2008 and then in 2012 and then 2016... at the beginning it was about $1000 per movie. fox licensed netflix some old crap everyone forgot for $1000 so therefore netflix was like.. hey bmi we cant pay that much for this old crap. and bmi was like... whatevs, cable is the biz knees so whatever.
> in 2016 things reached a dramatic change... fox was licensing the same show, the same period and the same time than any other broadcaster in the world. from BBC and sky italia and starz and hbo and netflxi was paying per country these licenses. yet... BMI and ascap were like.. streaming math made by the streaming companies, sure.. i guess streaming is different, follows home entertainment model and its paid per stream and not with ads and LOOK at the bunny over there in cable... seems like cable is making money , lets pay attention to _that_.
> 
> And then at the same time this was going on, facebook and youtube was showing videos of poeple uploading their own thing and saying same thing about royalties, they later paid but cents.
> And since its being uploaded by poeple, not them, they didnt fall under "home entertainment" or broadcasting. just some random share thing no one thought it was going to get big.
> 
> so all this history and entertainment biz lesson is showing that there was a system in place back in the day... because same of the performance roaylties, a chair that has a designer who gets paid for the desing on every chair, musicians where getting paid per each performance, since it has the copyright of the song and master recording being shown in sync with audiovisuals.
> 
> Music, same as design, or a patent on your iPhone wifi tehcnology,, all of those pay some sort of royalties. You just dont see it.
> 
> What im trying to show you w some of the history and labels in entertianment business, is that we as composers didnt know and didnt fight to keep these roaytlies and issues at bay. "video games was different", producers who have the $$$capital$$$ say, or "hey why do all of this royalty thing, we are different", "music is like anything else," and so on... so basically we failed at negotiating. and in DVD it was the same.
> 
> we only have BMI and ASCAP. ascap is non profit so they dont really care beyong a certain limit. bmi has been fighting a big battle but you do realize its just one company who only knows about broadcast roaylties and its fighting legally against, netflix, google, walmart, apple, facebook, HP, microsoft, every game developer, every movie studios, and so on. BEcause all of those companies have a HUGE interest to PAY LESS.
> 
> as a composer we dont know. not really our job. we dont know what AVOD is and whats going no with royalties and upfronts with that. we dont know that netflix has more money that the BBC, starz, televisa, skyitalia, japan broadcasters, hbo, COMBINED and can easily be paying the same amount of roaylties as these broadcasters if we just band together and just say, hey... just pay up the correct streaming royalties. It comes down to a simple act: WE HAVE TO FIGHT TO GET BETTER ROYALTIES. Regardless of the deal and if there way too many composers you could pay less upfront, the main idea is to get the system in place to get paid the proper royalties, just like intel employees, just like guy who invented the codec to see these movies etc. The whole concept, in general, is to advance ideas by exploiting them. unless you are in cuba, this is important.
> 
> The system is in place for us to get royoalties just like the indian dude who invented USB. well, he could of at least. him and intel made it open source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy who invented USB didn’t make a dime off of it — but here's why he’s OK with that
> 
> 
> Ajay Bhatt is the man responsible for creating the USB technology. He didn't make a dime off the technology, but he's fine with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.businessinsider.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but shows how these tech have to also pay royalties.
> 
> In other words, for all this long chat..
> 
> -we setup broadcast roaylties and that was good.
> -we drop the ball on DVD roaylties.
> -we drop the ball on video game roaylties.
> -we dropped the ball on streaming roaylties.
> -we suddenly are getting our roaylties taken away and we dont know why and dont like it.
> 
> 
> and the issue is not why should a prodcuer pay royalties and not pay like it a " physical thing". the issue is that all these poeple dont think music is a copyright and should pay royalties in the first place because we didnt fight for our rights back in the day.
> 
> its very obvious that tech, like any business wil not want to pay more royalties since netflix has to pay also royalties for the silverlight player thingy and licenses, they also also know that BMI and ascap are now diging into why netflix is paying so little roaylties if they have so much money.
> and braodcastersa are looking at streaming as a threat and trying to lower costs, so royalties are also a way to lower costs. since tech seems to be able to get away with it, discovery and others suddenly said.. hey.. whats all this with roaylty free music i keep hearing about. Which is another way "someone" was clever and made an uber-like shceme to not pay that much or roaylties. They obvously are not musicians. and all of these poeple are convincing every producer, director, movie studio etc that music and roaylties shouldnt go together.
> 
> So basically, the whole point, is that we need to fight for our rights. the system is in place, but if we dont do it... no one will.



And what do you think will happen if the companies can choose between composer a who demand royalties or composer b who wave the royalties away?


----------



## gsilbers

Krayh said:


> And what do you think will happen if the companies can choose between composer a who demand royalties or composer b who wave the royalties away?



_will_ happen? its already happening. thats the whole point. and it will get worse unless we do something.

i would think having a law like in the UK where you cannot give writers share. if its shared then it has to be with another music related person, not a publisher.

Have a law that would allow for any copyright, not just music, to have more protections. im sure there is plenty of legal mumbo jumbo that could help. something a long the lines of a company not allow in contracts for explotation of the IP based on donwstream sales/views/etc. so if i invent the next USBX apple doesnt say, hey ill only pay you upfront and thats it, they pay $1million and next thing you know, the USBX is the standard earning $1billion. both parties need a shared interest of course, but size of one shouldnt take away all the rights.

but your point is basically the point of these companies and this whole "free market" thing. im just trying to convey the idea that its a grey area and not a black and white. thing and other options. and now we are at the mercy of this sort of mind frame that music is just like piece of plastic that can be sold.

so its either with laws (mentioned above) or education. educating composers, educating filmmakers, tech companies and so on. having all these terms, history, laws and so on, will help. the problem is we dont have time and we dont have the info. everyone negotiating on their own w/o knowing

but your point, your questions and argument is THE main point of all this. not only that.. its THE CORRECT viewpoint based on size of parties involved. we are a minority and also due to our lack of understanding of the issues, our lack of knowing our history and lack of unity. and ability to change the other sides mind. we could change this so its the incorrect point of view. but we are all watching from the sidelines, while we also checkout the next audio interface and sample library/


----------



## Thundercat

Krayh said:


> To bad for you then. The same royalties issue should apply to the actors etc ofcourse.
> 
> The last thing I have to say is this. I'm making an excellent living for selling my music for a one time fee. I still have some true gems in the closet. Am I going to sell them for peanuts? No iam waiting for a producer who is going to pay me for what i think its worth...
> 
> Also more work for me, cause most of you demanding royalties. And I sell without them. Always have and always will! Good luck to you all, you are going to need it!


I think you’re lying. I seriously doubt you are making beaucoup bucks selling tracks at huge prices for a one-time fee.

and if you are - good. But please don’t tell the rest of us we need to follow you over the cliff.


----------



## South Thames

> I think you’re lying. I seriously doubt you are making beaucoup bucks selling tracks at huge prices for a one-time fee.



A reminder that he helpfully quantified this for us:



> I roughly make 40.000 euro per year net. Thats about 6 compositions and some small work on advertisements and docus. When i just started out i did a lot of work for free. But again i have more businesses so i did not have to rely on my music for income.


----------



## D Halgren

Krayh said:


> And what do you think will happen if the companies can choose between composer a who demand royalties or composer b who wave the royalties away?


Depends on WHO that composer is. That's like saying, why pay Roger Deakins to shoot a film when I can just get a kid fresh out of college. The answer is because Deakins sells tickets!


----------



## gsilbers

D Halgren said:


> Depends on WHO that composer is. That's like saying, why pay Roger Deakins to shoot a film when I can just get a kid fresh out of college. The answer is because Deakins sells tickets!



just playing devils advocate here.. but there is only one main composer agency which hans zimmer and all of those guys belong to. maybe a couple more with less leverage. other than that, most composers in LA are at this sort of free market mercy and netflix knows it and pushing for the upfront. and been sucesful.
although, composers are normally brought in a project mainly because they know prodcuers or has an in, in the selection process. so they can tell their friend to get him a better deal etc. but if netflix says.. hmm.. i think we have another project with different prodcuers... then no doubt, its another composer.


but its not clear nowadays with roaylty free sites or boutique libraries getting better and better music. music making has been more and more affordable, getting better quality and education than ever before. so suddenly a crime drama could have royalty free music if they follow a Law and order recipe, and composers have been giving law and order type of music to RF sites. which i think its what discovery is diong with epidemic music. im sure epidemic music is out there right now, hussling for a whole bunch of reality tv drama w no PRO from soundcloud artists. a lot of these reality tv shows music is a drum and bass groove as underscore.


----------



## D Halgren

gsilbers said:


> just playing devils advocate here.. but there is only one main composer agency which hans zimmer and all of those guys belong to. maybe a couple more with less leverage. other than that, most composers in LA are at this sort of free market mercy and netflix knows it and pushing for the upfront. and been sucesful.
> although, composers are normally brought in a project mainly because they know prodcuers or has an in, in the selection process. so they can tell their friend to get him a better deal etc. but if netflix says.. hmm.. i think we have another project with different prodcuers... then no doubt, its another composer.
> 
> 
> but its not clear nowadays with roaylty free sites or boutique libraries getting better and better music. music making has been more and more affordable, getting better quality and education than ever before. so suddenly a crime drama could have royalty free music if they follow a Law and order recipe, and composers have been giving law and order type of music to RF sites.


What I am saying is that the only reason I watched Bird Box was to hear Trent's score.


----------



## gsilbers

D Halgren said:


> What is am saying is that the only reason I watched Bird Box was to hear Trent's score.



yep.. him and these 30-50 guys will get it and have the power to do so.... 





Clients - GSA Music







www.gsamusic.com





the other 10,000 composers 








Feature Film, Released between 2019-01-01 and 2019-12-31 (Sorted by Popularity Ascending) - IMDb


IMDb's advanced search allows you to run extremely powerful queries over all people and titles in the database. Find exactly what you're looking for!




www.imdb.com





might have a harder time... 


we are dealing with shades of grey here... the 1% of composers who can demand a proper deal dont think they need or care about this thread. but would be cool if they helped.


----------



## D Halgren

gsilbers said:


> yep.. him and these 30-50 guys will get it and have the power to do so....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clients - GSA Music
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.gsamusic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the other 10,000 composers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feature Film, Released between 2019-01-01 and 2019-12-31 (Sorted by Popularity Ascending) - IMDb
> 
> 
> IMDb's advanced search allows you to run extremely powerful queries over all people and titles in the database. Find exactly what you're looking for!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.imdb.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> might have a harder time...
> 
> 
> we are dealing with shades of grey here... the 1% of composers who can demand a proper deal dont think they need or care about this thread. but would be cool if they helped.


Point taken, I was just responding to the initial post.


----------



## Thundercat

South Thames said:


> A reminder that he helpfully quantified this for us:


So noted.

doesn’t excuse pushing his agenda like he is. He made his point but is insisting we all agree.

maybe we can agree to disagree with him.


----------



## river angler

*Krayh *I now feel compelled to thank you sincerely for speaking out so relentlessly with your contrary views as they have helped to consolidate the general consensus that we must indeed unionise to protect the royalty system for all composers alike which includes you if you care to change your attitude.


----------



## Kony

river angler said:


> *Krayh *I now feel compelled to thank you sincerely for speaking out so relentlessly with your contrary views as they have helped to consolidate the general consensus that we must indeed unionise to protect the royalty system for all composers alike which includes you if you care to change your attitude.


Agreed - what's the next step?


