# Hollywood Reporter: Why Danny Elfman Wants to Make Just $1 a Score



## Reid Rosefelt (Jun 17, 2017)

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/why-danny-elfman-wants-make-just-1-a-score-1013290


----------



## Desire Inspires (Jun 17, 2017)

Must be nice to only want $1 to score a film.


----------



## Replicant (Jun 17, 2017)

I'd gladly trade the rights to the score so that I could be worth a shitload of money, say "that's my music you're hearing right now!" to the person beside me in the theater at the latest summer blockbuster and drive back home in my brand-new Lexus or whatever so that I can do the same thing next week.


----------



## NoamL (Jun 17, 2017)

If you read the article he's just giving away rights to *A* piece of music he wrote so upcoming directors can use it in their indie short films without worrying about music-licensing red tape. Seems like a fun idea!


----------



## Replicant (Jun 17, 2017)

NoamL said:


> If you read the article he's just giving away rights to *A* piece of music he wrote so upcoming directors can use it in their indie short films without worrying about music-licensing red tape. Seems like a fun idea!



That's not what it says. He has a contest going on for a particular piece, yes...but

He says in the article that he "tries to do at least one $1 film every year" because he doesn't like having to license his own music to perform it live. He'll do the film for a buck, but he gets all the publishing rights.

I think most people would gladly give up those rights if it meant they got the kind of career Elfman has.


----------



## Replicant (Jun 17, 2017)

Yeah, you know what, I'm sorry for the double post, but the more I think about this the less supportive of it I am.

Why would any of these indie directors give a new, up-and-coming composer a chance when they could possibly get Elfman for just a dollar? Like I doubt he kills a _ton_ of opportunities, but especially considering he can afford those license fees, it just feels wrong to devalue his talents to a buck just so he can keep those publishing rights.

I'm sure he intends for it to be charitable, but to those not in his position who aspire to be, it's a bit of dick move, honestly.


----------



## Reid Rosefelt (Jun 17, 2017)

I think what Elfman wants is to own more of his own artistic creation. And he is eager to do one movie a year where it ends with the music publishing being in his possession. He can then perform it when he wants or put out a record. If Orchestras perform it, they pay him and not Warner Brothers.

Now he has to pay for the rights to perform his own music... 

Also, when you get paid a ton of money to create a score you have to do what the director tells you to do. When you do somebody a favor it is understood that they have to listen to your ideas. That's how it can work within the world of low-budget. 

Most of the time he needs to get paid a lot more than a dollar. But once a year works out well for him.


----------



## Replicant (Jun 17, 2017)

TigerTheFrog said:


> I think what Elfman wants is to own more of his own artistic creation. And he is eager to do one movie a year where it ends with the music publishing being in his possession. He can then perform it when he wants or put out a record. If Orchestras perform it, they pay him and not Warner Brothers.
> 
> Now he has to pay for the rights to perform his own music...
> 
> ...



All of these grievances could be solved by him simply putting out an album of his own and I can't help but suspect the licensing he'd paid could be a tax write off or he'd make that money back easily from his live performances.


----------



## Replicant (Jun 17, 2017)

mverta said:


> I think we need to check the phrase, "...get paid a ton of money to create a score..." The top actors in a film can get $30-40 million. Unless things have radically changed for the better, the top composers don't get anywhere near that, despite the fact that if we don't show up, the top actor looks like a douchebag. The truth is that even in the best of circumstances, composers are criminally underpaid relative to our contribution, and on top of that we don't own the rights? And we have to pay to play our own stuff? Well, we don't get what we deserve in life, we get what we accept. Clearly Danny is making a small change in what he'll accept.



Mike, I love you man, but I cannot, in this reality, accept that the top composers being paid enough for their networth to total in 10s of millions of dollars to be "criminally underpaid" even if the contribution they make is massive to the film. When you're dealing in the millions of dollars, especially when it comes to music (which most people don't pay a cent for these days) "underpaid" is not an acceptable term.

There is not a reasonable person alive who _wouldn't_ take what Danny gets paid, keep the rights or no, for the average Hollywood blockbuster he scores as they would be set for life pretty quickly.

Who cares if Dwayne Johnson made 20 million more, I'd go cry about it on my yacht.


----------



## mverta (Jun 18, 2017)

I guess it depends on whether or not you believe in absolute values or relative values. Like, if you have in your mind that 10 million as an absolute value is really enough, and you don't deserve or need more, then you're not "criminally underpaid" even though the film makes 2 billion. But if you see values as relative to the entirety of the thing, and you take a small percentage of what you're worth, then you're underpaid, and at a high-enough ratio, criminally so. Just different outlooks. I personally don't put a cap on what people are entitled to, and don't feel I have a right to dictate what they should get. But I'm also glad to have discovered that I don't need a gabillion dollars to be happy. Not that I can't think of a lot of great and heart-warmy things to do with it if I did.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jun 18, 2017)

Replicant said:


> Who cares if Dwayne Johnson made 20 million more, I'd go cry about it on my yacht.



Which is a mindset I can't relate to. Oh, it doesn't matter that everyone else on the job gets paid a ton more, I should be happy if they give me anything at all, after all I'm just a composer.

I don't know what it is, but to me, composers often seem to have this certain submissive and self-depreciating vein that's very easy to exploit.


----------



## Replicant (Jun 18, 2017)

mverta said:


> I guess it depends on whether or not you believe in absolute values or relative values. Like, if you have in your mind that 10 million as an absolute value is really enough, and you don't deserve or need more, then you're not "criminally underpaid" even though the film makes 2 billion. But if you see values as relative to the entirety of the thing, and you take a small percentage of what you're worth, then you're underpaid, and at a high-enough ratio, criminally so. Just different outlooks. I personally don't put a cap on what people are entitled to, and don't feel I have a right to dictate what they should get. But I'm also glad to have discovered that I don't need a gabillion dollars to be happy. Not that I can't think of a lot of great and heart-warmy things to do with it if I did.





