# $150.00 for 4 hours of composition: Professional LA work. LOL



## requiem_aeternam7 (Feb 25, 2010)

this is what an LA production co. is paying for a composer fee for some TV show. But hey they also offer credit and inclusion in press releases. Wow, I guess that makes the $150 I'll spend on groceries all the more worth while.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Feb 25, 2010)

requiem_aeternam7 @ Thu Feb 25 said:


> this is what an LA production co. is paying for a composer fee for some TV show. But hey they also offer credit and inclusion in press releases. Wow, I guess that makes the $150 I'll spend on groceries all the more worth while.



What about royalties?


----------



## lux (Feb 25, 2010)

it means 3000usd/months working four hours a day excluding saturdays and sundays.

link please?


----------



## Ian Livingstone (Feb 25, 2010)

for half a days work or for 240mins of completed music?! big difference although both shite!


----------



## lux (Feb 25, 2010)

you guys say that 3000 dollars for half day work is shit? Do i live in such a poor environement to think it as a pretty good situation?

Reading posts on vicontrol sometimes i feel i'm probably an idiot or i just lack any talent at all.


----------



## Ian Livingstone (Feb 25, 2010)

lux @ Thu Feb 25 said:


> you guys say that 3000 dollars for half day work is shit? Do i live in such a poor environement to think it as a pretty good situation?
> 
> Reading posts on vicontrol sometimes i feel i'm probably an idiot or i just lack any talent at all.



sorry Lux think that got lost in translation - I think he means 240mins of music for $150 - would take alot longer than 4hrs to write


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Feb 25, 2010)

> you guys say that 3000 dollars for half day work is [email protected]#t? Do i live in such a poor environement to think it as a pretty good situation?



Freelancing is not consistent.

And 150 dollars for either is too low, unless it's orchestration which at that point it can be hourly.

But still...are there royalties? Because if there are, it changes things.


----------



## lux (Feb 25, 2010)

Ian Livingstone @ Thu Feb 25 said:


> lux @ Thu Feb 25 said:
> 
> 
> > you guys say that 3000 dollars for half day work is [email protected]#t? Do i live in such a poor environement to think it as a pretty good situation?
> ...



hmm, i think its just impossibly low, even the cheaper library pays hundred times this amount. I think its referred to 4 hours of work. But worths asking to the OP.

Of course if its 240 mins for 150 bucks just ignore all my previous posts


----------



## snowleopard (Feb 25, 2010)

midphase @ Thu Feb 25 said:


> I'm pretty sure he means that they'll pay $150 for 240 minutes of composed music.



That's how I read it.


----------



## Brian Ralston (Feb 25, 2010)

When anyone these days can buy a Grammy Award winning, amazingly produced track/song from iTunes or Amazon.com for $0.99-$1.29 these days...I am sure this plays a big part in "resetting" the value of our commissioned compositions and why many people now think music composed for their films/shows/projects should cost roughly the same on a per "finished minute" basis. 

:roll:


----------



## mf (Feb 25, 2010)

Yes but you know very well that it's not the SONG that costs 99 cents. You pay that money for the right to play that recording within certain, limited, conditions. It's a license. If you want that song in your film, you buy another license, more expensive. And if you want to commission a piece of new music, the price is of course bigger. But, again, that price doesn't refer to the music itself, it's not the price of the piece but for playing it. People must understand that they don't own and they don't buy music - only the right to play it.

Music is neither cheap nor expensive. It's priceless. In every sense of the word. It's simply not for sale. Can't buy it.


----------



## C M Dess (Feb 25, 2010)

Thank god for apple loops! :mrgreen:


----------



## Brian Ralston (Feb 25, 2010)

mf @ Thu Feb 25 said:


> Yes but you know very well that it's not the SONG that costs 99 cents. You pay that money for the right to play that recording within certain, limited, conditions. It's a license. If you want that song in your film, you buy another license, more expensive. And if you want to commission a piece of new music, the price is of course bigger. But, again, that price doesn't refer to the music itself, it's not the price of the piece but for playing it. People must understand that they don't own and they don't buy music - only the right to play it.
> 
> Music is neither cheap nor expensive. It's priceless. In every sense of the word. It's simply not for sale. Can't buy it.



Exactly the point! Just well said from the other side/perspective. This is what they (the masses) do not at all comprehend. In general.


----------



## lux (Feb 25, 2010)

Brian Ralston @ Thu Feb 25 said:


> When anyone these days can buy a Grammy Award winning, amazingly produced track/song from iTunes or Amazon.com for $0.99-$1.29 these days...I am sure this plays a big part in "resetting" the value of our commissioned compositions and why many people now think music composed for their films/shows/projects should cost roughly the same on a per "finished minute" basis.
> 
> :roll:



but, hasnt this always been? on average an album contains ten songs till the sixties and doing the math its not so far from what we paid in the past for an album in stores (at least i paid similar amounts) before prices went hell.

Just the song can be disjointed (a bit of loss honestly as concept albums have been such a massive amount of art in the past) so the prices look like that. But in general i think we're close price wise to what it was in the golden age of music market (the billions copies era)

Licensing is another matter. I can download a song for 1.25 but of course i cant use that same song on my tv show for the same amount.

Still, prices are low of course those days, so low, but i honestly dont think it has to do with itunes costs. Just my impression.


----------



## germancomponist (Feb 25, 2010)

Some weeks ago a company asked me to do a cover from a well known popsong. They wanted to pay me 150.- €. 

I said no and they said: "No problem for us, we know people who will do it for 150.- €." I asked them about the quality and they said: "Today people no longer remember the quality anyway."