----------



## mavrix

Gsilbers - I think its somewhat presumptuous to broad-stroke all producers into just wanting to exploit composers and musicians. Speaking for myself - being a film/tv producer or production executive the better part of my career, I can say that I am actively following these decisions and strongly support the composers in this scenario. I've spoken to many of my colleagues about it and most support an appropriate system of payouts and royalties as represented in the cue sheets. To say that we're not engaged in the dialogue is just not true. If any broadcaster or streaming service mandated that I force a composer to do a flat-rate, take-it-or-leave-it, work for hire contract, I would strongly resist. To me it's like a bond-company defining who I can or cannot cast in a project based on how insurable they are. 

Most producers are actively involved in the creative process and want to see the best work created all around - and having sat in countless spotting sessions and meetings regarding the music for projects I've been involved with I've never seen any creative executive or producer say, "Who cares - let's just drop-in some random royalty free library music and call it a day." In my experience, with the many producers I've worked with, we were all consciously aware of the importance of a good score on a project and want to get the best talent we can get for the respective project with the respective budgets we're working within. 

I respect the fact that many composers make their living off of royalties and will continue to support it. We certainly don't want to cultivate resentment that results in sub-par deliverables.


----------



## Thundercat

Krayh said:


> And what do you think will happen if the companies can choose between composer a who demand royalties or composer b who wave the royalties away?


Exactly the point if this thread. You nailed it completely.

If we accept this new poorer way of working we are all screwed.

I wonder how much more money you personally would be making if you used theroyalties model.

United we stand, divided we fall.

Are we going to accept a 90% cut in pay as the new norm?


----------



## Krayh

river angler said:


> *Krayh *I now feel compelled to thank you sincerely for speaking out so relentlessly with your contrary views as they have helped to consolidate the general consensus that we must indeed unionise to protect the royalty system for all composers alike which includes you if you care to change your attitude.



For your sake and the others who still believe in the royalties system, I hope you pull through! But I'm afraid its a losing battle but I wish you all the best. Good luck!


----------



## Krayh

Thundercat said:


> I wonder how much more money you personally would be making if you used theroyalties model.
> 
> United we stand, divided we fall.
> 
> Are we going to accept a 90% cut in pay as the new norm?



As I said before I dont believe in it. I personally think its a moronic system for all industries music/film/book/etc.

Also I don't believe you have to work for less IF you are a good composer. There are more ways to get paid more besides royalties.

For example last year i did some work for a producer but at the time he did not have the right budget to pay me (5000) 

So we renegotiated a new deal. I was paid 1500 up front and if the project made an x amount of revenue i was paid 6000 more. So in the end i got paid 7500. Was there a chance that i did not got paid the extra fee. Sure. But thats with all businesses sometimes you have to take a gamble.


----------



## South Thames

> As I said before I dont believe in it. I personally think its a moronic system for all industries music/film/book/etc.



You say that as someone making 40,000 euro, a low-to-average income (by Western standards) from music. You consider this 'excellent' (though I suspect you live eastwards where it goes further). An income that you really have little prospect of improving on because you are limited by the amount you can command up front and the number of jobs you can do in a year. 

I've been building a royalty based income for just under a decade, give or take. I was making around what you're making in royalties after 3-4 years. This year I will make times 4-5 times that in royalties. I don't consider myself particularly successful; I've just worked hard to build up the income stream.

You've kind of confirmed my suspicion that your cheerful, boastful and incurious advocacy of the model you are working in is simply based on naivety about what you could have been earning had you spent an an equivalent period building a royalty-based income.


----------



## BartonFink

@Krayh The thing is, after two years I was making more than that just in backend. You can say it’s moronic but you could’ve doubled your earnings with a royalty model.

Those fees aren’t unusual. I scored a 10 episode doc series this year. This was UK television - they paid £3,000 per episode and I had royalties on top (UK law).

There’s already talks of syndication to other countries so I can earn more backend with the producers.

I’ve been doing this 5-6 years and I’m only 29, but I work my ass off in this business. It takes soo much work just to get into a meeting for projects like that.

I know guys and girls in this business who have big fees and even bigger royalty streams.

I just think if you were a good businessman you’d see royalties as good business.

Not every producer and creator wants to screw their composers over, not if you work with good people and you’re worth the money.

Good luck!


----------



## rpaillot

Krayh said:


> For your sake and the others who still believe in the royalties system, I hope you pull through! But I'm afraid its a losing battle but I wish you all the best. Good luck!



You should really think about how much money you actually lost by giving up your performance rights since you're doing your business.

Especially if you worked for TV documentaries or commercials.

I've done documentaries scores 8 years ago (a lot of shitty docs about 3rd Reich :D ) that are still being aired on TV.

I wrote the music for a big christmas M&m's commercial that's aired on worldwide TV since 2017 ("Faint 2 a very yellow sequel"), it's its 3rd running this christmas. I'm being paid for the performance rights for about 35 countries AND i'm also re-paid the writing fee (the one you get from the ad agency) every year.
I know those gigs are not happening every month, but If I had given up my performance rights on this... can you imagine how much money I lose?

I respect what you do, but it's just a short term solution to get a foot in the door.
Try the royalties/PR road a little bit and you'll see it's truly a win-win solution


----------



## South Thames

> I just think if you were a good businessman you’d see royalties as good business.



I think the problem is he's convinced himself he's a smart, shrewd businessman on the basis that his market entry strategy is not to ask for royalties - the Uber of composers etc. From his description of 40,000 as an 'excellent' income, I think it's clear he did so without really understanding what he was giving up. 

Alas, it goes without saying that people in such a position should be more careful about throwing around the word 'moronic'.


----------



## Daryl

Krayh said:


> And what do you think will happen if the companies can choose between composer a who demand royalties or composer b who wave the royalties away?


If it's me, and it is a company that actually has to have good quality, they will choose me. You don't stand chance. If they just want something cheap, they may hire you. However, chances are they will still use my music though, as it's almost certainly better compostionally, and better recorded, and better produced. Why do I say this? Because with an income of $40K a year, you can't compete with me, as that would probably only pay for the costs of recording the album in the first place. You can't compete with that sort of quality.


----------



## Krayh

I have nothing more to add. 40000 is more than enough for me. Its considered a mid income in my country.

Also its not my only income as i said before i have more businesses. But thats beside the point. 

With more composers gaining ground every year its going to be a real competitive game thats for sure. Time will tell if the royalties scheme will held up. My money is on the other side. 

Over and out


----------



## mc_deli

South Thames said:


> I think the problem is he's convinced himself he's a smart, shrewd businessman on the basis that his market entry strategy is not to ask for royalties - the Uber of composers etc. From his description of 40,000 as an 'excellent' income, I think it's clear he did so without really understanding what he was giving up.
> 
> Alas, it goes without saying that people in such a position should be more careful about throwing around the word 'moronic'.


This. 

But... for us (the great unwashed of entry level aged 18-80, some with 2nd jobs, other income etc.) it is pretty much the only entry strategy, especially if we can’t come to LA to assist for 20 hours a day and especially if our ”local” small producers are only offering work for hire...


----------



## Dynamoe

Krayh said:


> I have nothing more to add. 40000 is more than enough for me. Its considered a mid income in my country.
> 
> Also its not my only income as i said before i have more businesses. But thats beside the point.
> 
> With more composers gaining ground every year its going to be a real competitive game thats for sure. Time will tell if the royalties scheme will held up. My money is on the other side.
> 
> Over and out


Hi Krayh
Where can I hear some of your music? Do you have a link? I’m curious to hear your work😊


----------



## South Thames

Krayh said:


> I have nothing more to add. 40000 is more than enough for me. Its considered a mid income in my country.
> 
> Also its not my only income as i said before i have more businesses. But thats beside the point.
> 
> With more composers gaining ground every year its going to be a real competitive game thats for sure. Time will tell if the royalties scheme will held up. My money is on the other side.
> 
> Over and out



It's obviously not more than enough for you, since you have other businesses. 

Nobody is making any comment on your income other than to point out that it is not even vaguely comparable with what you would receive using the royalty model that you've been smugly trashing.


----------



## South Thames

mc_deli said:


> But... for us (the great unwashed of entry level aged 18-80, some with 2nd jobs, other income etc.) it is pretty much the only entry strategy, especially if we can’t come to LA to assist for 20 hours a day and especially if our ”local” small producers are only offering work for hire...



'Work for hire' per se is not the problem - most media work in the US is done under work for hire as I understand, but work for hire where you contractually maintain your writer's share of the PRO payments. Not sure what situation you're referring to.


----------



## marclawsonmusic

South Thames said:


> 'Work for hire' per se is not the problem - most media work in the US is done under work for hire as I understand, but work for hire where you contractually maintain your writer's share of the PRO payments. Not sure what situation you're referring to.



'Work for hire' - from a legal perspective - means that anything you create while on that job is property of whoever hired you. 

As a side note, most contracts in the IT world works like this... so if I create some brilliant piece of software while working for company X, they can use it in whatever way they please. Software engineers really ought to do more to protect their IP.


----------



## South Thames

marclawsonmusic said:


> 'Work for hire' - from a legal perspective - means that anything you create while on that job is property of whoever hired you.
> 
> As a side note, most contracts in the IT world works like this... so if I create some brilliant piece of software while working for company X, they can use it in whatever way they please. Software engineers really ought to do more to protect their IP.



Right, but that's effectively the case in any situation where you don't end up owning the publisher's share. John Williams works under work-for-hire -- he doesn't own the music he writes for Star Wars etc.
The point is that operating under work-for-hire doesn't mean giving up your writer's share, since typically part of the work for hire contract is that you get to keep this.


----------



## Beluga

Maybe I shouldn’t write this here given the reaction to Krah‘s posts.

But he has a point IMO. And I’m saying this as a professional composer.

The problem with royalties is that you are taking the risk. Maybe you will earn a lot, maybe little to nothing.

I have done both models and I am getting away much, much better on a one time fee basis. Of course I get a convenient amount ahead. Sure, you can’t ask for the best case scenario of earning every time but you can’t assume that every track is earning the maximum fee either.

I think the royalty system is corrupted by the PROs and it’s time to find a better system with today’s tools of tracking. I won’t regret seeing it go. As I have written before there is no way for us to control the revenue and it seems extremely random. No way I could rely on it and on payments that arrive years later.


----------



## marclawsonmusic

South Thames said:


> Right, but that's effectively the case in any situation where you don't end up owning the publisher's share. John Williams works under work-for-hire -- he doesn't own the music he writes for Star Wars etc.
> The point is that operating under work-for-hire doesn't mean giving up your writer's share, since typically part of the work for hire contract is that you get to keep this.



Yes, but the situation you describe is very unique to the music business.

I have spent my life as a software designer and engineer, surrounded by other creatives - graphic artists, UI specialists, audio engineers, video engineers, writers / content creators - and _none _of us have ever received a royalty for any creative work we did. It was all 'work for hire' - which means the creative capital / assets that went into building the product were owned by the client at the end of the project.

I'm not saying it's _right_ to be this way, but you have to understand the mindset of these companies... many of which are really software companies at their core (e.g. Netflix). In a typical scenario where they hire a third party, there is no concept of 'back end' or any kind of royalty. I think this is why the video game industry has been so resistant to offering back end to composers - most of the time when they hire a contractor (and composers are indeed contractors) they own the IP at the end of the gig!

Just trying to raise awareness of what 'work for hire' is for the rest of the world. Doing a work for hire gig and _also_ being able to keep your creative rights must be unique to the music business, because in every other business you give that up.

