# "I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line "unfortunately there's no budget



## syashdown (Nov 6, 2013)

Brilliant.

http://tinypic.com/r/1i0v8y/5


----------



## TimJohnson (Nov 6, 2013)

This is all over my facebook. Nice to see the topic getting some real attention. Hopefully the young up and coming directors/producers will take note... come to think of it, the experienced ones too.


----------



## MA-Simon (Nov 6, 2013)

*Re: "I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line "unfortunately there's no budget for mu*

This is nice,

so... where is the defamation lawsuits for posting this reply-thing?


----------



## Guy Rowland (Nov 6, 2013)

*Re: "I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line "unfortunately there's no budget for mu*

It's an entertaining and no doubt heartfelt rant. BUT... I do want to know the full story.

If this successful company approached me to provide titles, stings, beds for their new reality series, shown in perpetuity on channel 4 in the UK and syndicated throughout the world, I'd do it for free in a heartbeat if I kept all the royalties. I know I'm a stuck record on the royalty question, but it works well in the UK at least. Of course, if they wanted to keep all that too... well they got what they deserve.


----------



## Brobdingnagian (Nov 6, 2013)

"I'd do it for free in a heartbeat if I kept all the royalties." - GR

Please, Guy, with all due respect, and I have enjoyed your ideas, thoughts and generous posts over the last two years, but this doesn't help.

A fee (even a small, token one for your time and expertise) is really the line we all need to tow here. Incredibly short-sighted.

Also, on a related note, the several fools kicking back a percentage to the production companies in order to get a few gigs in the first place are not only playing a dangerous game, but they are also poisoning the well. 


-B


----------



## ProtectedRights (Nov 6, 2013)

Yeah, I am also interested in the asking letter. Guess it is problematic legally to publish that. I think everyone can publish his own letters, but not the ones of others.
Anyways, they obviously made the statement "there is no budget for music" which is really really bad.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 6, 2013)

*Re: "I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line "unfortunately there's no budget for mu*



Guy Rowland @ Wed Nov 06 said:


> It's an entertaining and no doubt heartfelt rant. BUT... I do want to know the full story.
> 
> If this successful company approached me to provide titles, stings, beds for their new reality series, shown in perpetuity on channel 4 in the UK and syndicated throughout the world, I'd do it for free in a heartbeat if I kept all the royalties. I know I'm a stuck record on the royalty question, but it works well in the UK at least. Of course, if they wanted to keep all that too... well they got what they deserve.



No disrespect, Guy, but seriously, that attitude is a big part of why we are now where we are. It is not just digging our own graves but also buying them the shovel and the dirt.


----------



## sluggo (Nov 6, 2013)

Outing and shaming the productions who offer no money will accomplish nothing. 

How about outing the composers who GIVE AWAY their music in return for broadcast royalties. 

It's common.

There are some pretty big names.


----------



## jleckie (Nov 6, 2013)

Why don't these companies just send a letter saying, "No money for you, but lots of money for me.

(it is after all, all about me)"


----------



## gsilbers (Nov 6, 2013)

*Re: "I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line "unfortunately there's no budget for mu*



Guy Rowland @ Wed Nov 06 said:


> It's an entertaining and no doubt heartfelt rant. BUT... I do want to know the full story.
> 
> If this successful company approached me to provide titles, stings, beds for their new reality series, shown in perpetuity on channel 4 in the UK and syndicated throughout the world, I'd do it for free in a heartbeat if I kept all the royalties. I know I'm a stuck record on the royalty question, but it works well in the UK at least. Of course, if they wanted to keep all that too... well they got what they deserve.




agree. not sure what the deal is with good upfront or nothing deal. if someone told you to score the end credits for th enew release of 24 for free...wouldndt you do it?
hell yeah. thats a lot of money ou will get. much more than you can possible imagine an upfront fee will ever pay anyone. 
now ask the same but for the reality tv show about latina houseworkers shown in bravo tv... hmmm then i think ill pass. so depends on what it is and how many poeple will see it. can you keep the publishing and license you music which you might be able to give to other shows. just sayin' there is room for negotiations. 
i do know the type of production the initial post refers to. for comparison i wonder how is Vanacore doing now :mrgreen:


----------



## korgscrew (Nov 6, 2013)

*Re: "I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line "unfortunately there's no budget for mu*

Also on the PRS and royalties. They must submit the information, otherwise you get nothing if it isn't logged. 