Sure, they are wrong. But, as I asked in another thread: What will happen in 2020?


----------



## lux (Feb 25, 2010)

i'll shoot that:

are we SURE that we all deserve to be paid that much?

100% of the posts i read here are complains about how few bucks people are paid for the job, but i never see any quality-related discussion.

Most members (not to say all) post with the assuption that their work worths a different price treatment. On a mere statistically point of view this is simple impossible.

So, applying some stupid math, i have to guess a good percentage of posters deserve less of what they actually get, another portion are probably ok with the price and the rest is really undervalued. The fact everyone is complaining always rings some bell in my head.

A good song deserve a good price, an average song deserve an average price, a crappy song deserve a crappy price.

Is vicontrol just fullfilled with the first category of authors/players? Really?

Of course i'm putting myself in the math and speaking in general.


----------



## IvanP (Feb 26, 2010)

Good points, Luca


----------



## Lex (Feb 26, 2010)

lux @ Fri Feb 26 said:


> i'll shoot that:
> 
> are we SURE that we all deserve to be paid that much?
> 
> ...



Very good point Luca....but honestly you expect people to go "..yes I make crappy music for bottom feeding prices.."..??

Or another case which is also present..."..I make crap music but get high fees just because I network like a hooker on a bachelor party.." ???

 :twisted: :mrgreen:


----------



## lux (Feb 26, 2010)

you have a point as well Alex


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Feb 26, 2010)

> A good song deserve a good price, an average song deserve an average price, a crappy song deserve a crappy price.



No. Payment for services should not be based on the quality of work. It's a service. Your job is to provide the best product you can. If the client thinks that's crappy or you aren't the person for the job, they should look elsewhere, not pay you less.


----------



## lux (Feb 26, 2010)

i disagree on that. Its not a service. Its an artistical content.

It doesnt have a delivering standard as services. Paraoxally, If it had it, then it would be cloning, and no more an artistical qualified activity.

Its exactly its inner nature of an (artistically) quality based activity that makes every performance different from another. This is expecially more evident when it comes to composition.

A session player, who's requested to follow the staves at their best, probably offers a service. And this is somehow disputable too.

But a composer is not a car washing service. The quality of the provided work makes the difference. 

A cheap quality and cheaply paid composition can have its usage too. As much as stuff created by the most amazing and gifted minds. And paid a truckload of moneyò›   ÆñŸ›   Æñ ›   Æñ¡›   Æñ¢›   Æñ£›   Æñ¤›   Æñ¥›   Æñ¦›   Æñ§›   Æñ¨›   Æñ©›   Æñª›   Æñ«›   Æñ¬›   Æñ­›   Æñ®›   Æñ¯›   Æñ°›   Æñ±›   Æñ²›   Æñ³›   Æñ´›   Æñµ›   Æñ¶›   Æñ·›   Æñ¸›   Æñ¹›   Æñº›


----------



## snowleopard (Feb 26, 2010)

As a reflection on what Luca's posts; I think we've seen this across the entire labor spectrum over the last few decades, haven't we? I mean, construction workers to teachers to maintenance workers probably 90% of jobs out there do fairly similar work that they did in 1980, but are paid less. No? 

Working musicians have perhaps taken a bigger hit because the pool is larger, while the outlet hasn't grown at quite the same amount. 

Medicine on the other hand has grown, as the population ages, more people only have "ER coverage", insurance premiums go up, etc.


----------



## mf (Feb 26, 2010)

In my experience, no such things as underpaid or overpaid gigs. It's all about supply and demand combined with negotiation power based on perceived value and on who can afford to turn down the deal.


----------



## Ed (Feb 27, 2010)

I see it this way...

Music is just another commodity you are trading, there's no difference especially economically. In business you have to stop thinking of music as art and think about it it terms of a product. Just imagine you are providing something boring like wood shelving. A company providing wood shelving might say that that price is too low since they have to get the wood from somewhere and have to use labour and money to provide it so its not worth it. Equally, you have artistic inspiration and you have the time it takes to create. Someone like TJ can write quality music very quickly, wheras you might need more time. This is just like factoring labour costs for another business. If you know it takes you a week with little sleep to write a decent 10 minutes worth of action music, then you know that if someone is only going to pay you the equivalent of minimum wage but want it done in half the time you have to say that can't be done or they have to put up with a lower standard of product, in the same way as a carpenter might say... well I can provide you with tables and chairs in a week but I won't have time to carve anything on it.

Hope that rambling mess made sense to someone.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 27, 2010)

mf @ Fri Feb 26 said:


> In my experience, no such things as underpaid or overpaid gigs. It's all about supply and demand combined with negotiation power based on perceived value and on who can afford to turn down the deal.



While that is undeniably true, it is also undeniably true that the tools available today have made it possible for people with little skill, knowledge, or experience to lower the bar by competing cheaply. Arguably, there is now an artificial supply/demand ratio since the company doing the hiring does not seem to factor in quality, only price and delivery.


----------



## Ed (Feb 27, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Sat Feb 27 said:


> mf @ Fri Feb 26 said:
> 
> 
> > In my experience, no such things as underpaid or overpaid gigs. It's all about supply and demand combined with negotiation power based on perceived value and on who can afford to turn down the deal.
> ...



I see it this way, if it gets really normal for garage band kids to make music that way and be successfull then eventually someone will offer a superior product that costs more but by then producers will realise its superior to the others. I just think it will all work out. I can cheat with video editing as well and buy premade products from places like Video Copilot but if you actually know how to do all that stuff yourself you cant compete with that. Its just a superior product and everyone will be able to see that. Of course if you cant keep up with the garage band kids then that is indeed a problem.


----------