FYI, here is an excerpt from a standard software development contract (one I am currently under):


Article 5

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

5.2 Ownership of Work Product. All copyrights, patents, trade secrets, or other intellectual property rights associated with any ideas, concepts, techniques, inventions, processes, or works of authorship developed or created by Consultant or its personnel during the course of performing Client's work (collectively, the "Work Product") _*shall belong exclusively to Client and shall, to the extent possible, be considered a work made for hire for Client within the meaning of Title 17 of the United States Code*_. Consultant automatically assigns, and shall cause its personnel automatically to assign, at the time of creation of the Work Product, without any requirement of further consideration, _*any right, title, or interest it or they may have in such Work Product, including any copyrights or other intellectual property rights pertaining thereto*_.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

marclawsonmusic said:


> Yes, but the situation you describe is very unique to the music business.
> 
> I have spent my life as a software designer and engineer, surrounded by other creatives - graphic artists, UI specialists, audio engineers, video engineers, writers / content creators - and _none _of us have ever received a royalty for any creative work we did. It was all 'work for hire' - which means the creative capital / assets that went into building the product were owned by the client at the end of the project.
> 
> I'm not saying it's _right_ to be this way, but you have to understand the mindset of these companies... many of which are really software companies at their core (e.g. Netflix). In a typical scenario where they hire a third party, there is no concept of 'back end' or any kind of royalty. I think this is why the video game industry has been so resistant to offering back end to composers - most of the time when they hire a contractor (and composers are indeed contractors) they own the IP at the end of the gig!
> 
> Just trying to raise awareness of what 'work for hire' is for the rest of the world. Doing a work for hire gig and _also_ being able to keep your creative rights must be unique to the music business, because in every other business you give that up.
> 
> FYI, here is an excerpt from a standard software development contract (one I am currently under):
> 
> 
> Article 5
> 
> INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
> 
> 5.2 Ownership of Work Product. All copyrights, patents, trade secrets, or other intellectual property rights associated with any ideas, concepts, techniques, inventions, processes, or works of authorship developed or created by Consultant or its personnel during the course of performing Client's work (collectively, the "Work Product") _*shall belong exclusively to Client and shall, to the extent possible, be considered a work made for hire for Client within the meaning of Title 17 of the United States Code*_. Consultant automatically assigns, and shall cause its personnel automatically to assign, at the time of creation of the Work Product, without any requirement of further consideration, _*any right, title, or interest it or they may have in such Work Product, including any copyrights or other intellectual property rights pertaining thereto*_.


The difference is that I can teach anyone to code, but I can’t teach someone how to have an artist’s voice - that’s something rare and valuable.


----------



## marclawsonmusic

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> The difference is that I can teach anyone to code, but I can’t teach someone how to have an artist’s voice - that’s something rare and valuable.



Coding is _craft _- much like orchestration or part-writing. It can be learned just like those skills.

How you _apply _that knowledge is where the creativity comes in... and believe it or not, there is actually a lot of creativity in the software field! Making a generalized statement that software people are not creative / artistic is condescending and just plain rude. I expected more from a Canadian!


----------



## shomynik

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> The difference is that I can teach anyone to code, but I can’t teach someone how to have an artist’s voice - that’s something rare and valuable.


I'm unable to speak scientific facts hence I would only like to express my experience and belief.

I'm not sure how much difference there is between the two. I'm raised as a musician, also I was a piano teacher for number of years. I believe anyone can learn music and what you are saying is indeed possible, just very hard - as it's very hard to make anyone do anything that complex, so it needs time. When someone seems lacking in "talent" it's just that they weren't exposed (by others or themselves) to music enough, or they prefered something different in their surrounding (coding maybe?), ocupied themselves with it and they didn't react to music as some ppl do.
I believe it's much more circumstantial (enviourment influenced) than genetic/"being blessed with", and I'm speaking as someone observed as a talented one.

But also I believe the exact same can be applied to software engineers or any other craft/skill that usually ppl distinguish from "creative fields". Working in the gaming industry as a composer I know a bunch of them and many of them are very "talented", having their own "voice" - in a sence that they are capable of connecting paterns in a very unique, creative ways... not that different from composing and I believe you can be as much creative in absolutely anything you do. The question is how deep the craft is (or better, how deep yoh can make it to be) and how much time/knowledge/skill you need to start being creative (actually, is there any requierment for being creative? I guess it's minimum knowledge, but not much - it's just that often goes with objective value of the creation). And regarding the depth of software engineering - well I would start with 3-4 years of traditional programming and move on to machine learning. At what point I would aquire enough skill and rewire my brain enough to be able to create some real value by today's standards? I really don't think it's shallower than music, and we compare here a craft thousands of years old with one that's still learning to walk.

I think idea of "talent" came from our tendency towards simplifing things, explaining something we don't understand and are unable to work with as we lack knowledge (not much different from religion for example). And the whole idea was embrased from artist comunity as it brings up the value of the craft.

Our craft is influenced by each individual treat of charachter we posses, and when speaking about such expressive craft as music, amazing genetic work is making us much more unique and in combination with enviourment and circumstances we expirience, those together differ us much more than by those talented and not (and even shades between those). You can judge that by all the different music "voices" in history. And if we stay and talk about this on that popular superficial level, I would say we all love music made by quite a few "not talented" ones.


----------



## Henu

marclawsonmusic said:


> INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS



My contract also clearly states that as I'm a composer working in-house, all IP I create for work purposes belongs to my employer. It's technically "work for hire" but with a steady income despite of the current workload- which suits me really fine at this point of my life (kids, mortgage, etc). However, I am still legally allowed to do music in my free time which doesn't have anything to do with my employer.

We always take care of the composer rights though, which means that every single piece of music we put out (either in-house or outsourced/ library music) is fairly credited 100% correctly for the collective societies.


----------



## South Thames

marclawsonmusic said:


> Coding is _craft _- much like orchestration or part-writing. It can be learned just like those skills.
> 
> How you _apply _that knowledge is where the creativity comes in... and believe it or not, there is actually a lot of creativity in the software field! Making a generalized statement that software people are not creative / artistic is condescending and just plain rude. I expected more from a Canadian!



Coding is a means to an end though - like part writing or orchestration, like you say. I can hire someone to code for mundane or inspired purpose. And they may do it well or not, but it is the ends, not means, where the value lies, and it will be the person defining the end who profits (or not). I don’t see much comparison with music composition. Orchestration is a better analog, and orchestrators don’t get royalities.

The differing situation for music is, as I keep pointing out, due to the historic association between composer payment and performance. People may seek to question that but it goes right to the heart of how we remunerate musical creativity, beyond the field of bespoke music for media.


----------



## JEPA

the best analogy is the author that writes a book. This author created a novel, say "Da Vinci Code". Is it alright that he earns money for the first copy (work for hire) and that he doesn't get revenues from millions of copies of the book sold all over the world?


----------



## Daryl

Krayh said:


> With more composers gaining ground every year its going to be a real competitive game thats for sure. Time will tell if the royalties scheme will held up. My money is on the other side.


The "Royalties scheme" will hold out for many years. The only question is whether or not composers will receive them. The large companies will certainly not give up on collecting Royalties, that's for sure.


----------



## chillbot

Beluga said:


> The problem with royalties is that you are taking the risk. Maybe you will earn a lot, maybe little to nothing.


Yes it is a risk, the way you combat that is with quantity.


Beluga said:


> No way I could rely on it and on payments that arrive years later.


If you put enough tracks out there (in the thousands, at minimum), it eventually becomes a steady stream of income that is possible to rely on consistently. Though I would never recommend doing that, it is always best to get paid upfront enough to live on (if/when possible) and then the royalties become a nice bonus.

Since this thread is all about terrible analogies I will throw in another one.

Playing poker is a game of skill, not luck, though in the short-term it is possible to be very skilled and not make any money or even lose a bunch of money. But in the long run, if you are a skilled player and always get your hand in with the best odds, you will always win over time. If you only play 200 hands, you normally have to get pretty lucky to win a big pot (in our case, score a hit show), but if you play 20,000 hands, the less of a factor "luck" becomes and the more skill/odds take over (in our case, grinding out placements). 

It's like all we are trying to do is get our music out there in the best situation to succeed. But to eliminate luck, you need to do a lot of it. Oh and you also have to have skill of course, an amateur playing 20,000 hands is just a donk. And maybe we need to avoid Discovery now as well.


----------



## Alexandre

marclawsonmusic said:


> Coding is _craft _- much like orchestration or part-writing. It can be learned just like those skills.
> 
> How you _apply _that knowledge is where the creativity comes in... and believe it or not, there is actually a lot of creativity in the software field! Making a generalized statement that software people are not creative / artistic is condescending and just plain rude. I expected more from a Canadian!


what about you musing over our livelihood and telling us how we should just not mind giving it all up, isn t that a bit rude? There is a war against composers here , if it s not your job then don't be surprised if we feel a bit pissed at your justifications for allowing this s##t to happen


----------



## tsk

South Thames said:


> Coding is a means to an end though - like part writing or orchestration, like you say. I can hire someone to code for mundane or inspired purpose. And they may do it well or not, but it is the ends, not means, where the value lies, and it will be the person defining the end who profits (or not). I don’t see much comparison with music composition. Orchestration is a better analog, and orchestrators don’t get royalities.
> 
> The differing situation for music is, as I keep pointing out, due to the historic association between composer payment and performance. People may seek to question that but it goes right to the heart of how we remunerate musical creativity, beyond the field of bespoke music for media.



I don't want to sounds like a brown-noser, but you have spoken so much sense in such an articulate way in this thread, that I feel reassured knowing there are people out there who can clearly state our (the composers') side. Thank you for your posts, really.


----------



## marclawsonmusic

Alexandre said:


> what about you musing over our livelihood and telling us how we should just not mind giving it all up, isn t that a bit rude? There is a war against composers here , if it s not your job then don't be surprised if we feel a bit pissed at your justifications for allowing this s##t to happen



I am not justifying any such thing. If you were intelligent enough to read my post before responding, you would have seen that. 

I was simply trying to explain what ‘work for hire’ means in a larger sense.

PS - I am also a composer who makes part of my living from music work. I do care about this issue but as usual the ignorant trolls of vi-control prevail.


----------



## Thundercat

Krayh said:


> As I said before I dont believe in it. I personally think its a moronic system for all industries music/film/book/etc.
> 
> Also I don't believe you have to work for less IF you are a good composer. There are more ways to get paid more besides royalties.
> 
> For example last year i did some work for a producer but at the time he did not have the right budget to pay me (5000)
> 
> So we renegotiated a new deal. I was paid 1500 up front and if the project made an x amount of revenue i was paid 6000 more. So in the end i got paid 7500. Was there a chance that i did not got paid the extra fee. Sure. But thats with all businesses sometimes you have to take a gamble.


Geez you actually recreated a version of the royalty system you are railing against! Just LQQK!