Jimmy Hellfire said:


> Which is a mindset I can't relate to. I don't know what it is, but to me, composers often seem to have this certain submissive and self-depreciating vein that's very easy to exploit.



These composers have made more money than most people will make in a lifetime. When the difference is between 5 million and 15 million, is that really a huge difference in the quality of life you can have with that kind of money? It's simply detached from the reality most of us live.

Let me clarify by saying that I'm not against composers being paid more, certainly not, but we are talking about this in a thread based around the topic of one of the most prolific composers out there offering his talents for _one US dollar _to keep rights that he could easily do in a way that doesn't kill opportunities for new composers.

Do you think that after these guys work with Elfman for 1 dollar that they expect to pay anything more?

"My rate is X amount of dollars"

"_Well_...Danny Elfman did my last movie for a dollar."

Then, if these directors go on to big-budget movies, they'll probably still be clients of Danny's, but now they can pay a whole lot more.

I doubt it's his intention, but it's Super-Villain level genius.


----------



## mverta (Jun 18, 2017)

Replicant said:


> These composers have made more money than most people will make in a lifetime.



So? Everyone on this forum has more musical talent than most people will have in their lifetimes. We have different things; some we're born with, some we earn. Inequality is not inequity.



Replicant said:


> When the difference is between 5 million and 15 million, is that really a huge difference in the quality of life you can have with that kind of money? It's simply detached from the reality most of us live.


Actually, yes that $10m can make a huge difference depending on how you use it. Yes, it's detached from how most people live, but again, I think it's a philosophical difference we have here - my standards are my own; my aspirations are my own. They may be less or more than other people's.



Replicant said:


> Let me clarify by saying that I'm not against composers being paid more, certainly not,


Are you sure? Let's read on: they say the truth comes after the word "but."



Replicant said:


> ...but we are talking about this in a thread based around the topic of one of the most prolific composers out there offering his talents for _one US dollar _to keep rights that he could easily do in a way that doesn't kill opportunities for new composers.



Well Stephen King offers the rights to several of his stories for one dollar, and we still have writers. More to the point, though, is if you are having a discussion with a director or producer and they say, "Well Danny Elfman did my last movie for a dollar," the response is:"Then go hire Danny Elfman," and walk away from this person that you don't want to be working for in the first place. Go have a drink and celebrate dodging a bullet from someone who doesn't value you. Now you have free time and energy to go find someone who does!


----------



## Replicant (Jun 18, 2017)

mverta said:


> If you are having a discussion with a director or producer and they say, "Well Danny Elfman did my last movie for a dollar," the response is:"Then go hire Danny Elfman," and walk away from this person that you don't want to be working for in the first place. Go have a drink and celebrate dodging a bullet from someone who doesn't value you. Now you have free time and energy to go find someone who does!



I have to admit I find this reasoning curious on forums where working for free or less than you're worth is generally met with hostility by composers as something that devalues the craft and industry as a whole and creates a sense of entitlement to music among young directors.

I can't see how Danny Elfman charging a dollar in exchange for just keeping the rights isn't the pinnacle of this.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jun 18, 2017)

Replicant said:


> These composers have made more money than most people will make in a lifetime. When the difference is between 5 million and 15 million, is that really a huge difference in the quality of life you can have with that kind of money? It's simply detached from the reality most of us live.



It is. But it doesn't matter. Let's separate it from the actual amount of money or from the music. Let's just say you're working 9-5 for a company that's known to pay very good salaries. They're paying way better than the company that your neighbor works for. He's getting by fine, but your company, for whatever reason, simply pays better. Great.

Now all your co-workers are being paid great, but for some reason, you're the only one who's being paid considerably less. Still better than your neighbor, who gets by, right? You get the picture.


----------



## mverta (Jun 18, 2017)

Replicant said:


> I can't see how Danny Elfman charging a dollar in exchange for just keeping the rights isn't the pinnacle of this.



I think the answer would be, "because he's not 'charging a dollar to write music,'" he's changing how he values his rights. Again, I don't feel I have a right to tell anybody how much or little they should earn - there is no "right number," in my view; there's only your number. I did a whole podcast on this, on getting paid. But what we can't get around is our _individual_ value. If we see ourselves simply as composer units, exchangeable for one another, then I guess what Danny Elfman charges matters, because we're just another unit. But I'm not Danny Elfman, and I don't care about what he does or gets paid. I care only about what I get paid, so if you want Mike Verta, and his personal thing, you pay X. Period, end of story. And we ALL have equal ability to hold that line. In fact, it's the only line we have - the power of refusal to be taken advantage of - and it turns out to be the only way to get more anyway.


----------



## Replicant (Jun 18, 2017)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> It is. But it doesn't matter. Let's separate it from the actual amount of money or from the music. Let's just say you're working 9-5 for a company that's known to pay very good salaries. They're paying way better than the company that your neighbor works for. He's getting by fine, but your company, for whatever reason, simply pays better. Great.
> 
> Now all your co-workers are being paid great, but for some reason, you're the only one who's being paid considerably less. Still better than your neighbor, who gets by, right? You get the picture.



Why don't film composers demand a higher pay then?

Is it because the studio will just go to someone cheaper who can still deliver high quality?