My first TV ad music is still bringing me a wad of cash every quarter. I had to make sure the production company logged the music. All I ask was £200 for the music, which I thought was fair


----------



## Guy Rowland (Nov 7, 2013)

*Re: "I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line "unfortunately there's no budget for mu*

To Brobdingnagian and Jay - this is well trodden ground here at VI-C, but imo its incredibly short sighted to focus exclusively on upfront payment. Most of my work is for the BBC, where everything gets logged. Mistakes and errors happen - I've sometimes been waiting over a year for cue sheets to go through the system, and once it was three years for an incorrect percentage calculation to get rectified - but it all comes out in the wash.

If you are offered a gig for a new series scoring titles and beds, its relatively little time upfront (even with revisions). Last year I had three new kids series here, all of which have now been recommissioned (and a BAFTA nomination for one as well, yay). I should say that in all these particular cases I did get an upfront fee, but I won't be retiring on that. I've had to compose one new bed for one of those series - that's it on my part, but the PRS will keep on coming. That money will dwarf the relatively small upfront payments the BBC provide. Frankly, I'm a fool if I turned down a series on a point of principle on needing a small amount upfront vs a large amount further down the line. Cashflow is a not insignificant issue - I'm fortunate that at the moment its ok - but that aside having a business eye on the big picture is critical to me.

Here's the most important point - on these shows, I'm not "working for free". Quite the opposite. The money I get is upfront + writers share + publishers share. The gigs I do vary wildly as to the proportion I get of each, but I always take it as a whole. I know folks are well meaning here when they lecture against taking this view. But its the only way that makes sense to me. Maybe it works differently elsewhere, but in my corner of the world and industry it very much works.

All we're left with is the rather vague argument that "if a production doesn't pay direct, they won't value the composer". Without delving into indiscreet specifics, all I can say is that in my experience this isn't true at all.

So returning to this letter - I dunno. If I hear "we have no budget for music" on a major syndicated series, I won't fire off an angry tirade, I'm liable to say "cool - it's ok for me to have exclusive publishing rights, then?" knowing that, depending on the show and broadcaster, I'll probably be way up on the deal. The way it works is that productions usually love this, as royalties don't come directly out of their budgets so they just pass the buck (its the broadcaster who pays, and even then its money they are paying anyway - it just goes to me rather than anyone else). I love it cos I get to keep everything that's mine, and I get income for years afterwards. Productions love it cos it keeps their overheads down.

Now, if they want to keep everything - of course, pile on the derision.


----------



## Daryl (Nov 7, 2013)

*Re: "I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line "unfortunately there's no budget for mu*



EastWest Lurker @ Thu Nov 07 said:


> Guy Rowland @ Wed Nov 06 said:
> 
> 
> > It's an entertaining and no doubt heartfelt rant. BUT... I do want to know the full story.
> ...


Actually, that may not be the case. It all depends on how you're looking at it.

The reason the Publishing usually goes to the film company is because they've paid all costs for the product you are delivering. If your own company invests in you the composer, you are entitled to the Publishing, instead of the film company. Obviously where this attracts no Royalties it would be a bad investment, but where there are copious Royalties, it could be a very good investment. In this situation you would also retain all 3rd party Publishing rights, so it could actually make you way more money than if you'd been paid upfront, and lost the Publishing.

Personally I would also negotiate a slice of the actual film as an investor as well.

Also, you need to be aware that you mustn't equate the dire situation that exists in the US with the UK. You guys have dug your own graves on various issues; it doesn't mean that us Island dwellers have to jump in them with you. :wink: 

D


----------



## VSTBuzz (Nov 7, 2013)

*Re: "I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line "unfortunately there's no budget for mu*

Here's a rather apt video that really shows how ridiculous it is for people to ask for music for free using real world situations:


----------



## doctornine (Nov 7, 2013)

*Re: "I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line "unfortunately there's no budget for mu*

I'm with Guy 100% on this.