In any case, I have nothing against you and I apologize is I’ve been a bit harsh. I wish you a wonderful new year and much success.

blessings,

mike


----------



## gsilbers

mavrix said:


> Gsilbers - I think its somewhat presumptuous to broad-stroke all producers into just wanting to exploit composers and musicians. Speaking for myself - being a film/tv producer or production executive the better part of my career, I can say that I am actively following these decisions and strongly support the composers in this scenario. I've spoken to many of my colleagues about it and most support an appropriate system of payouts and royalties as represented in the cue sheets. To say that we're not engaged in the dialogue is just not true. If any broadcaster or streaming service mandated that I force a composer to do a flat-rate, take-it-or-leave-it, work for hire contract, I would strongly resist. To me it's like a bond-company defining who I can or cannot cast in a project based on how insurable they are.
> 
> Most producers are actively involved in the creative process and want to see the best work created all around - and having sat in countless spotting sessions and meetings regarding the music for projects I've been involved with I've never seen any creative executive or producer say, "Who cares - let's just drop-in some random royalty free library music and call it a day." In my experience, with the many producers I've worked with, we were all consciously aware of the importance of a good score on a project and want to get the best talent we can get for the respective project with the respective budgets we're working within.
> 
> I respect the fact that many composers make their living off of royalties and will continue to support it. We certainly don't want to cultivate resentment that results in sub-par deliverables.




oh for sure. i dont doubt it. my prodcuers friends and directors plus random clients are in the same boat as you ...
then, i went to work for one of this huge networks who hires them.. and thats a different story. 
and one of my main points its not that its one or the other. i dont think all prodcuers will screw composers and will just use royalty free, but i also dont think its all fine and dandy with all prodcuers. my argument its that its a grey area where we can push for better pay and chaning their and our mindsets. . 

its good to hear support from producers though. but the few comments i placed on several facebook groups had almost no responses. so by in large.. imo, in general composers are a bit alone.
but its the same with that studio that went under for 3d graphics for life of pi... everyone was complaining in the 3d and video editors gorups in FB but no one cared that much in the composers forums. imo, we all live in little bubbles. and its something that became extrely clear when i was in the network. everyone just blames everyone else or not caring about the other. everyone is a freelance with a studio somewhere in sprawling LA not talkign with each other. and thats the advantage of the network, they see all of this disconnect and know where the strings are. 

way too many times, when i got an email or call saying a post studio, or an editor, or a prodcuer had issue with some lab/vendor/studio i would be told to tell them to not worry about it,, and behind the scenes some shiat happens where this specific lab or person etc who was complaing would just not get hire or be taken on board for the next season and so on. big studios have "time" on their hands. Do u remember the simpsons spanish dubbers where striking for better pay because the usa cast was making bank? well, i saw a podcast from the dude who dubbed homer (for 20+ years!) and he said, that fox just said.. ok... we'll thingk about it, turned around and hire a complelty new studio also in mexico. so homer sounds totally different from 20 years or so to the next season. when i heard this it was very relatable because thats how these companies role. 

which is basically the same thing that discovery statement said to pma, wich they said they care about composers blah bla and then last sentance:

They also stated that they "will evaluate new programs on a case-by-case basis based on the creative needs of the programs."

thats corporate lingo to either tell prodcuers to use RF later, or hire the prodcuers who do it later, and they hire epidemic sound. no fuss, no battles. no drama. just next season, like always, some poeple get re-hired, some dont. thats the advantages networks have. time and money. they saw this drama and said "no thanks", lets wait and do a new show that the music can be made with a lot of epidemic sound and see how it works, maybe some boutique music with roaylties and transition over. There is plenty of prodcuers who dont give a hoot as well as well intended poeple who just have to follow orders. maybe gets racionalized in corporate lingo.. but the end result is the same. big guys win because we dont stick together.

i dont know if thats really whats happening at discovery though, just to make it clear, but i do know this is something the network I worked did exactly for a different side of the business. And thats how these people roll. Deflect drama, asses the situation later , keep doing the plan to lower costs. hire or promote the poeple who will do this new plan. And after 4 years has come by and everyone said "its not going to work" then its already too late. so imo, i predict itll be the same w discovery. theyll use RF on a bulk of shows no one is paying attentio to. maybe another of their networks to start off with. Then for some reason their ratings wil go down, will blame it on tech and streaming or the music licensing guy and start again with using composers and paying royalties. thats my guess at least. for me the best scenario is that we all teach and show young prodcuers who have been using RF sites and will soon take the place of show editors or assistant, the value of music and custom music and not use pond5 and these sites. 

and it might sounds like im saying prodcuers suck, or networks are good and so on but as krayh comments , imo its good to have a conversation that goes beyond one feel good tweet post where its like "yeah music is good and we suport composers" and that sort of "thoughts and prayers" type of posts. having been working in the entertainment business in LA for over 18 years, i have learned the several grey layers of every story and business practices. and the inmensitiy of the indistry and how many players they are. so 
bringing in contrasting point of views like krayh and positive comments from prodcuers like you , help overall in the conversation since what i mentioned above might be taking lightly but it was amazing experience leanring just how disconnected everyone is in the industry. 
There are way too many details, variations, legal stuff, laws and history of music sync so the more variants we have the better. i even forgot about work for hire deals. which im guessing affect software copanies employees as well. so thats another side of things to discuss and so on. layers and layers..


----------



## Alexandre

marclawsonmusic said:


> I am not justifying any such thing. If you were intelligent enough to read my post before responding, you would have seen that.
> 
> I was simply trying to explain what ‘work for hire’ means in a larger sense.
> 
> PS - I am also a composer who makes part of my living from music work. I do care about this issue but as usual the ignorant trolls of vi-control prevail.


I apologise.


----------



## Beluga

chillbot said:


> Since this thread is all about terrible analogies I will throw in another one.


I like the way you think!


----------



## Vashi

__





Mission and History - The Society of Composers and Lyricists


Mission Statement The Society of Composers & Lyricists is committed to advancing the interests of composers and lyricists working in visual media, including film, television, theater, video games and beyond.…



thescl.com






This link was posted earlier.
So there IS some kind of guild for composers.
Would it be reasonable to conclude that the current leadership is not competent or effective?
And why are there posters in this thread who think unionising or forming a guild is fat hopes situation?


----------



## AlexRuger

Vashi said:


> So there IS some kind of guild for composers.
> Would it be reasonable to conclude that the current leadership is not competent or effective?



No, there very much is not some kind of guild for composers. The SCL is basically a glorified social club.

Edit: to be clear, that's not a dig at the SCL. I love their events and what they do for the community. But a guild it is not.


----------



## Alexandre

AlexRuger said:


> No, there very much is not some kind of guild for composers. The SCL is basically a glorified social club.


This is perhaps naive to ask but what would it take to create one?


----------



## mc_deli

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> The difference is that I can teach anyone to code, but I can’t teach someone how to have an artist’s voice - that’s something rare and valuable.


That’s just so wrong.

Coding, art direction, graphic design, concept design... and you really think that a musician working to a brief is somehow more artistic than a visual designer working to a brief...?

You need to catch yourself on pal. How about this... if you were a real artist with a real “artistic voice” why the f*** would you be reliant on other people’s briefs to make your “art”...?


----------



## charlieclouser

Alexandre said:


> This is perhaps naive to ask but what would it take to create one?



What would it take? A modern-day Jimmy Hoffa, with the smarts, drive, financial interest, mob ties, and muscle to strong-arm anybody who can tap a drumstick on a tin can into joining or else having his fingers broken.

"That guy'll never play the violin again, that's for sure."

Strong-arming Discovery Networks is only half the battle - first you have to strong-arm anybody who could possibly provide them with music to join your side. Every library music composer, every owner of a stack of library tracks, and every Russian kid who cranks out "epic trailer jams volumes 1-26" with his cracked Spitfire libs.

Otherwise there will always be scabs who are hungry and happy to take the low-paid work that the "union members" are forbidden by their union by-laws to take. And what if some union member gets desperate and wants to do scab work? Then Hoffa's goons have to make that a bad choice, one way or the other. Blacklist 'em, corrupt their boot drive, leak their watermarked copy of _Gilligan's Island VII: Mary-Ann's Revenge_ to the inter webs, etc.

Even if 85% of "working composers" join such a union, and that union puts its boot on the throat of Discovery, then Discovery will start getting their music from Russia - or from under some rock where the union hasn't yet sent their enforcers.

The whole point of a union is UNITY. If you can't achieve near-total membership, with all members ACTING in unity, then it's a waste of time. Might as well spend your Wednesday evenings at the SCL meetings. Or bowling. Same difference.

I am not all that optimistic about the current situation, or the future of our little cubbyhole in the creative industry for that matter. I think we'll see a scenario similar to the Napster/Spotify-ization of the record industry - a massive hollowing-out of the middle ground, with little left besides those at the very top and those scrabbling for crumbs at the bottom. We've seen exactly that in the record industry as well as in the feature film industry - the number of middle-of-the-pack artists and feature films has shrunk massively. 

When someone showed me Napster back in the days when computers had CRT monitors, the words "It's OVER" flashed on my internal screen, in big, red, flashing, all-caps, thousand-point bold font. I knew that, as an artist/producer, my clients were ultimately NOT the record companies, but the consumer - and they'd just figured out how to bypass the record companies almost entirely - and I had little faith that the seventies-style behemoth would figure out how to turn their battleships quickly enough. So I got out. Shut 'er down, boys, and run for the lifeboats.

At that time, composing for picture *was* the lifeboat - while it was easy to file-share albums, the bandwidth wasn't there to share/stream video, and the royalty / revenue stream was still more or less functional. Although the content owners have managed to do what the record industry couldn't (until it was too late) - prevent widespread illegal downloading (stealing) of most tv shows and movies by providing simple access to content - they did take a cue from iTunes and Spotify and have managed to prevent the royalty stream that comes our way from mirroring what it was for over-the-air / cable broadcast - and this latest Discovery maneuver is another hole in the dike. We're the classic example of frogs being boiled slowly - and Discovery just turned up the heat.

So run for the lifeboats fellas. It has been a privilege working with you.






(that's me in the background, lugging a double-bass to the rail, where I won't be trying to cram it into a lifeboat, but will turn it *into* a lifeboat. I'm gonna chuck in the ocean, sit on top of it, and paddle away, using the viola I stole from the other guy as an oar!)


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

mc_deli said:


> That’s just so wrong.
> 
> Coding, art direction, graphic design, concept design... and you really think that a musician working to a brief is somehow more artistic than a visual designer working to a brief...?
> 
> You need to catch yourself on pal. How about this... if you were a real artist with a real “artistic voice” why the f*** would you be reliant on other people’s briefs to make your “art”...?


A real artist, moi? Nah, can’t be yet. Maybe in 2020.


----------



## AllanH

marclawsonmusic said:


> Coding is _craft _- much like orchestration or part-writing. It can be learned just like those skills.
> 
> How you _apply _that knowledge is where the creativity comes in... and believe it or not, there is actually a lot of creativity in the software field! Making a generalized statement that software people are not creative / artistic is condescending and just plain rude. I expected more from a Canadian!



To me, coding is akin to writing. Most people can write, but few can write "lord of the rings". Coding in itself is not especially valuable, but creative coding is.

In my experience, the best software engineers are highly creative, and a fair bit of their "value" comes from creating new or better approaches to solving the problems they are working on. I find this process very similar to writing music: all the rules are known but putting it together is where the creativity comes in. 

Final thoughts - good companies provide stock or stock options as a way to share the long-term opportunities of the company. That's the software industry's proxy for residuals.


----------



## BartonFink

charlieclouser said:


> The whole point of a union is UNITY. If you can't achieve near-total membership, with all members ACTING in unity, then it's a waste of time. Might as well spend your Wednesday evenings at the SCL meetings. Or bowling. Same difference.



Agree 100%.

To be honest I’ve never paid much attention to the forums. But having just joined this one to read the consensus on the Discovery news, it’s actually quite disheartening. 

There’s a surprisingly large web of disagreements and differences in attitude that I naively thought wouldn’t exist. On top of that there are a huge amount of side gigging composers out there who have something else to do during the day anyway - it just seems near impossible to have real unity when most people don’t depend on this to pay their mortgage. Im sure they have the best intentions, though.

I was so surprised to hear there was no union when I started working in the biz almost 10 years ago and I feel like it’s almost too late for one now as Ive seen the ‘perceived value’ of composers drop year by year and is at an all time low.


----------



## Beluga

Luckily @charlieclouser is here to lift everyone’s spirit. 😂


----------



## tsk

So as far as I can see, the problem is this:

1. Supply of reasonably good music has skyrocketed.
2. Demand for reasonably good music has increased but not by anywhere near that much.