If this is the problem, then how does Danny Elfman's policy on low-budget films at all help the situation rather than hinder it?



mverta said:


> I think the answer would be, "because he's not 'charging a dollar to write music," he's changing how he values his rights. Again, I don't feel I have a right to tell anybody how much or little they should earn - there is no "right number," in my view; there's only your number. I did a whole podcast on this, on getting paid. But what we can't get around is our _individual_ value. If we see ourselves simply as composer units, exchangeable for one another, then I guess what Danny Elfman charges matters. But I'm not Danny Elfman, and I don't care about what he does or gets paid. I care only about what I get paid, so if you want Mike Verta, and his personal thing, you pay X. Period, end of story. And we ALL have equal ability to hold that line. In fact, it's the only line we have - the power of refusal to be taken advantage of - and it turns out to be the only way to get more anyway.



I understand and can respect what you're saying in the "to each, his own" sort of thing, but there is still the matter of "market value" which is at the heart of the matter as I see it.

How much other people are charging and how much the market is willing to pay for it _does_ affect us all.

I can say to someone "You want Replicant, you gotta pay X amount or I walk" and that's my legal right, but if people could get Hans Zimmer for 10 bucks and the publishing rights, the reality is they're probably going to choose Hans simply because he's cheaper — _people are cheap_.

I'm faced with either lowering my prices obscenely low to compete with bigger names charging peanuts for publishing rights, or being steadfast in what I charge and losing out to someone whose simply willing to do it for less.

I must ask, since you say that composers are criminally underpaid — how is this at all helping?


----------



## mverta (Jun 18, 2017)

Again, a philosophical difference, brother. Where you say there is a "market value," I say I'm not part of the market - I'm a unique product. I set my prices, and find people who value my unique product. If I'm just part of the market, then yep you're right, I'm just going to have to bend over and take what I'm given, I guess. Or, you know join a union or find somebody else to do it for me. But I personally don't work for cheap people, because fuck that. There are 7 BILLION PEOPLE on the planet. Trust me, we can find people who value us and will pay for it. Better energy spent in my view. But the truth is, a lot of people prioritize working in a field, or a town, or for a medium, over their own value. If you "want to work in films in Hollywood," then that's your priority - you're entering a market and good luck. But if you want to be a composer making "x," and don't decide to be bound to a particular market or town, now you have the flexibility to go find your fortune elsewhere. If you are competing with Hans Zimmer, then you'd better offer something he doesn't, or offer what he does better than he does, find people who recognize the difference, and don't settle for less - or it's over before it starts. But if you've both decided that you want to work in films no matter what (now you're just a market unit) and Hans is charging $10, then yes, you're probably screwed and can jump on the whole "race to the bottom" abyss of devaluation. I think it's worth recognizing that in an interconnected world with access to peoples and markets everywhere, you can go find your money.

Why do think Hollywood is selling out to the Chinese? They're going where the money is; where their thing is valued. Yep. That's how you do it.


----------



## AdamAlake (Jun 18, 2017)

Replicant said:


> These composers have made more money than most people will make in a lifetime. When the difference is between 5 million and 15 million, is that really a huge difference in the quality of life you can have with that kind of money? It's simply detached from the reality most of us live.



Is not the life of a composer simply detached from the reality most people live in?A composer contributes to a film as much as the actors, why should they be paid less?


----------



## TheKRock (Jun 18, 2017)

I think the issue here is that as an unknown composer the only way to get recognized is by taking the jobs that pay nothing to become visible in the 'market'. I haven't heard everyone's music here on VI-C but I'm sure all of you are doing some very cool things, but if it never gets heard by a director, producer, whoever then you're still on the outside looking in. How to get in?: do the score for peanuts because now you're on the board. The film/TV/anything to do with anything world still functions in a 'working with people you know' fashion, if no one knows you its a going to be a long road getting to the door... and AdamAlake that is also a very key point.


----------



## Replicant (Jun 18, 2017)

AdamAlake said:


> Is not the life of a composer simply detached from the reality most people live in?A composer contributes to a film as much as the actors, why should they be paid less?



No. _Most_ composers aren't making enough money to live in Hollywood Hills and working on projects with budgets in the hundreds of millions. Most composers are simply offering a service, albeit a creative one, to the media industries. I know that is not the way a lot of composers want to see it, but it is the truth. Most composers who make a living at it are living lives like normal people with normal-people expenses.

It's not really on topic, but I also never said composers should be paid less; I'm not sure where people are getting this from. I'm saying that if they want to be paid more, Danny Elfman isn't helping and it's hard for me to justify saying someone is "underpaid" when they're still making _millions of dollars_ a year.

It's the ultimate wealthy-elite, first-world problem where someone can complain that millions of dollars just isn't enough. You can say "relative to..." but the reality is that the difference 20 million makes to 5 million for any person with any financial sense at all is a completely negligible gap. It's the difference between 5 more Ferrari's and an _even bigger_ house than the other guy.




TheKRock said:


> I think the issue here is that as an unknown composer the only way to get recognized is by taking the jobs that pay nothing to become visible in the 'market'. I haven't heard everyone's music here on VI-C but I'm sure all of you are doing some very cool things, but if it never gets heard by a director, producer, whoever then you're still on the outside looking in. How to get in?: do the score for peanuts because now you're on the board. The film/TV/anything to do with anything world still functions in a 'working with people you know' fashion, if no one knows you its a going to be a long road getting to the door... and AdamAlake that is also a very key point.



Exactly


----------



## sluggo (Jun 18, 2017)

Attention! I will score your movie for $.50
Take that Danny!