But then... 90% of my work is for exclusive Library. Only one company I work for pays upfront production costs, the rest don't. So most of the time I'm effectively working for free. Or am I ? I don't think so - I still get the money from usage, thats how I make my living.

But yeah, if it was work for free, get no PRS, no, I wouldn't do it either.

~o)


----------



## AC986 (Nov 7, 2013)

*Re: "I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line "unfortunately there's no budget for mu*

Too many people at it these days. That aren't that many caterers or grips out there, but there are loads of people out there with a back bedroom, computer and some sample libraries. 

I would take the royalties and not worry about a small up front. But then again I don't get asked to do anything so I just ponce out stuff for library issue.


----------



## Dan Selby (Nov 7, 2013)

*Re: "I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line "unfortunately there's no budget for mu*

Except, Guy, if you take on a commissioned job with no fee on the promise of future honey you leave yourself wide open to:

* The production doesn't get recommissioned or sold into different territories and rather than the promised ITV1/BBC1 broadcast it goes out once on ITV8 +1, watched by three students and a dog with the correspondingly tiny PRS per minute rate.

or worse:

* After you've finished, The Broadcaster isn't happy and a new exec producer takes over and decides to go in a different direction with music i.e. bringing in another composer they've worked with before. Your music never gets broadcast.

or:

* After you've finished, the series gets cancelled by broadcaster/publisher. Your music never gets broadcast.

or:

* Since they're not paying you and have no skin in the game on the music front, the production company end up deciding to use mostly library tracks (covered under their blanket agreement) rather than all the beds you produced.

or:

* The production company decides: since composers are free and ten a penny and we don't have to pay the royalties, let's cover ourselves by getting 8 composers to write the music and then we can pick what we like best.

or...


----------



## Daryl (Nov 7, 2013)

*Re: "I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line "unfortunately there's no budget for mu*

Dan, you are quite correct with all your possible scenarios. However, it all depends on whether or not you are trying to run a business or just be a composer.

Personally I wouldn't get involved in pitching a whole score, without being paid for my time, if they chose not to use it. Part of running a business is risk and reward. If you risk the investment in your music, there are times when it won't pan out the way you hope. That's life. However, the music can always be used for other purposes, so nothing is totally wasted.

I understand that thinking of composing as a business is alien to most people, but I think that it is going to become more necessary as time goes on.

The other thing to remember is that eventually Writer Royalties will disappear altogether. They are an anomaly that isn't shared by any other profession. In the real world if someone is paid to invent something, the person who claims the Royalties is the person who paid for it. We expect to be paid for doing the work, and receive Royalties as well. That situation won't continue for ever, IMO. I think that expectations will have to be adjusted drastically over the next few years, and composers will have to become much better at running their businesses, if they want to be financially successful.

D


----------



## Dynamoe (Nov 7, 2013)

*Re: "I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line "unfortunately there's no budget for mu*

OMG, what a shortsightet view! Do you think that artists should not be paid for the jobs they are doing and only get royalties? This way of thinking and doing will make business worse than it already is for composers!


----------



## Dynamoe (Nov 7, 2013)

*Re: "I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line "unfortunately there's no budget for mu*

So true!


----------



## AC986 (Nov 7, 2013)

*Re: "I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line "unfortunately there's no budget for mu*



Dynamoe @ Thu Nov 07 said:


> OMG, what a shortsightet view! Do you think that artists should not be paid for the jobs they are doing and only get royalties? !



I think quite a few writers are lucky to even get royalties. Put it this way, if Daryl's model is correct and royalties eventually go out the window, how many composers do you think will be left? I would guess at not many which may be a good thing for some and obviously not so good for quite a few others.


----------



## Daryl (Nov 7, 2013)

*Re: "I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line "unfortunately there's no budget for mu*



adriancook @ Thu Nov 07 said:


> Dynamoe @ Thu Nov 07 said:
> 
> 
> > OMG, what a shortsightet view! Do you think that artists should not be paid for the jobs they are doing and only get royalties? !
> ...