Therefore that difference means there is now a huge over supply of reasonably good music, which means that the value of this mid-level music is now a lot lower than before.

My royalties have dropped this year to about 50% of what they were until recently. I have a lot of tracks in top tier libraries, not P5, but EMI level. I've been at this for years.

I agree with Clouser that the writing is on the wall. This industry is on its way to being finished as a sole source of income for music writers who aren't at the very very top (e.g. featured on Universal's main playlists).

I used to enjoy writing production music, but now I find it draining and dull. I especially dislike how we are increasingly treated by the libraries, who know that they can toss out anyone and find another 500 composers desperate to get in.

I am going to begin looking for a job in a different field, starting this month.


----------



## JoelS

gsilbers said:


> for me the best scenario is that we all teach and show young prodcuers who have been using RF sites and will soon take the place of show editors or assistant, the value of music and custom music and not use pond5 and these sites.


Last year, I became interested in videography. As one does these days, I turned to YouTube for education and information. I found the channels of some exciting, creative people who make tutorial and gear-review content. They have a big audience. Peter McKinnon (4.19M subscribers), Maati Haapoja (814k), Make Art Now with Josh Yeo (197k) and more. These are really inspiring filmmakers who are reaching a big audience which is, I'd guess, the 'next generation of filmmaking.'

They all directly recommend Epidemic to their audience, and do so frequently. Epidemic has flown McKinnon out to their offices for videos, and worked with him on their own promo materials. For years, Epidemic has built a relationship with the filmmakers that are inspiring and educating millions of people on the platform (YouTube) that is currently relevant to them. 

I can't say these YouTubers are _the_ face of filmmaking education, but they reach a whole lot of people and those people are not learning about PROs, royalties, the byzantine structures of a relatively opaque industry. They are learning that they can get professional sounding music that fits their videos simply and at a discount, and it will cause them little hassle to use it.

My point is that, in my opinion, Epidemic is eating the PROs lunch in terms of marketing the 'right' way to get music to the audience that matters most: young, upcoming talent who are being educated in their field. They found a forward-thinking way to capture attention on a platform that matters very much to contemporary audiences.

Are the PROs doing that? Did I miss it?


----------



## BartonFink

JoelS said:


> Last year, I became interested in videography. As one does these days, I turned to YouTube for education and information. I found the channels of some exciting, creative people who make tutorial and gear-review content. They have a big audience. Peter McKinnon (4.19M subscribers), Maati Haapoja (814k), Make Art Now with Josh Yeo (197k) and more. These are really inspiring filmmakers who are reaching a big audience which is, I'd guess, the 'next generation of filmmaking.'
> 
> They all directly recommend Epidemic to their audience, and do so frequently. Epidemic has flown McKinnon out to their offices for videos, and worked with him on their own promo materials. For years, Epidemic has built a relationship with the filmmakers that are inspiring and educating millions of people on the platform (YouTube) that is currently relevant to them.
> 
> I can't say these YouTubers are _the_ face of filmmaking education, but they reach a whole lot of people and those people are not learning about PROs, royalties, the byzantine structures of a relatively opaque industry. They are learning that they can get professional sounding music that fits their videos simply and at a discount, and it will cause them little hassle to use it.
> 
> My point is that, in my opinion, Epidemic is eating the PROs lunch in terms of marketing the 'right' way to get music to the audience that matters most: young, upcoming talent who are being educated in their field. They found a forward-thinking way to capture attention on a platform that matters very much to contemporary audiences.
> 
> Are the PROs doing that? Did I miss it?



Exactly! To me the PRO’s and big league libraries are becoming the blockbuster video of our industry. They’re so complacent about this stuff.

Unfortunately for me I write for these big libraries and like the poster above am finding increasingly more dull. The amount of music they’re releasing is absolutely insane. I have briefs to last me all year but I don’t even know if it’s worth me doing them anymore.

As much as I hate to admit it, Epidemic are actually really smart about this. They can see down the pipeline and are getting ahead of it. Unfortunately any composers looking to work with them will never make a living doing it. Not like you could writing for the likes of EMI and Universal.

If it’s any consolation, I know some editors personally, one being my brother, who say libraries like Epidemic are completely uninspiring and a pain to work with.

I wish the PRO’s and other libraries would step up their game.


----------



## VeePo

UPDATE: According to Tim Starnes of Cinesamples, as of today [Jan 1, 2020] Discovery has NOT announced it is backing down on this policy. So with a CEO making $129 million, 'Greediest Catch' still seems accurate to me.


----------



## Spectator

So now that "the vlog" has been made and everyone has tweeted on social media...... is that it?
Job Done? All sorted and fixed now?


----------



## Nico

well, I guess we have to find our own "lifeboats" :(
... and I do not see many interesting options


----------



## jonathanparham

just heard this bit of info on synch my music youtube channel:
 Sync My Music. Not sure who his source is


----------



## JFB

BartonFink said:


> If it’s any consolation, I know some editors personally, one being my brother, who say libraries like Epidemic are completely uninspiring and a pain to work with.


The editors could create some serious push-back. Suppose all the composers who were informed they had to relinquish all royalties on existing shows or have it stripped out and replaced with royalty-free stuff called Discovery's bluff and said "Ok, strip it out." Now imagine all these editors tasked with replacing the music in thousands of hours of programming with music that is _"completely uninspiring and a pain to work with"_; and this on top of having to edit for new programming? You may have a yellow-vest rebellion in the edit bays. At least in my area of library composing (CBS TV) editors have considerable influence over music choices. The process of searching a music database for an editor is already tedious even with a quality library; trying to find cues that "work" in a typical RF library could become a catastrophic time-suck given the pressure they're under for fast turn-around. The people who actually _make_ the shows may find their job getting a lot harder.

Now that said, from a creative standpoint, anybody on this forum watch HGTV? Pretty sure "Property Brothers" and "Love It Or List It" or literally any other "lifestyle" program's music needs could be filled by someone with Apple Loops and enough musical judgement to put them together in a way that "works". And sell it for 10 bucks.

We all know there is a world-wide glut of cheap "good-enough" library music available. And a glut of anything in any industry will always depress its value.


----------



## 98bpm

MatFluor said:


> On the positive side - human translators still get jobs - MT cannot replace phone calls. Human translators are also still needed to proofread manuals and websites etc. The core job also still exists, but mainly high-profile companies hire them. So - the "low hanging fruit" is gone to the MT systems. But that's also where you see the horrible manuals we all know and love - broken English, wrong terminology and all that.


That explains why when I Google lyrics to a song, they're always unbelievably wrong. LOL


----------



## BartonFink

JFB said:


> The editors could create some serious push-back. Suppose all the composers who were informed they had to relinquish all royalties on existing shows or have it stripped out and replaced with royalty-free stuff called Discovery's bluff and said "Ok, strip it out." Now imagine all these editors tasked with replacing the music in thousands of hours of programming with music that is _"completely uninspiring and a pain to work with"_; and this on top of having to edit for new programming? You may have a yellow-vest rebellion in the edit bays. At least in my area of library composing (CBS TV) editors have considerable influence over music choices. The process of searching a music database for an editor is already tedious even with a quality library; trying to find cues that "work" in a typical RF library could become a catastrophic time-suck given the pressure they're under for fast turn-around. The people who actually _make_ the shows may find their job getting a lot harder.
> 
> Now that said, from a creative standpoint, anybody on this forum watch HGTV? Pretty sure "Property Brothers" and "Love It Or List It" or literally any other "lifestyle" program's music needs could be filled by someone with Apple Loops and enough musical judgement to put them together in a way that "works". And sell it for 10 bucks.
> 
> We all know there is a world-wide glut of cheap "good-enough" library music available. And a glut of anything in any industry will always depress its value.



Editors definitely have a lot of control, at least here in the UK. Especially in our shows like The Apprentice which isn’t like the US counterpart. The music the editors choose ranges from licensed film scores, bespoke material, classical music and higher end production music - it’s a huge part of the shows identity. As a UK composer going into meetings with tv producers, the editor has been there too.

TV is really different all over the world and the attitude and tastes of producers and editors really shape the quality. It’s very interesting to see the same show in the US and UK get different creative treatment and it’s all in the editing and the music.

Talking to other tv editors too they hate being forced to use specific libraries - even when they’re good libraries they tire of it very quickly. There’s tons of music out there, sure; but I think people underestimate the desire for variation and high quality.

Thing is, you could give a show like Ancient Aliens to an amazing editor and if they had creative control and music choice, could make it really slick and engaging. Most of that type of show is stoner tv, which I love but it’s not surprising they don’t care about quality/music. I feel like there is a tv genre that is just on in the background in people homes and isn’t actively watched. That is a lot of Discovery Networks programming these days.

Even if they were to make their own streaming platform, I don’t know anyone who would actively subscribe to watch these types of shows. The irony is, the quality would have to go way up to carry a tv audience over to online and great producing, editing, music could do that.


----------



## gsilbers

jonathanparham said:


> just heard this bit of info on synch my music youtube channel:
> Sync My Music. Not sure who his source is



I can totally see this is true. 
specially for tv shows where it’s a lot ofbackground hiphop type music very low in the mix and direct license or do epidemic music and for shows where there is more of that dramatic styles then direct licence at $300-1000 per track.
If you write for random libraries and barely get any placements and you later get this deal where they’ll give you $500 per track and you can get like 20-30 tracks placed... then I can see a large portion of composers doing it. Specially from outside big metro areas.

and like a kept saying.... discovery has time on their hands. They saw backlash said no thanks and they’ll try again and a few shows here and there without a lot of fuzz. Mixing direct licence with normal license and royalty free w epidemic mic sound.

why? Because that’s exactly what the big studio I worked for did in a different side of the business (outside of music).
there was initial backlash, so they slowed down but kept slowly building on the same premise of lowering costs.
They succeeded after 5 years and a couple of brand name post studios went under.


----------



## Greg

Had a good relationship with a music supervisor at Vice and they suddenly emailed me asking to write buy out tracks for $300 a pop. I said I cant make that work and they disappeared, never asked for music again. Oh well


----------



## InLight-Tone

gyprock said:


> And the cruelty is that an Instagram influencer with a fat arse and botox injected catfish lips can get $50K for a photo that took 1 min to create and upload. We need a direct meteorite hit to reset the earth's inhabitants.


Be careful what you wish for...


----------



## D Halgren

InLight-Tone said:


> Be careful what you wish for...


I'm with him, it'd be worth it.

Besides, we have Space Force now, to kick it's butt


----------



## givemenoughrope

Yea of course they did. The hipster voice of the starving creative class...right.

Totally sucks for you. Maybe just rebrand yourself as a mumbling rapper and approach them again.



Greg said:


> Had a good relationship with a music supervisor at Vice and they suddenly emailed me asking to write buy out tracks for $300 a pop. I said I cant make that work and they disappeared, never asked for music again. Oh well


----------



## Greg

givemenoughrope said:


> Yea of course they did. The hipster voice of the starving creative class...right.
> 
> Totally sucks for you. Maybe just rebrand yourself as a mumbling rapper and approach them again.



Hahaha, I only lost out on a few pieces of avocado toast, their royalties are crap.


----------



## Rob Elliott

Greg said:


> Had a good relationship with a music supervisor at Vice and they suddenly emailed me asking to write buy out tracks for $300 a pop. I said I cant make that work and they disappeared, never asked for music again. Oh well



$300 - truly disappointing. They probably had a long list of 'living in their mom's basement composers' that they KNEW would do it for $150. I say - let them have it. It is not always the case but most of my clients and I work 'together' to craft EXACTLY the music that makes everything else in the project better - no film or TV project is perfect and I work hard at making my efforts indispensable. Of course I am a realist - most producers probably don't 'hear it' but there are many that DO. Those are GOLD clients I always try to exceed their expectations for.