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 18, 2017)

im guessing having simpsons money helps as well


----------



## AlexRuger (Jun 18, 2017)

To be really clear, though: Danny only does this $1 thing on small indie movies. It's not like he's gonna be doing Justice League for $1, so I don't think that the arguments regarding millions of dollars fit here. The argument that he's competing with lower-level composers is absolutely valid--though, I'm not sure what a good solution would look like.


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 18, 2017)

AlexRuger said:


> To be really clear, though: Danny only does this $1 thing on small indie movies. It's not like he's gonna be doing Justice League for $1, so I don't think that the arguments regarding millions of dollars fit here. The argument that he's competing with lower-level composers is absolutely valid--though, I'm not sure what a good solution would look like.



for starters, get online streaming royalties and better royalties' amount .


----------



## dpasdernick (Jun 18, 2017)

Between ITunes and Spotify I think I made around $1.32 last year. This coupled with the 18 cents I made on CD Baby pushes me well past Mr. Elfman's last film. Does that make me an "A" lister?


----------



## mverta (Jun 18, 2017)

Replicant said:


> I'm saying that if they want to be paid more, Danny Elfman isn't helping and it's hard for me to justify saying someone is "underpaid" when they're still making _millions of dollars_ a year. he reality is that the difference 20 million makes to 5 million for any person with any financial sense at all is a completely negligible gap.



I'm a working composer and Danny Elfman has no effect on my income. I work for people who pay what I've decided I'm worth. I've been doing this for 30 years, and this affords me the luxury of offering Masterclasses for impulse-buy money. As for there being no difference between 5 and 20 million dollars, my advice is go make $5 million and then let's revisit. (Spoilers: There is a universe of difference between 5 and 20.) If we don't value ourselves, others will not value us either. If we see ourselves as merely subject to the wills of others, we will be. If we've predetermined that our lives will be whatever other forces or people decide to grace us with, then we've willfully surrendered power we actually have.

I have watched this desperate, sad approach to artistic life permeate not just the music culture, but visual effects as well. Now most places in town have shuttered. It's always the same mantra: I have no power, and can't do anything but continue to devalue myself. It breaks my heart because it's not in any way true or necessary; we just do not condition ourselves to recognize our power and have the courage to exercise it. But considering how many places in life remind us of our powerlessness, I guess it's understandable. Don't like your phone service? Fuck you. Hey, we're raising your bank fees, or changing your services. Don't like it? Fuck you. Hey, gas is $5. Good luck figuring out who to complain to. And so we cast ourselves to the winds of a billion things - the "market," the "way things are," resigned to our fate. Soon the constant defeat turns to rationalization: I didn't want the money anyway; nobody needs that much. I'll happily take what scraps I'm gifted.

If there's one thing I drilled into my boy's head with his please-and-thank-yous it's to be great at what he does, and remember he'll never get what he deserves, only what he accepts. Accept less than we're worth? Fine, but then we lose our right to complain, or decry those who had more courage. We may not earn millions; we may not need millions, but we'll only ever get what we demand. Value ourselves, and find those who value us. Do that, and you can even have a Ferrari if you want. I would recommend, however, that you don't buy the Ferrari if you only have $5 million, because you basically have to have a mechanic on staff, and when you first get into 7 digits, a Ferrari isn't the only thing you're going to splurge on. Trust me.


----------



## AlexRuger (Jun 18, 2017)

Great post, Mike. 

I was talking to an animator friend of mine about this--how artists seem to be in a never-ending race to the bottom, never standing up for themselves out of fear of losing a gig, etc. From what he was telling me, it's exactly the same in animation as it is in scoring and VFX.

He has simply moved on and is producing animated content as opposed to animating it himself, because he realized that even if *he* decides to not accept X, loads and loads of others will, so his resistance means nothing. Either everyone does it, or no one does (hence the argument for unions). He realized that without everyone working together, his effort would mean nothing, and thus he'd be stuck in the same shit forever, being dragged down by everyone else. Unfortunately, I don't see any holes in his viewpoint.


----------



## mverta (Jun 18, 2017)

Well sure, because a lot of us prioritize working in a field over making what we're worth. It's like a lawyer saying, "I want to practice law, but I only want to do cases involving toaster accidents." Okay, then I guess you're going to get whatever the "toaster accident" market is serving up, opportunity and fees-wise. But if the lawyer says, "I want to practice law, I'm flexible and I'm good at it," now he can put up his $600/hr bill and find the clients and cases that'll pay it. Which they do, incidentally. If you've decided you have to work in film, and film is paying composers $.30 a year, then yep, good luck. If you want to make a living writing music, look more and elsewhere. Have Piano Will Travel. Diversify. Make your fortune and then if you want, why you can do a film for $1 just to do a film and enjoy having all the rights. Freedom is choice. And money buys a better brand of misery.


----------



## Replicant (Jun 18, 2017)

mverta said:


> I'm a working composer and Danny Elfman has no effect on my income. I work for people who pay what I've decided I'm worth. I've been doing this for 30 years, and this affords me the luxury of offering Masterclasses for impulse-buy money. As for there being no difference between 5 and 20 million dollars, my advice is go make $5 million and then let's revisit. (Spoilers: There is a universe of difference between 5 and 20.) If we don't value ourselves, others will not value us either. If we see ourselves as merely subject to the wills of others, we will be. If we've predetermined that our lives will be whatever other forces or people decide to grace us with, then we've willfully surrendered power we actually have.
> 
> I have watched this desperate, sad approach to artistic life permeate not just the music culture, but visual effects as well. Now most places in town have shuttered. It's always the same mantra: I have no power, and can't do anything but continue to devalue myself. It breaks my heart because it's not in any way true or necessary; we just do not condition ourselves to recognize our power and have the courage to exercise it. But considering how many places in life remind us of our powerlessness, I guess it's understandable. Don't like your phone service? Fuck you. Hey, we're raising your bank fees, or changing your services. Don't like it? Fuck you. Hey, gas is $5. Good luck figuring out who to complain to. And so we cast ourselves to the winds of a billion things - the "market," the "way things are," resigned to our fate. Soon the constant defeat turns to rationalization: I didn't want the money anyway; nobody needs that much. I'll happily take what scraps I'm gifted.
> 
> If there's one thing I drilled into my boy's head with his please-and-thank-yous it's to be great at what he does, and remember he'll never get what he deserves, only what he accepts. Accept less than we're worth? Fine, but then we lose our right to complain, or decry those who had more courage. We may not earn millions; we may not need millions, but we'll only ever get what we demand. Value ourselves, and find those who value us. Do that, and you can even have a Ferrari if you want. I would recommend, however, that you don't buy the Ferrari if you only have $5 million, because you basically have to have a mechanic on staff, and when you first get into 7 digits, a Ferrari isn't the only thing you're going to splurge on. Trust me.



Just because Elfman does not affect you or I, does not mean that this kind of thing doesn't affect _others_, though. You have a name with serious cred, a 30-year career and returning clients.

Out there are some great up-and-coming composers who could've worked on some cool indie-films, but instead Danny Elfman, who scores some of the most historic franchises in film, opted to do it for nothing but a buck and publishing rights. _That's a very good deal — _a deal that no indie-composer could beat and it's one that will keep the directors coming back.

It's like when WalMart comes in, offers a selection and prices local businesses can't hope to compete with. The businesses can say "fuck you" to the people who'd rather go to WalMart if they want and argue they offer a better/unique product, but it doesn't change the fact that business will probably be closing its doors soon.

We can pretend we're special and removed from competition for new clients, but we aren't simply by virtue of offering a paid service in a field whether other people do too. 

The free market favours those who offer the highest quality work at the lowest possible price. As I recall, @dannthr shared a story some years ago about how he made this demo for a game developer who was considering hiring him. Dan named his price and the guy just shopped his demo around until he found someone who would do it for free. 

That kind of thing takes away an opportunity for someone, somewhere.

I respect your opinion on this Mike, but I still don't follow on how you are at once endorsing accepting no less than what we're worth or we won't be valued and say that composers are criminally underpaid, but also support Danny's decision to offer his talents for $1 — he's worth more than that.


----------



## JJP (Jun 18, 2017)

There’s another aspect to this that is a bit problematic. Stick with me here, because this is a little long.

A few years ago I had someone from Elfman’s agency use charging lower rates, and specifically use Elfman doing this on a recent project as an example, as an argument that session musicians should agree to work for less than they currently do.

The insidious argument was that Elfman has the freedom to ask whatever fee he wants — even less than what it costs him to do the job — but the LA session musicians, because of their union, supposedly didn’t have the freedom to make the same decision. This person tried to frame the the argument as: if only the musicians could agree to work for less money and a complete buyout, there would suddenly be all these projects flooding back to Hollywood musicians like the good ol’ days.

I pointed out that there were three problems here:
1. The musicians could potentially be working more but making the same or less money overall. That was of no benefit to the musicians or their families.
2. None of the musicians have Elfman’s financial cushion to absorb the costs and lost income.
3. Elfman could collect royalties from his work, but the agent was saying the musicians should agree to no residuals.

The person had no decent answer to this. Instead the person stuck to (actually shouted) an argument that this was about their “right to do the work they want”. If musicians were offered a project at these rates, they should be able to take it. The person also said that this is what the film studios and producers wanted. This person insisted that they knew this because they talked to producers and knew what was in their heads. As I pressed more, it appeared the frustration was that Elfman had agreed to work on the project for nothing, but they couldn’t fill a big studio with Hollywood musicians who were willing to do the same. That seemed to be frustrating this agency person greatly. (Important note: this was a for-profit film.)

*This isn’t to start a union/non-union or runaway scoring discussion.* I think I understand Elfman’s rationale. I don’t believe he’s trying undercut anyone. I’d be willing to bet he’s actually trying to make a point about artists’ ownership of music as well. I’d also bet his agent is using this to increase publicity.

My point is that there is some ignorance in claiming that this type of stunt doesn’t have a wider impact. It does put pressure on wages in other parts of the industry, even beyond composers.

If Elfman wants to do this, fine. I note that he has also set some conditions to make this somewhat of a special case. However, the concern is legitimate that this will be used as leverage against other composers and musicians who work in film and TV. In the case I described that pressure came directly from within Elfman’s circle. Therefore it is incumbent on the rest of us to be aware of what is going on and find ways to avoid succumbing to the additional pressure that this stunt creates. It’s unfortunate, but that’s the reality. The fallout lands on the rest of us.


----------



## kurtvanzo (Jun 18, 2017)

Coming from an Animation, sound, music background I agree with you Mike, unfortunately making decent money in any part of the music world has become difficult (unless you lucked out by scoring something that goes on forever, like the Simpson titles). As many producers in LA will tell you, it becomes about owning rights. And when artists finally figure out what their real value is (like actors did) they will start realizing they need to start focusing their attention (and the attention of some very good lawyers) to the back end and not be as concerned about what the pay is up front. That is partically why Elfman is doing what he is, not just to perform his own music without paying for it, but to start monitizing what he does with it beyond the life of the film. I think he's witnessed how much the studios make conitinually over the years off his music, and he want's to own that future.