It's not exactly my model. It's just that I believe that this is the way things are heading.

I also don't believe that Royalties will disappear; it's more that "our" automatic entitlement will be called into question.

D


----------



## Ed (Nov 7, 2013)

*Re: "I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line "unfortunately there's no budget for mu*



syashdown @ Wed Nov 06 said:


> Brilliant.
> 
> http://tinypic.com/r/1i0v8y/5



Squiggly red line of shame says he spelled licenced wrong. Squiggly red line is wrong once again.

While I dont see much from TV sync licences due to being the 3rd point in the chain of publishers and sub publishers taking their cut out of it, which is much much less than what I get royalty wise, it does still mount up to something. But more importantly, I still think there needs to be precedent. We could say the same with ad music licences, and decide to give stuff away, but thats throwing away like £8-20k+ depending on the job and if you have a publisher. Thats a lot! And depending on the ad, you wont get much or any relevant royalties anyway next to successful library cues. As the email said, they have money. They don't even need to pay for the royalties, so they should be paying for it. Pay something at least!! I mean if they want free music there's plenty of places they can get free music, or music cheap as chips from the bargain basement low low low prices of the royalty free music sites. Its like they don't even want to do that. He's right, saying that they have no budget for music is insulting because its nonsense.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Nov 7, 2013)

*Re: "I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line "unfortunately there's no budget for mu*



Daryl @ Thu Nov 07 said:


> I also don't believe that Royalties will disappear; it's more that "our" automatic entitlement will be called into question.



I'm not quite so pessimistic there. We're not unique - authors get royalties for writing words, we get them for writing music (well, and words often). We are the creators of artistic work, so by default have the IP. As to our automatic entitlement of our share, I've no idea how the US has got in the dire position it has, but I'm not aware of any direct attack on that over here. The PRS is extremely active in maintaining our own rights, to the point where members are banned from signing away their share.

I don't get the general negativity around royalties at all, as if they are irrelevant or part of some pact with the devil. Yes, a hundred things could happen to stop you getting money, and you have to be pretty savvy - who are you working with? What is the real status of the project? Do your homework before striking a deal. My own income from royalties is relatively modest compared to others I know - I know of the composer of one kids show who is literally earning millions, all from one quiet little programme that I doubt many here are even aware exists. He did a great job, and good luck to him!

If (and its a very big if) royalties all dissappear for some reason, that's an issue to deal with as and when it happens, and most definitely one to fight if it is under threat. In the meantime, in my view it's both naive and foolish to put your head in the sand and always insist on upfront in every circumstance - if the back end is a solid proposition, you're potentially doing yourself out of a livelihood. And to repeat - ONLY do this when the circumstances are in your favour.

I can see the production company featured here shrugging their shoulders at the letter they got, and doing a deal - for no upfront money - with a different composer. Let's say that composer strikes a deal where she keeps the publishers share. It's highly likely that as they are an established company with track record and a tx deal already in place, that series will go to a 2nd, 3rd, 4th. For what - cumulatively three days work say - that composer has a realistic prospect of tens of thousands in the end, and a near-certainty of a more modest return.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 7, 2013)

Oops, my bad. I should have actually read the original letter before I posted so that I realized this is library work for reality type shows we are talking about, not scoring work. It is a different paradigm.


----------



## Daryl (Nov 7, 2013)

*Re: "I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line "unfortunately there's no budget for mu*



Guy Rowland @ Thu Nov 07 said:


> Daryl @ Thu Nov 07 said:
> 
> 
> > I also don't believe that Royalties will disappear; it's more that "our" automatic entitlement will be called into question.
> ...


AFAIK authors generally don't get paid.They get an advance based on prospective sales, which is then recouped by the Publisher from actual sales.

D


----------



## Jordan Gagne (Nov 7, 2013)

I think the perception that music is cheap and of little monetary value can be boiled down to a case of supply and demand. Supply is just so high right now that people think creating professionally produced music is trivial.