----------



## Beluga

Iswhatitis said:


> I remember three decades ago everytime I was hired for tv film and trailer projects I would first reach out to composer managers and agents and composers to find out how much I should be paid, this was before the web existed, and no one, I mean no one (echo echo echo), would divulge how much composers get paid for these kind of projects. Of course this lead to me getting completely taken advantage of by producers and studios. Even when I reached out to the SCL and it’s members no composer would share how much composers get paid. I wish WGA or AFM would protect composers but neither union will and unless you are on the A-list the only way you can protect yourself as a composer you is to stand your ground and say no when offered absurdly low take it or leave it offers which I eventually learned to do. Even when I got one of the top film composer agencies to negotiate my deals they did the worst job and did not get me the standard reasonable fees studios were paying composers. It’s amazing how disgusting people can behave in this biz. I have always been an open book with people and especially composers and yet few are willing to share their knowledge base. I doubt composers will ever form a union and if it does happen all these superstar top A-list composers have to be the ones to lead the charge to protect everyone else which I don’t believe will ever happen because they already have leverage and simply don’t care no matter how much they act like they do.


I feel you man! I didn't start quite as long back as you did but I think you are raising an important point here. When I was starting out I was regarded almost as a traitor of the trade by some for accepting certain deals (that are considered well paid today and people run after them). But on the other hand, there was no one, I mean really no one to give a hand, advice or help out in any way to make it better. You are on your own.

So when composers start out today, who will offer them advice to not take those deals from Discovery or Epidemic? Or who will offer them alternatives? No one will.


----------



## Richard Wilkinson

Iswhatitis said:


> Here’s some useful composer fee ranges



What world are you living in where 25k is a MINIMUM for tv *per episode*? Lots of these figures are way, way off real world figures.
Total music budgets are very definitely not 'usually 5% of total production budgets'. That's a nice figure to have in mind as an aim, but blimey...


----------



## gsilbers

Iswhatitis said:


> Here’s some useful composer fee ranges: film composer fee $150,000 minimum -$3,000,000, tv composer minimum $25,000 - $60,000 per episode underscoring, tv composer main title theme $7,500 minimum, direct-to-video composer minimum $50,000 -$250,000, film trailer composer $25,000 -$100,000. I’m not sure what composers get paid for Saturday morning animation or amusement park rides or national commercials or corporate videos or other specific mediums but as a general rule each minute of music should equate to at least a $1,000 per minute minimum composer creative fee, which does not include additional costs for live musicians, music bookers, engineers, sound stages, music carting and rental, travel costs, etc... I learned this knowledge the hard way over and over. A great way to start the conversation with a producer is to ask them how much their production budget is. Total music budgets are usually 5% of total production budgets where a composers creative fee should never be less than 2%-3% of the total budget and sometimes as much as 5% of the total budget if the composer is providing a 100% finished score even with no live musicians. When a producer offers you a low all offer especially with a take or leave it mentality then simply stand pat on your higher fee even if they don’t hire you. Many producers will pay much higher fees than they initially offer if you simply stand pat on your worth. Those producers who won’t pay reasonable fees should be avoided. No one should have to pay their dues by being completely taken advantage of by slimy Hollywood producers even if they are at major studios.






Iswhatitis said:


> Here’s some useful composer fee ranges: film composer fee $150,000 minimum -$3,000,000, tv composer minimum $25,000 - $60,000 per episode underscoring, tv composer main title theme $7,500 minimum, direct-to-video composer minimum $50,000 -$250,000, film trailer composer $25,000 -$100,000. I’m not sure what composers get paid for Saturday morning animation or amusement park rides or national commercials or corporate videos or other specific mediums but as a general rule each minute of music should equate to at least a $1,000 per minute minimum composer creative fee, which does not include additional costs for live musicians, music bookers, engineers, sound stages, music carting and rental, travel costs, etc... I learned this knowledge the hard way over and over. A great way to start the conversation with a producer is to ask them how much their production budget is. Total music budgets are usually 5% of total production budgets where a composers creative fee should never be less than 2%-3% of the total budget and sometimes as much as 5% of the total budget if the composer is providing a 100% finished score even with no live musicians. When a producer offers you a low all offer especially with a take or leave it mentality then simply stand pat on your higher fee even if they don’t hire you. Many producers will pay much higher fees than they initially offer if you simply stand pat on your worth. Those producers who won’t pay reasonable fees should be avoided. No one should have to pay their dues by being completely taken advantage of by slimy Hollywood producers even if they are at major studios.



This is very informative but a little off topic... or side topic since the discovery issue it’s library music and that world pays differently.

Only Netflix is giving an option to be a upfront fee only and it seems it’s above normal.

for discovery and broadcasters/realty tv shows it’s at most $100-400 per track and it’s all about backend.
These include simple hiphop beats, dramedy and generic tension so no scoring to picture.


----------



## gsilbers

Beluga said:


> So when composers start out today, who will offer them advice to not take those deals from Discovery or Epidemic? Or who will offer them alternatives? No one will.




Developers of sample libraries. 

We get a ton of poeple downloading freebies. If every developer had info on rates and concise info about music pricing for different outlets then it could help inform both newcomers and old skoolers. 

but no one wants to disclose rates. in hollywood its extrmely sensitive topic. there is an army of poeple trying to up each other. these poeple are called SALES poeple. and guard their rates like crazy. 

There was a thread and email a while ago about video game rates and it was anonimus. that was great. 
something like that wouldbe cool for library music including royalties. or scoring to picture on smaller networks. direct to tv. those amazon self publish sites and so on. having a menu and having every develop have this template where to start on pricing would not only help composers but also developers...
if composers get more money.... they spend more money on libraries


----------



## Fever Phoenix

gsilbers said:


> something like that wouldbe cool for library music including royalties.



isn't the point of library music that there are no royalties?


----------



## gsilbers

Iswhatitis said:


> The writers I know who have had their tracks placed in underscore background get $1,000-$1,500 per track for major tv networks but that was not from a music library and was from a song or track a composer previously had released on album. I don’t know what music libraries charge per track. Certainly, $400 seems more reasonable than anything less. Unfortunately, it sounds like too many composers have allowed studios to pay them such low fees for too long that these studios don’t pay anyone not on the A-list the fees they deserve. I’m not blaming the composers because most composers don’t realize how much money they ought to be charging and too many scumbag producers want to take advantage of composers whenever they can. The fee ranges I gave are only for scoring original music to picture.




not will argue that. very true. but at least the royalties would offset the prodcution upfront. those reality tv shows have non stop music. its very different than underscoring a couple of scenes. for reality tv, it cold be anywhere from 100 to 200 composers on one 60 min episode. and sometimes its just a few seconds, sometimes a bit more. maybe just a hit from one cue and pad from another.
so at 1k per track its an important number.
thats why with roaylties at least it offsets it because maybe on the first run it pays some royalties, then on back end it pays off more. and international sales etc. other broadcasters keep paying roaylties. which its based on viewers so it makes sense.
since discovery is not only the prodcution, it also broadcasts the show and also has networks in EU, Latam, japan and other territories then its them also paying for the royalties.
unlike a show like kardasians and fox tv shows where the show gets packaged to toher networks to sell across the globe.


----------



## gsilbers

Fever Phoenix said:


> isn't the point of library music that there are no royalties?



thats royalty free (RF) library music like in pond5 and episdemic sound. 
and some of RF libraries is only for non braodcast music. hidden somehwere in pond5 
license says youll need another license if you use it for broadcasting

libraries liek extreme music, apm music etc, still has royalties.


----------



## Fever Phoenix

gsilbers said:


> thats royalty free (RF) library music like in pond5 and episdemic sound.
> 
> libraries liek extreme music, apm music etc, still has royalties.



Ah, thanks for making that clear. 

Since I am a member of a collecting society I am not allowed to give away licenses outside the official state wide license fees. So I don't understand how one can release so-called library music if one has already published via a label and/or distributor or similar. So even if I score your movie for free, you will have to license it. The copyright laws in Europe are pretty firm about that. That is why the Discovery affair seems on the verge of violating actual law. But I am no expert and atm protected by my publisher (as long as I make them money, eh?)


----------



## gsilbers

Fever Phoenix said:


> Ah, thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Since I am a member of a collecting society I am not allowed to give away licenses outside the official state wide license fees. So I don't understand how one can release so-called library music if one has already published via a label and/or distributor or similar. So even if I score your movie for free, you will have to license it. The copyright laws in Europe are pretty firm about that. That is why the Discovery affair seems on the verge of violating actual law. But I am no expert and atm protected by my publisher (as long as I make them money, eh?)



yes... EU is different. which is why its not clear.

the discovery affair seems to be only for US territory. not sure if it affects composers or broadcatsers.
meaning that discovery could only hire US composers. or composers outside of the EU law.
or they will replace the music when it goes to EU. which is already an extra cost.

if you read epidemic sounds agreement it states not sign up for a pro. and epidemic is basedin sweden i think. so not sure how they deal with that over there.


----------



## Fever Phoenix

gsilbers said:


> if you read epidemic sounds agreement it states not sign up for a pro. and epidemic is basedin sweden i think. so not sure how they deal with that over there.




In many cases ppl seem not to know what they are doing and those who kinda do take advantage of the halfknowledge and grey zones.. 

Also the legal situation(s) and answers are hard to access at times. I was asked to score a commercial last year, but the client had no idea what that may imply. They just wanted to buy the music. The end. But it is not that simple, as soon as you publish something you have to license it, even if it comes from a library.

The topic gives me a headache, really, BUT in the end, we have to fight for our royalties. If you make it that far and actually work in movies and/or TV just to not get paid?!


----------



## gsilbers

Fever Phoenix said:


> In many cases ppl seem not to know what they are doing and those who kinda do take advantage of the halfknowledge and grey zones..
> 
> Also the legal situation(s) and answers are hard to access at times. I was asked to score a commercial last year, but the client had no idea what that may imply. They just wanted to buy the music. The end. But it is not that simple, as soon as you publish something you have to license it, even if it comes from a library.
> 
> The topic gives me a headache, really, BUT in the end, we have to fight for our royalties. If you make it that far and actually work in movies and/or TV just to not get paid?!



true. hopefully that thing we all signed up for supporting composers against discovery will yield something good like a broader access to information. legal information and pricing information on a variety of music work on different territories. there issnt that many btw. distribution is very limited so its doable. 

and that information could live in spitfires website. cinesamples website. east west samples. ADSR. KVR and other music prodcut websites. its easier for composers to see these prodcut websites than every newbie just knowing to go to a specific website. so every developer has info on this specifc website of information thats non profit. and will have infor about epidemic sound and its crappy - fuk u - biz plan. and so on.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Iswhatitis, FWIW, my experience of over 25 years suggests that the numbers you listed in the previous page are off by a factor of 10. Except for Hollywood features and series.


----------



## Thundercat

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> Iswhatitis, FWIW, my experience of over 25 years suggests that the numbers you listed in the previous page are off by a factor of 10. Except for Hollywood features and series.


10x too high or too low?


----------



## Richard Wilkinson

Thundercat said:


> 10x too high or too low?


High! Lots of BBC/itv series are closer to 3-8k per ep, with backend being invaluable.


----------



## AlexRuger

To be fair, I know a few composers who made ~$20k per episode of network TV in the US not even ten years ago.

The numbers aren't totally off, just outdated, which is the problem I think iswhatitis is getting at. Numbers have just continued to plummet over the decades.


----------



## gsilbers




----------



## BartonFink

A pricing guide would be a great resource in the business forum.