And btw, actors no longer make 30-40M a film, even 10-20M is unusual. Nowadays they've figured out it's better to take a lower up front fee (maybe 5-10M) and get a producing credit with a chunck of the gross. That way when the studio makes big bucks, so do they. Many top actors make mutiples more that what they use to on a film, they just have to wait a bit longer to get it.

I agree artists need to value themselves more (including the set art department that have always gotten crap) and work harder at finding people that value them as much as they value themselves. Perhaps then the industry can start to wake up to the fact that it's creatives that make these businesses work, not money and more high paid executives. Even top composers are starting to get less and less up front (try <1M) but they should be smart enough to negotiate more back end or keeping the rights for themselves. Because regardless of the past, actors should be teaching us that everything in Hollywood (and the music business as a whole) is negotiable.


----------



## Replicant (Jun 18, 2017)

JJP said:


> There’s another aspect to this that is a bit problematic. Stick with me here, because this is a little long.
> 
> A few years ago I had someone from Elfman’s agency use charging lower rates, and specifically use Elfman doing this on a recent project as an example, as an argument that session musicians should agree to work for less than they currently do.
> 
> ...



Damn, that it is some cool insight.

Thanks for sharing!


----------



## NoamL (Jun 18, 2017)

I re-read the article. Unless I further misunderstood, I think both @AlexRuger and @mverta have it right. The key point to this discussion is that Danny is _*Licensing a piece of music he wrote*_ for $1. Not _*Offering to score a film*_ for $1. 

Fellows I'm not worried about missing out on a gig with a director whose first thought with regards to scoring is "Where can I find some good music to license?" Those directors are not ready yet to benefit from collaborating creatively with a composer and they may never be. Which is fine! When they start doing projects that are higher budget and when they develop sufficient artistic sensibilities to see that every project needs a thoughtful, unique score, then they will come into the market.

Until that time, there's no harm in Danny giving away his ballet.

My opinion would be very, very different if Danny were offering to do an end-to-end custom score for several indie/student short films a year for free. Then indeed he would be "poaching" work that should be going to up and coming composers developing relationships with up and coming directors.


----------



## AdamAlake (Jun 18, 2017)

Replicant said:


> Just because Elfman does not affect you or I, does not mean that this kind of thing doesn't affect _others_, though. You have a name with serious cred, a 30-year career and returning clients.



He did not buy that at the corner store though.


----------



## Replicant (Jun 18, 2017)

NoamL said:


> I re-read the article. Unless I further misunderstood, I think both @AlexRuger and @mverta have it right. The key point to this discussion is that Danny is _*Licensing a piece of music he wrote*_ for $1. Not _*Offering to score a film*_ for $1.



He _*is*_

Paragraph 4, sentence 2:

• "says Elfman, *who has been spending more time working on low budget films, for which he collects just a $1 fee*."

Paragraph 5

• "*Every year*, *I* try to *do at least one $1 film*. On *those films*, I do own the publishing. Obviously, *if they’re only paying me a dollar* I gotta get something," *he says with a laugh*.


Where your confusion is coming in is that the article starts by referencing a contest he is currently doing:

Paragraph 2, sentence 2

• All six movements from Elfman's 2008 "Rabbit and Rogue" ballet are available for filmmakers to use in their short films — with no licensing fees or red tape.

You can get the music from this movie to use in your film and he has a contest going on with that, but he *does* work on low-budget films for a dollar.


----------



## NoamL (Jun 18, 2017)

I see. Yeah, I don't think that's good.


----------



## jononotbono (Jun 18, 2017)

mverta said:


> If you've decided you have to work in film, and film is paying composers $.30 a year, then yep, good luck. If you want to make a living writing music, look more and elsewhere. Have Piano Will Travel. Diversify. Make your fortune and then if you want, why you can do a film for $1 just to do a film and enjoy having all the rights. Freedom is choice. And money buys a better brand of misery.



Now this is a fantastic post. Completely honest. Thanks Mike.

In regards to Danny Elfman doing Cue's for $1 well, perhaps he does it thinking "This is going to help out this aspiring Director having my name on it"? Or maybe he just wants to do it? Or maybe he's diversifying and thinking, "If these indie films have my name on it, they will do well and garner interest and as I own my publishing on them I might actually be setting myself up with a nice earner." I know, tin foil hat time or what. Either way, I completely agree with Mike when he says composers are criminally underpaid.

I just refused to do a 16 minute short because the budget was "We have £40 for the music budget". I laughed, and not to get too into this as it will likely bore most people, but said "£40? For writing 16 minutes of music? It's a 16 minute short without any dialogue. So in essence my music and sound design is going to tell the story. And let's not forget the time it will take to create the Sound Design and record the SFX/Foley. Then you want me to Mix and Produce it?! You'll need idents and credit music as well right? £40? Is this a joke? I love a good laugh but I'm afraid this isn't going to cut it. That won't even pay for my electricity to do this in the time it will take to complete." He looked flabbergasted that I was turning down such a "fair payment". Since then I have never done anything for him. He certainly isn't my target market and never will be. So yes, I think composers are "Criminally Underpaid" but I think it's due to them being Criminally Undervalued (not to get on a high horse about the importance of music etc).

Danny for a $1 Cue? Fair enough, he can afford it, and he owes the world nothing and the world owes him nothing (just like everyone else) so perhaps he just wants to write music with some people he chooses too? Sadly I don't have a crystal ball to know the reasoning behind that.


----------



## Replicant (Jun 18, 2017)

You cannot argue that composers are criminally underpaid, that they're horribly undervalued, that you'd refuse X amount of dollars for X amount of minutes of music because it devalues you, but then support a composer like _Danny Elfman_ doing entire indie scores for a dollar because "he can afford it".