I agree that as composers we need to tow the line and refuse to work for free, but at the end of the day, for every composer who is too principled to give his music away for free, there are five other composers willing to jump at the chance.

It's a problem inherent to how the industry has become structured. Hundreds of thousands of composers at the bottom clamouring for any work they can get, while the small community of established composers hold the vast majority of the available work. Ironically it creates a trickle-up effect, where the attitudes at the bottom (that music is not worth money) slowly diffuses into the professional world and reduces budgets for everyone -- even composers at the top.


----------



## dgburns (Nov 7, 2013)

*Re: "I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line "unfortunately there's no budget for mu*



Daryl @ Thu Nov 07 said:


> Dan, you are quite correct with all your possible scenarios. However, it all depends on whether or not you are trying to run a business or just be a composer.
> 
> Personally I wouldn't get involved in pitching a whole score, without being paid for my time, if they chose not to use it. Part of running a business is risk and reward. If you risk the investment in your music, there are times when it won't pan out the way you hope. That's life. However, the music can always be used for other purposes, so nothing is totally wasted.
> 
> ...



Royalty payments exist in other industries.Mining is a big one,where gold companies like Royal Gold are strictly a company that develops mines and sells them off for forward royalty payments,which is a percentage of the mine's profit.there are plenty of other examples.And that's not even the media business.The feeling I get from my PRO is that more and more large publishing companies are taking the lion's share of PRO income royalty due to the increased amount of music placement rather than commissioned music.This is one factor behind the decline in music budgets.Big publishers trying to squeeze out more profits for their shareholders using the back catalog.And they have sales teams and marketing people who in recent years discovered just how much income they can derive from placing their catalogs in audio visual sources.
I just don't think music royalties are going away anytime soon.The one big elephant in the room,however is Scripps in the US which have never paid royalties for their own shows.They do alot of specialty tv such as HGTV and so on.I have been told that Scripps is in talks with BMI or Ascap,and these things take time.I'm not even sure if there is any legal reason they would even be obliged to pay either however.
It is interesting to note that Bruce Springsteen has told his label that his music will never be used for any such purpose.I guess he's figured out that once his music is associated with any product,it will forever tie his song to that product.Once you have the money and the means,they all want you even more.
Until then,we need to deal with just how replaceable we all are when push comes to shove.
-but the power to say NO is a big one,it does have repercussions,but it is liberating as well.
just some odd thoughts on the subject.


----------



## Madrigal (Nov 7, 2013)

*Re: "I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line "unfortunately there's no budget for mu*



> I think the perception that music is cheap and of little monetary value can be boiled down to a case of supply and demand. Supply is just so high right now that people think creating professionally produced music is trivial.



I agree with you, but in a way, there is more media content being made around the world than ever before. Filmmakers, advertisers, documentarists, etc are all producing more content than ever. They need music right? 

They're is a higher demand for music. The problem is that every art/media field has become saturated with loads of good and bad content forcing the current perceived value of art in general to 0. It's all over the place, everyone can make it and most people aren't able to filter what is good or bad. 

There used to be substantial barriers of entry in the music world which would leave only the hard-working, serious, educated, wealthy and/or talented people doing the job. 

There is no substantial money in art, there never has been. The problem now is that even the ones who are good at what they do are being compared to the lowest common denominator. The perceived value of art is slowly decreasing and in the long term, every professional will have to deal with the consequences. 

On the upside, making art has been democratized so were seeing amazing content from artists whose work would've never seen the light of day in the past.


----------



## Daryl (Nov 7, 2013)

*Re: "I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line "unfortunately there's no budget for mu*



dgburns @ Thu Nov 07 said:


> Royalty payments exist in other industries.Mining is a big one,where gold companies like Royal Gold are strictly a company that develops mines and sells them off for forward royalty payments,which is a percentage of the mine's profit.there are plenty of other examples.And that's not even the media business.


I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. Of course Royalties exist in other industries and I don't see that changing in Media IP creation. What I do think is likely to happen is that the person who pays for the IP creation will own that IP; not the creator. This is a very common state of affairs and one which we, as composers, need to be vigilant against.