We could sticky an outline at the top so at least anyone who visits can see at a glance what range their services should be priced at.

People often ask what to charge for certain jobs over on Gearslutz but whenever the users give out the numbers the composer complains it sounds way too high and doesn’t wanna step on their employers toes.


----------



## BartonFink

AlexRuger said:


> To be fair, I know a few composers who made ~$20k per episode of network TV in the US not even ten years ago.
> 
> The numbers aren't totally off, just outdated, which is the problem I think iswhatitis is getting at. Numbers have just continued to plummet over the decades.



Speaking to guys and girls who were writing music for network tv in the late 90’s....man they were the glory years. The money was incredible. The gravy train has been slowly running out of fuel after that peak.

What’s sadder still is that even with advertising where billions is spent annually, the music budgets are still shrinking. The only benefit to ads now is the royalties can be very lucrative (if composers are smart enough to take them).

Still you have companies like Nike emailing composers and songwriters asking to have their music for free. It’d be hilarious if it wasn’t so depressingly greed-fuelled.


----------



## BartonFink

Iswhatitis said:


> What I’ve learned over and over again the hard way is that my rates are not negotiable. If a producer wants to low ball me they can go fuk themselves and I usually tell them to save their money and use someone else’s music libraries after a low ball offer. They want a composer for hire original music score for music library rates. I don’t do music library work, it doesn’t interest me at all.



Ive had instances where my original work has been in competition with a library piece. I’m always torn by this because I’m a library writer too and my production music work pays my mortgage and then some. If you write for the big names and take library seriously it can be great work on top of custom scoring.

I have turned clients always for low balling me and always will.

But as a PSA for any composers - it’s in a similar vein but on the production music side; A friend of mine runs a large library, and a gigantic beverage brand came to him wanting to license a piece of music for a big ad. My friend quoted a $100,000 fee, to which the client responded “no, I have $10,000.” My friend showed them the door, but a week later the client phoned back with $20,000. The library again politely declined their offer. The client was irritated but told them they would “negotiate.” They offered $70,000, but again the library said their price hasn’t changed from $100k. They lost the client - but a year later the same brand were running another campaign, even bigger than the last. They came back to the library wanting to license a piece of music, and low and behold they had $100,000 for a license fee. They have Been their go to for licensing and putting together bespoke music. Their fees and backend make their composers very comfy.

On the other side of the coin, another composer I know was approached by a brand who offered him a $7,000 buyout for an ad for one of his tracks. He wasn’t quite as experienced but has been in the business for a few years. He took the buyout and a week later saw the ad and it was during the super bowl....he never heard from that client again.

Sometimes, as hard it is, it’s better to say no to the short term. It can pay off in the long term. Your integrity is extremely valuable. Clients can recognise self worth and will value something they pay good money for.

You may not be around those types of figures, but don’t be so quick to give something away or bend to the will of the guy with the check book. And please hold onto your writers share - you never know where it’s going to end up.


----------



## Thundercat

I just don’t get it. What is fueling this evil race to the bottom? Don’t they know this is going to come back to bite them? Composers need and deserve to be compensated for their contributions and talents.


----------



## gsilbers

Thundercat said:


> I just don’t get it. What is fueling this evil race to the bottom? Don’t they know this is going to come back to bite them? Composers need and deserve to be compensated for their contributions and talents.



Streaming and over supply means lowering cost. and since its basically this last year where noticed, hey maybe netflix and amazon should be paying more in royalties. (i noticed like 10 yrs ago when i worked on one of the big studios that netflix had more money that most broadcasters combined)

back when they 1st started no one cared about those streaming royalties. since it started with netflix who used to send dvds via mail then there was no royalties. mainly for tech reasons and also we didnt cared.
so netflix used that same argument for streaming. its under HOME ENTERTAINMENT (this is a big big important word in distribution ) so they didnt pay roaylties.

and they didnt pay that much royalties later when bmi and ascap asked. and they didnt pay that much royalties when they opened up shop in europe. and japan. and south america. nope. we didnt see it coming.

fast forward to now and all this braodcasters are struggling to keep up the old ad revenue model plus cable royalties etc becuase of streaming.. and now you can see why these roaylties matter.

and not to mention that we still think streaming shoudlnt pay that much as broascasters. and even in music via spotify. someone said, hey its streaming so it should pay less and everyone just went along with it. suddenly artists are like hey..... wait a minute... but too late.
if service like apple music, youtube and spotify started charging the rates like 15yrs ago and they will go bankrupt in a week.


----------



## BartonFink

Thundercat said:


> I just don’t get it. What is fueling this evil race to the bottom? Don’t they know this is going to come back to bite them? Composers need and deserve to be compensated for their contributions and talents.



It wouldn’t be a problem if royalties or fees were adjusted but streaming has developed so damn fast and the PRO’s and Publishers are ridiculously complacent. I’ve been worried since day dot when I noticed streaming but my managers and publishers have always told me to chill out...but look at us now.

If you follow any of the big name music houses and libraries on social media, all they ever post is staff vacations, bowling/drinks nights and Xmas parties with a pop star as a guest. These guys don’t seem to see what’s in front of them.

Either the laws adapt to online/home entertainment for royalties, or the fees for scoring/licensed music goes WAY WAY up. But it’s pretty easy to see that royalties are vanishing and fees are plummeting, so who the hell knows where we’ll be in 5 years.


----------



## Thundercat

Regarding streaming, I think it’s sick that it’s not classed as a broadcast. It very much is a broadcast on demand.

I read a book about music royalties awhile ago and they shared the story of a songwriting team that had a hit sing in 78 countries.

78 countries.

And there were millions and millions of streamings.

The songwriters’ royalties ending up being a few thousand dollars in total, which they had to split.

What these content companies are not respecting is the sheer talent and energy that goes into creating music. And they literally are plundering artists while keeping the lion’s share of the profits.

why?

because they can.

To this day I refuse to sign up for Apple Music streaming because they give the first 3 months free. That’s 3 months of the artists receiving no royalties I’d imagine.

we really need to unite about this issue.

then again it won’t be long before AI does a hefty share of music cues. So there’s a ticking clock here.

mike


----------



## gsilbers

Thundercat said:


> Regarding streaming, I think it’s sick that it’s not classed as a broadcast. It very much is a broadcast on demand.
> 
> I read a book about music royalties awhile ago and they shared the story of a songwriting team that had a hit sing in 78 countries.
> 
> 78 countries.
> 
> And there were millions and millions of streamings.
> 
> The songwriters’ royalties ending up being a few thousand dollars in total, which they had to split.
> 
> What these content companies are not respecting is the sheer talent and energy that goes into creating music. And they literally are plundering artists while keeping the lion’s share of the profits.
> 
> why?
> 
> because they can.
> 
> To this day I refuse to sign up for Apple Music streaming because they give the first 3 months free. That’s 3 months of the artists receiving no royalties I’d imagine.
> 
> we really need to unite about this issue.
> 
> then again it won’t be long before AI does a hefty share of music cues. So there’s a ticking clock here.
> 
> mike




if you see my previous post, youll see i try to be more realist and objective...

so..

your statement is not wrong... but from a different point view:

supply and demand. 

what these companies are seeing is a TON of talented composers and prodcutions. 

i saw this a couple of years back in soundcloud. it used to be a lot of crap out there but randomly checking stuff out and heard a lot of great music from random poeple. music i could easily hear from a top DJ in EU. or a top Hip hop prodcuer in the US. and trailer, film and library music thats on par with whats on tv. 

everyone has been trying to do john williams and hans zimmer for decades now and the tools are now there. and lessons on youtube. of course there is still crap but there is a lot better music than before. 

so companies do respect the music and want the best. but as any business they see an oportunity to save on money. 
we are not uber drivers of course but we are on the same boat where there is a lot of competent composers trying to get the gig. and we dont band together due to geographical reason.. trying to get the pie reasons and random moral arguments. 

so thats the reality, a glut of composers and a glut in content. if we band together... or at least have the proper info then we could all say and fight the battles correctly so we all get paid better....


anywayss.. i keep repeating myself, the thread got looong.. but as long as a new spitfire library release thread.. but still..


----------



## Thundercat

@gsilbers: very good points!


----------



## gsilbers

Iswhatitis said:


> The A-list composers are the only ones who could unite and strike and make a difference, this will never happen as each A-list composer is only in it for himself. These guys are not interested in forming a union or protecting any other composer. Back a long time ago a big time A-list composer stole one of my tracks note for note with the same arrangement and orchestration for an episode of a tv show that ran in the 90s. I still think about suing that a-hole, I didn’t at the time because I was led to believe if I sued a studio my career was over just as it started. Looking back I should have sued that loser.



damn. That’s some crappy stuff.

As for the union... a few years back seems composers wanted to do the union and it was going to happened to later be struck down by a judge saying freelancers (independent contractor) couldn’t unionize or something along those lines.


----------



## Spectator

Prime, high quality television is on the up for the next 10 years and any TV channel that decides to use "ok" or "that will do" music to score their shows wont be around for 10 years anyway.


----------



## Krayh

What I dont understand is why are you all talking about a union? If I'm a producer i dont have to hire a composer that is with a union I can pick from dozens of others all over the world that are not.

So why do you think this will help? (This is an honest question)


----------



## MartinH.

BartonFink said:


> Ive had instances where my original work has been in competition with a library piece. I’m always torn by this because I’m a library writer too and my production music work pays my mortgage and then some. If you write for the big names and take library seriously it can be great work on top of custom scoring.
> 
> I have turned clients always for low balling me and always will.
> 
> But as a PSA for any composers - it’s in a similar vein but on the production music side; A friend of mine runs a large library, and a gigantic beverage brand came to him wanting to license a piece of music for a big ad. My friend quoted a $100,000 fee, to which the client responded “no, I have $10,000.” My friend showed them the door, but a week later the client phoned back with $20,000. The library again politely declined their offer. The client was irritated but told them they would “negotiate.” They offered $70,000, but again the library said their price hasn’t changed from $100k. They lost the client - but a year later the same brand were running another campaign, even bigger than the last. They came back to the library wanting to license a piece of music, and low and behold they had $100,000 for a license fee. They have Been their go to for licensing and putting together bespoke music. Their fees and backend make their composers very comfy.
> 
> On the other side of the coin, another composer I know was approached by a brand who offered him a $7,000 buyout for an ad for one of his tracks. He wasn’t quite as experienced but has been in the business for a few years. He took the buyout and a week later saw the ad and it was during the super bowl....he never heard from that client again.
> 
> Sometimes, as hard it is, it’s better to say no to the short term. It can pay off in the long term. Your integrity is extremely valuable. Clients can recognise self worth and will value something they pay good money for.
> 
> You may not be around those types of figures, but don’t be so quick to give something away or bend to the will of the guy with the check book. And please hold onto your writers share - you never know where it’s going to end up.




Thanks for sharing those stories, very interesting. 


I don't work in music and only follow this stuff from the sidelines. I'm coming from the visual side of creative work and there it's fairly unusual to even see royalties _at all_ and I've entered that line of work when this was already the case for most of us. So all these discussions are slightly surreal when I read about the royalties that some composers manage to get and I think "They get _that _much????" when some of the stuff that I made is printed on over a million of physical goods and I don't get _any_ royalties for it and never will be in a position to make it happen, because the competition is fierce and there is no willingness on the clients' side to engage in the hassle that is paying royalties longterm (which to be fair as a paperwork averse person I can relate to). In supply vs demand terms you're simply _fucked _as a creative.

So... keep fighting guys, when this is gone, it's gone for good and you'll likely never get those royalty deals back. I'm rooting for you all!