Yeah, he can afford it, but as JJP so succinctly explained, the rest of the industry, as a whole — cannot, but they suffer the fallout anyway.

On another forum, there was this guy whom I always accused of being a conspiracy theorist for saying that he felt established composers discouraged newbies from taking gigs for free or cheap under the guise of "devaluing the industry" as a means of eliminating competition. That's probably NOT Elfman's intention, but it _is_ a consequence.

However, this thread has been a bit of an eye-opening experience for me, as despite the general attitude towards such charitable actions being one of disdain and concern in threads on the same subject, the sum of this thread and the others appears to be "It's only bad for the industry if it's not a top-dog composer doing it." 

Perhaps I owe that guy an apology.


----------



## jononotbono (Jun 18, 2017)

Replicant said:


> You cannot argue that composers are criminally underpaid, that they're horribly undervalued, that you'd refuse X amount of dollars for X amount of minutes of music because it devalues you, but then support a composer like _Danny Elfman_ doing entire indie scores for a dollar because "he can afford it".



Yes I can. I just did. People can do what they want. People can choose not to work for a pittance or they can. I had to refuse the whole whopping £40 because it wasn't enough to even power my studio to get the work done regardless of whether I thought it undervalued me. It was a completely undervalued budget. In terms of what they expected, what could physically be created, and mostly it shows how they undervalue their whole film. So yes, I can argue that they are criminally undervalued and underpaid. We obviously have different opinions and that's fine obviously.


Perhaps the cues Danny does for $1 far exceed any other form of payment just by having his name (and music) on someone's film? As soon as anyone say's, "Yes, we have Danny Elfman working with us" then that is a huge thing. Who know's what it would lead to. That exhausting thing non musicians do and say "But it's good exposure". "Come and play for free. It will be excellent exposure!" What? Playing at 3am in a local toilet with no audience? Or in the VIP Campsite of the Isle of Wight Festival at same time as the headliner? No thanks. Did all of that stuff many years ago. What Danny is doing, could very well be the opposite of that. Actual exposure. Of course, like I have just said, I don't have the answers and nor do I know his reasoning behind his actions but people can choose whatever that want to do. 

Danny Elfman isn't undervalued. He is choosing to do this. I am pretty sure anybody that wants a Danny Elfman score goes to him. What he does doesn't affect me at all. I don't write music like him. Nobody is ever going to come up to me and say, "We would like you to do a Danny Elfman score". And as for the whole Industry being harmed, really? I think we are well and truly past that point. We are actually, in my opinion, at the point where there is just as much opportunity as there is threat. The internet is a many headed monster and for another topic but there has been no bigger harm (and no bigger rise in opportunity) to the creative industry than the internet. Not someone writing a cue for $1 (not to undervalue his music, I love his work). Each to their own man. Which is exactly my point.


----------



## Replicant (Jun 18, 2017)

jononotbono said:


> Yes I can. I just did. People can do what they want. People can choose not to work for a pittance or they can. I had to refuse the whole whopping £40 because it wasn't enough to even power my studio to get the work done regardless of whether I thought it undervalued me. It was a completely undervalued budget. In terms of what they expected, what could physically be created, and mostly it shows how they undervalue their whole film. So yes, I can argue that they are criminally undervalued and underpaid. We obviously have different opinions and that's fine obviously.
> 
> 
> Perhaps the cues Danny does for $1 far exceed any other form of payment just by having his name (and music) on someone's film? As soon as anyone say's, "Yes, we have Danny Elfman working with us" then that is a huge thing. Who know's what it would lead to. That exhausting thing non musicians do and say "But it's good exposure". "Come and play for free. It will be excellent exposure!" What? Playing at 3am in a local toilet with no audience? Or in the VIP Campsite of the Isle of Wight Festival at same time as the headliner? No thanks. Did all of that stuff many years ago. What Danny is doing, could very well be the opposite of that. Actual exposure. Of course, like I have just said, I don't have the answers and nor do I know his reasoning behind his actions but people can choose whatever that want to do.
> ...



Yes, to each their own — unfortunately though, each of us does not exist in a bubble. Especially at Elfman's status, actions like this have real consequences, which have been explained. Maybe not for you, maybe not for me, but they do for some people and I don't think it's right to either pretend it doesn't or take the "fuck 'em" attitude to them because you wouldn't if _you_ were the collateral instead.

This argument that's going on in this thread is best summarized as follows:

• "Composers, even if they're being paid millions, are horribly underpaid and as such, undervalued."

• Danny Elfman takes indie jobs for only a dollar, the pinnacle of underpaid, and "oh well that's his choice and he isn't undermining his work".

Point 2 is in direct contradiction to the first point — you can't have it both ways.

I just want everyone in this thread who sides with Elfman to remember their opinion here the next time someone is posting a thread about "Should I work for free?" because the freedom of "choice" is generally met with hostility when it's the choice of someone who isn't a celebrity composer.


----------



## jononotbono (Jun 19, 2017)

Replicant said:


> I just want everyone in this thread who sides with Elfman to remember their opinion here the next time someone is posting a thread about "Should I work for free?" because the freedom of "choice" is generally met with hostility when it's the choice of someone who isn't a celebrity composer.



There are far too many variables and possibilities of different audio work in media to discuss all of this in a post but anyone that chooses to aim high, you know, to be in the world of Blockbuster movies like the one's Elfman typically works on needs to get experience and this often means doing things for free. Why is it somebody with no experience thinks they should be able to just walk on in and start working on the next Star Wars, or "Insert any Tim Burton film here" movie with an insane budget and so much pressure and high risk? So yes, people have to work for free in specific cases until they are experienced enough. I don't get the whole "I must be paid but I can't do the job I haven't started yet. But I'm worth something. Despite being completely unqualified in any form of experience". Earn money doing the job you can do and do the free stuff on the side? Then, at a specific point start saying no. Everybody starts somewhere. Usually at the bottom. 