D


----------



## Frederick Russ (Nov 7, 2013)

*Re: "I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line "unfortunately there's no budget for mu*



EastWest Lurker @ Wed Nov 06 said:


> Guy Rowland @ Wed Nov 06 said:
> 
> 
> > It's an entertaining and no doubt heartfelt rant. BUT... I do want to know the full story.
> ...



There is a actually psychological term for this. Its called codependency. Codependency requires that the person enmesh with another and essentially do everything they are being asked even if at great personal expense to themselves or even if it goes against their own values. How their decisions affect others is of no concern to them. This condition is all about people pleasing. There is no personal dignity or honor in it. 

The only way to combat this - in my opinion - is to hold composers themselves accountable for drinking this kind of kool-aid. We really do need to start thinking about the future and challenge the momentum of giving away the store as if crafting music has no real worth. Its disrespectful to self clearly - but also disrespectful to the industry as a complete set up. If free music is provided consistently enough (and obviously it is) then why would directors continue to budget for it? The precedent being set by decisions to do all the work for free by composers is a big part of the problem.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Nov 7, 2013)

Frederick - see Jay's follow up and my posts, I think we're at cross purposes. I'm not advocating working for free, but am pragmatic about where the money comes from. Indeed, my argument is that its possible in some cases to work this so we get paid MORE. If they say "no money upfront" but that gives you leverage on getting publishing rights, that might make a phenomenal difference. 

Not directed specifically at you Frederick, but it's a little frustrating to be making these important if detailed points over and over and read another post that says "wow, it's terrible that composers will work for free, all is doom."


----------



## Stephen Rees (Nov 7, 2013)

*Re: "I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line "unfortunately there's no budget for mu*



dgburns @ Thu Nov 07 said:


> -but the power to say NO is a big one,it does have repercussions,but it is liberating as well.



This sums it up for me. Regardless of how a deal is structured - upfront fees vs back end royalties, as long as you value yourself and your craft fairly then you'll be OK.

It is when you give up your right to say 'No' that you are lost, and everyone else suffers a little bit along with you.


----------



## Brobdingnagian (Nov 7, 2013)

As someone with a good bit of experience and insight into this world, please friends, listen. Forgive me for being both pedantic and willing to be the messenger. I usually keep my mouth shut and just lurk about, but thought I would share some real world experience...

What has happened is that enough people have done the free thing in lieu of keeping their writers and publishers shares. They have been doing well for the last decade. All good, until the last few years....

NOW, what is happening (and I mentioned this in my first post, but it was ignored), free upfront music isn't enough. NOW, these companies (and many music supes) also want a kickback for using your music. Which means assigning a percentage or all of the publishing (at the very least). I will mention how they also try it on with writer's share below (gasp).

Despite the fact that all agreements specifically mention that there will be no payola or plugola, this IS going on. It is happening here on a widespread scale in both major films, shows and rampant in the cable world. "But that is unethical, even illegal," you mumble.....

If you haven't yet seen a pattern here, I wish you all the best. Anyone care to guess the next paradigm shift? ...Bueller? ...Bueller?

As a parting salvo, I will add this little tasty and incredulous morsel, to put it into further context. A few years ago when looking to switch agencies, I took several meetings with all the usual top suspects. One of the agents asked me point-blank whether I would be open to giving them a percentage of my WRITER'S share, as "an incentive" for them to work harder at getting me more mainstream film work, given that I have such a hefty television dance card. After being polite and coy (just my way, friends). I knew I needed to get out of there and lose anymore time that day, despite the fact they represented composers we all know and love. And no, I am sure they didn't try this on with them.

It is a slippery slope. Yes, I do exceedingly well on the back-end - however, my agent always gets me a fee on the front end as well. Yes, we are very creative in providing budget-challenged productions with extra "added-value" approaches to my catalogue. HOWEVER, there is always a perceived value at play. To quote an American poet laureate, Robert Frost, "and that has made all the difference."