----------



## Krayh

Iswhatitis said:


> If a producer theoretically wants to be a member of the PGA and be considered for awards in the USA as well as be in theaters and tv networks/studios in the USA than just as they have to pay the minimums rates to SAG/AFTRA, AFM, IATSE, WGA and DGA they would have to pay minimums to composers too. I’m not saying people cannot get around dealing with unions, but look at how much those above mentioned unions protect their members.



I did not know this! So what is exactly holding us back to begin our own union?


----------



## BartonFink

MartinH. said:


> Thanks for sharing those stories, very interesting.
> 
> 
> I don't work in music and only follow this stuff from the sidelines. I'm coming from the visual side of creative work and there it's fairly unusual to even see royalties _at all_ and I've entered that line of work when this was already the case for most of us. So all these discussions are slightly surreal when I read about the royalties that some composers manage to get and I think "They get _that _much????" when some of the stuff that I made is printed on over a million of physical goods and I don't get _any_ royalties for it and never will be in a position to make it happen, because the competition is fierce and there is no willingness on the clients' side to engage in the hassle that is paying royalties longterm (which to be fair as a paperwork averse person I can relate to). In supply vs demand terms you're simply _fucked _as a creative.
> 
> So... keep fighting guys, when this is gone, it's gone for good and you'll likely never get those royalty deals back. I'm rooting for you all!



I came from moving image work and took me a decade to build up a portfolio and move across purely to audio. I personally think designers should definitely get a royalty and as far as I’m aware logo designers can and do if it’s negotiated?

Luckily I’m a UK based composer and work a lot here and rest of Europe. UK establishes royalties for music as a human right by law. So it’s a definite non-negotiable aspect of some of my business. However if it had to be done, I could relinquish a bit for streaming if the composing and licensing fees shot way up. They can’t have it both ways though or they’ll simply lose a gigantic piece of the creative puzzle that makes good entertainment.

Some of the royalties in music are crazy. I know one the composers who wrote in a duo for a big comparison site commercial in the UK. Together they made £9million in backend from those tv/radio campaigns over 4 or 5 years...

My catalogue isn’t even that big but $50-60k per year in backend provides me with a pretty decent passive living while I tackle other areas of the business. It won’t be the same every year and might drop off but that’s the thing the less experienced composers don’t understand - if they’re serious about this, they’d make a passive living off their output which allows them time to constantly push their skills forward and knock on doors. Royalties help you succeed, they take care of you while you work/invest in the next project or chase the next job. They play a part in your decision making and what kind of jobs you want.

These composers doing it part time for small one time fees will find it’ll take them years to break into full time. That’s why I don’t understand composers questioning the value of the royalty system. They wouldn’t think that way when they suddenly get a $10k royalty cheque from a toilet paper commercial they forgot they did last year for very little money.

Just last year a library track of mine was used as main titles for a tv show in Europe. I didn’t even know about it until my PRO emailed me my December statement which was $20k. So now I’m going to Japan for 2 weeks at the end of this month for a break. I fucking love royalties. I’m not special either, I just signed good deals and worked my ass off.


----------



## Beluga

Iswhatitis said:


> I reached out to so many people and no one would give me any advice on even the reasonable ranges of composers fees for each project I was about to get hire for. I once had a major studio exec tell me my score for their direct-to-video project sounded like a $100,000 creative fee film score 3 decades ago, which I only did with JV-1080s, and the amount they paid me was 25x less than what I should have been paid. Since the studios money is not even their money, it’s public funding from stocks and corporate bonds, there was no excuse for these producers and studio execs to not pay me reasonable composer fees, but they are disgusting people. Decades later one of these producers actually admitted to me out of no where that they could have paid me 25x what I got and lied to me over and over again years earlier when they said this was all they could afford at that time. Total scumbags and they can all rot in hell. I would never work for these losers again no matter how much they want to pay me.


Aw, man, I feel you! There are such scumbags in this business, it's a pity! Had my share of abusive behavior as well. They think they are clever by fucking over a composer (once) but it's really short-sighted, in the end they are driving the quality of their own product and market overall down.


----------



## gsilbers

so the show writers are going through a similar thing









Hollywood is again bracing for a writers' strike. Here's what's different


Major studios are once again preparing for WGA strike, but much has changed since the last walkout in 2007-2008.




www.latimes.com





there are a ton of more shows but studios wanna keep paying less and less. the writers would get back end from syndication but thats dwindling down.
streaming is changing the landscape and broadcasters and tech companies 1st thing to do is cut expenses.. like the back end.

maybe this time we could join them


----------



## Dirk Ehlert

There's hope... From Morgan

Hi everyone! Some very good news. We have been informed today by Discovery Networks that in regard to performance rights, Discovery has decided that their US channels will remain operating as is under the traditional PRO performing rights model. The PMA would like to personally thank Shawn White and everyone at Discovery for this decision. We greatly appreciate this and look forward as a community to working together with Discovery to provide their programming with the best quality music possible.
If anyone has any questions, please email them to me and I will collate them so we can get responses from Discovery and get back to you. My email is [email protected]. Thank you all for your patience, trust and commitment to this matter.


----------



## South Thames

Dirk Ehlert said:


> Hi everyone! Some very good news. We have been informed today by Discovery Networks that in regard to performance rights, Discovery has decided that their US channels will remain operating as is under the traditional PRO performing rights model. The PMA would like to personally thank Shawn White and everyone at Discovery for this decision. We greatly appreciate this and look forward as a community to working together with Discovery to provide their programming with the best quality music possible.
> If anyone has any questions, please email them to me and I will collate them so we can get responses from Discovery and get back to you. My email is [email protected]. Thank you all for your patience, trust and commitment to this matter.



Fantastic news! Thanks for posting.


----------



## Alexandre

Dirk Ehlert said:


> There's hope... From Morgan
> 
> Hi everyone! Some very good news. We have been informed today by Discovery Networks that in regard to performance rights, Discovery has decided that their US channels will remain operating as is under the traditional PRO performing rights model. The PMA would like to personally thank Shawn White and everyone at Discovery for this decision. We greatly appreciate this and look forward as a community to working together with Discovery to provide their programming with the best quality music possible.
> If anyone has any questions, please email them to me and I will collate them so we can get responses from Discovery and get back to you. My email is [email protected]. Thank you all for your patience, trust and commitment to this matter.


Thank you for letting us know Dirk! Indeed incredibly fantastic news!! And thanks to everyone who participated in this thread, whatever their views, as participation is indeed what it's all about...


----------



## erica-grace

Wondering if this is a bow to pressure. If so, good job everyone!


----------



## river angler

BartonFink said:


> Agree 100%.
> 
> To be honest I’ve never paid much attention to the forums. But having just joined this one to read the consensus on the Discovery news, it’s actually quite disheartening.
> 
> There’s a surprisingly large web of disagreements and differences in attitude that I naively thought wouldn’t exist. On top of that there are a huge amount of side gigging composers out there who have something else to do during the day anyway - it just seems near impossible to have real unity when most people don’t depend on this to pay their mortgage. Im sure they have the best intentions, though.
> 
> I was so surprised to hear there was no union when I started working in the biz almost 10 years ago and I feel like it’s almost too late for one now as Ive seen the ‘perceived value’ of composers drop year by year and is at an all time low.



It is indeed a sad state of affairs fellow composer!

However if one steps back and looks at this objectively the "music industry" has and always will be an "industry" run by non creative people. As such nothing has changed. Non creative people are only interested in numeric success- they don't give a hoot about artistic merit unless they are firmly reminded that ignoring it is detrimental to their income!

The irony is that both non creative people and us composers alike are goading software development toward AI driven composition. Company executives attitude to the music industry has never changed: they have simply seen a new way to continue there monetary "raison d'être"! Yes! one can call them greedy, money grabbing etc but they have always been this way. It is in fact the digital age itself that was the real catalyst to the likes of Discovery announcing their proposed fiscal intentions at this time.

Composers livelihoods have in fact always been hindered more by technology than corporate greed...

Before Hard Disk took over tape, from the 50s to the early 90s, the sheer cost of analogue machines needed to compose and record music precluded a lot of potentially brilliant composers from earning a living. Composition and production facilities were prohibitively expensive and if you didn't somehow manage to scrape the money together to record to the high fidelity both the A & R or TV/Film executives demanded you simply would't get a look in!

Today everyone can compose, produce and record to a high fidelity standard on digital equipment costing 1000 x less. However the digital composing/recording tools available to all are yet again blocking the composers path. The irony is these software driven tools that we all now use on our laptops are fast taking over the composers roll in his own studio to the point where it almost auto-writes music!... I vouch that in even as soon as a decades time, at least at the lower end of the industry, a lot of composers will have become monitors of AI written music where their roll to creating a composition will simply be a sequence of mouse clicks on the ubiquitous "randomiser" tab on any given VST. Digital algorithms will inevitably become more sophisticated perhaps to the point where composition can auto-adapt to the visual content! Even the engineers roll may well disappear replaced by adaptive ancillary presets fulfilling all tasks of mixing and blending frequency and sonic enhancement. Of course as we all know any robotic task needs fewer human resources to run which will again diminish a composers roll even further, if by that time one can still regard his or her roll as a "composer"!

Also all this "adaptive" music composition software is fast diluting a lot of the very music we create into generic wash. With such sonic power available to all at the flick of a switch or a key assignment it's not surprising that the likes of Discovery sensed a possible move toward AI driven music. Of course they were forgetting the very fact that without a bespoke composers creativity their programs would no longer have the same impact on sales. Indeed if Discovery are to continue putting out quality programs they will need to continue respecting the vital cog in the production of those programs that a human composer fulfils. The same goes for any other program maker that wants to sustain a healthy income.

Yes! I'm painting a depressing notion here but all the signs are there to indicate that AI could become more destructive if we as composers do not remain vigilant in the use of the abundance of modern digital tools we have at our disposal.

I'm all for unionisation and "fighting against the machine" but the question is what really is "the machine" we are fighting against?...!

Every time we all dip into this very website we are perpetuating the development of the AI machine.


----------



## Krayh

Congratulations to all who are depended on royalties, this is good news for you! Well done!


----------



## South Thames

Some more detail from Variety:









Following Outrage, Discovery Networks Backs Down on Composer Ultimatum


Discovery Networks, which last month unveiled a new business model that would have all but assured series composers a drastic income drop, has scuttled that plan in response to outrage expressed by…




variety.com







> Sources said that Discovery executives met with top composers over the past few weeks, leading to this turnaround. “I don’t think they thought it through,” one composer said. “It was an economic move by businessmen who didn’t fully understand the ramifications it could possibly have on their internal operations. It would get messy.”


----------



## river angler

South Thames said:


> Some more detail from Variety:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Following Outrage, Discovery Networks Backs Down on Composer Ultimatum
> 
> 
> Discovery Networks, which last month unveiled a new business model that would have all but assured series composers a drastic income drop, has scuttled that plan in response to outrage expressed by…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> variety.com


Well that is good news! Thanks very much for posting this! and I must say what perfect timing of this post on this very thread !!! 

As many of us have mentioned here as well as the outrageous insult to a composers livelihood I hope this outcome sets a firm example of why the human composer is essential to support and sustain the growth of quality film and TV production. Thankfully Discovery have seen the light!
I can only commend the composers who convinced Discovery what they were proposing was futile...

_Said composer Nathan Barr, a prominent voice in the Your Music Your Future campaign: “I want to acknowledge Discovery’s decision to back down. Had they pushed through, it would have strengthened a movement which is already threatening to turn the occupation of ‘composer’ into a hobby. In a time when music is being devalued in so many markets and platforms, it’s more important than ever to fight for our right as composers to make a living doing so.”_


----------