I can personally see both sides of this and think the value of Elfman, on somebody's unknown film is far greater than some coin. I also think working for free sucks but hey the world was never fair and hopefully when people put their time in, work hard enough and never give up, they can/might reap the rewards of so much hard work. But then again nothing may happen and that's how much of a dirty plastic hallway this industry is huh! Anyway, instead of procrastinating in my sweltering studio, I had best get on with today's music!


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 19, 2017)

So will Elfman then return all former proceeds to help fund a symposium of composers striving to make a living?
Awesome....
He can slug it out on the touring circuit with an Oingo Boingo tribute and open for the Pink Floyd Tributes.


----------



## AdamAlake (Jun 19, 2017)

Replicant said:


> Yes, to each their own — unfortunately though, each of us does not exist in a bubble. Especially at Elfman's status, actions like this have real consequences, which have been explained. Maybe not for you, maybe not for me, but they do for some people and I don't think it's right to either pretend it doesn't or take the "fuck 'em" attitude to them because you wouldn't if _you_ were the collateral instead.
> 
> This argument that's going on in this thread is best summarized as follows:
> 
> ...



Elfman does ONE gig like that a YEAR. If you are trying to argue that any composer will be undervalued because the director could hire Elfman instead, you need to rethink your logic there, pal.


----------



## Replicant (Jun 19, 2017)

AdamAlake said:


> Elfman does ONE gig like that a YEAR. If you are trying to argue that any composer will be undervalued because the director could hire Elfman instead, you need to rethink your logic there, pal.



Before I go, let me clarify all of my points regarding this topic:

• The argument that composers are underpaid and they're underpaid because it's what they _accept _and that to rectify this problem, you must accept what you're worth is _undermined_ by also supporting big name composers _accepting_ work for ostensibly nothing simply because you don't believe it affects you on a micro level. Well, such practices _do_ affect you in the big picture whether you want to believe it or not — I guarantee you that every potential client is comparing you against cheaper alternatives. Maybe not Danny Elfman, but someone else they can get.

• The idea that film composers, who still earn millions of dollars for their work on films are "criminally underpaid" because actors make more, to speak frankly: is absolutely ridiculous.

I think that Brian Tyler's score for "The Mummy" is his best work yet. It can easily take hours to compose, orchestrate and mockup just a minute of music and then go and conduct it all; he absolutely deserves high pay.

But if you really expect me to believe that he deserves _just as much pay_ as Tom Cruise, Co & Crew. who spent weeks or months traveling the world, getting up in the morning to run from explosions and jump off of buildings in the sweltering Namibian heat, spent six hours most days getting painted head to toe in makeup, spent two days and 64 takes doing a zero gravity stunt that made most of the crew sick and _nearly_ saw Annabelle Wallis _hanged to death_, and spend weeks or months afterward traveling the world to actively promote the movie, etc...well, I'm sorry but I dare say they _do_ deserve the higher paycheck!

• Lastly, it's not that Elfman doing one or two cheap indie-films here or there totally kills the industry, but it is dishonest to suggest this does not have real collateral damage that is completely unnecessary to his goal of having music to perform live without licensing it. It's just that new composers are not awarded the same pass Elfman is getting in this thread despite a key difference being that newbs _aren't_ actually having any real impact by working on projects that don't profit anyway — the community needs to be aware of and held accountable for this double standard.


----------



## AdamAlake (Jun 19, 2017)

Replicant said:


> Before I go, let me clarify all of my points regarding this topic:
> 
> • The argument that composers are underpaid and they're underpaid because it's what they _accept _and that to rectify this problem, you must accept what you're worth is _undermined_ by also supporting big name composers _accepting_ work for ostensibly nothing simply because you don't believe it affects you on a micro level.



One composer. One gig. A year.



Replicant said:


> • The idea that film composers, who still earn millions of dollars for their work on films are "criminally underpaid" because actors make more, to speak frankly: is absolutely ridiculous.



To you.



Replicant said:


> I think that Brian Tyler's score for "The Mummy" is his best work yet. It can easily take hours to compose, orchestrate and mockup just a minute of music and then go and conduct it all; he absolutely deserves high pay.
> 
> But if you really expect me to believe that he deserves _just as much pay_ as Tom Cruise, Co & Crew. who spent weeks or months traveling the world, getting up in the morning to run from explosions and jump off of buildings in the sweltering Namibian heat, spent six hours most days getting painted head to toe in makeup, spent two days and 64 takes doing a zero gravity stunt that made most of the crew sick and _nearly_ saw Annabelle Wallis _hanged to death_, and spend weeks or months afterward traveling the world to actively promote the movie, etc...well, I'm sorry but I dare say they _do_ deserve the higher paycheck!



By that logic, coal miners should have the highest pay in the world.



Replicant said:


> • Lastly, it's not that Elfman doing one or two cheap indie-films here or there totally kills the industry, but it is dishonest to suggest this does not have real collateral damage that is completely unnecessary to his goal of having music to perform live without licensing it. It's just that new composers are not awarded the same pass Elfman is getting in this thread despite a key difference being that newbs _aren't_ actually having any real impact by working on projects that don't profit anyway — the community needs to be aware of and held accountable for this double standard.



He believes it is necessary and unless you are him, you have no business saying it is not so.

I would like you to elaborate in detail what this collateral damage of Elfman doing this once a year is exactly.


----------