Many views to a secret, ways to skin an apple, etc. While I will certainly not change anyone's ways, it is good to open a real-world dialogue. Knowledge is power. And as composers, we have always been such a fearful, meek bunch. Forewarned is forearmed.

My 2 (and a half) p.

-B


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 7, 2013)

Brobdingnagian, best post this year IMHO.


----------



## Brobdingnagian (Nov 7, 2013)

"Brobdingnagian, best post this year IMHO." - EW Lurker

Hardly, but thank you kindly, Jay. 

Unless we speak candidly as a community, there can be no progress. Even if it is under the guise and masks of handles and avatars.

Even if we all disagree, open constructive dialogue is the only way forward.

Most here don't recall the institution of the CD's 3/4 Mechanical Royalty rate for "new technology"....which then became the new paradigm. I was almost a teen, but it taught me a lesson. Cut to, the current issue we face with digital revenue streams. I have a lot of content out there, but unfortunately the Netflix payments on my Royalty statements point to this very thing.

I could simply not say a word, having gotten over a few hurdles, thinking "at least I will be OK." But in my heart, that would be unconscionable...

-B


----------



## Daryl (Nov 7, 2013)

*Re: "I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line "unfortunately there's no budget for mu*

Brobdingnagian, I think that your experiences are probably similar to any others in the profession. I agree that there has to be discussion on all of these issues. The big problem is that nobody will name names, because we all know what happens to whistle blowers.

It also feels a little hypocritical to me for many of the established composers to be whining about the way things are going, when they (we) were in a large part responsible for it. I mean, all the professional composers on this forum are responsible, to a greater or lessor degree, for the destruction of the recording industry.

There are solutions, the main one being not to accept work that doesn't adhere to your normal fee or conditions, but what tends to happen is that people accept what they are offered and then moan about it in private.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Composers need to think of themselves as two different people; the composer and the business owner. Unless this happens, you are screwed.

D


----------



## Guy Rowland (Nov 7, 2013)

*Re: "I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line "unfortunately there's no budget for mu*



Daryl @ Thu Nov 07 said:


> The big problem is that nobody will name names, because we all know what happens to whistle blowers.



I'm writing this post from Moscow airport.

Brobdingnagian - some toe curling stories for sure. And soon we'll all be debating if there should be a union etc etc. So what to do? I agree with the comments that people have to judge themselves. I don't for a millsecond feel exploited on a gig where I got little or nothing upfront but a very respectable back end - it worked for them and it worked for me. I don't feel I was contributing to a slippery slope either, as the deal seemed a perfectly reasonable one. When I roughly calculated how much time I spent composing vs time I spend as a dubbing mixer and tracked that against income from each source, composing won by a fair margin, and the vast majority of that was royalties.

I can only speak for my little TV world in the UK, and its working fine. I've said this many times, but in the UK our greatest asset is the PRS (warts and all). In the absence of a union, they fight on our behalf and we still have a system that broadly works. I think there's a lot to be said for directing a lot more energy towards the collection agencies, and perhaps a little less energy towards other composers.


----------



## Daryl (Nov 7, 2013)

*Re: "I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line "unfortunately there's no budget for mu*



Guy Rowland @ Thu Nov 07 said:


> I think there's a lot to be said for directing a lot more energy towards the collection agencies, and perhaps a little less energy towards other composers.


This I do agree with, and when you hear the one of the people who runs ASCAP trying to justify putting his name on a cue written by another composer, it is no surprise that things in the US are in such a bad state.

D


----------



## Brobdingnagian (Nov 7, 2013)

Thanks for the discussion and viewpoints, gentlemen. Always appreciated. 

Guy, have a safe flight. I hope you had a great ad productive trip over there. Russian tangent, but just when are they going to let Khordorkovsky free....

Daryl, now that is a tough pill to swallow. If that is indeed the case, I am gravely disappointed.

-B


----------



## Daryl (Nov 7, 2013)

Brobdingnagian @ Thu Nov 07 said:


> Daryl, now that is a tough pill to swallow. If that is indeed the case, I am gravely disappointed.
> 
> -B


I think you have some reading to do.

http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=5069

D


----------

