# Low balling from big name composer on low budget film



## Markus S (Jun 4, 2014)

After a lot of talk about how new and young composers hurt the market of original music composition by working for free or next to nothing, here is the tale of me getting low balled by an old and experienced composer.

So, I'm getting approached by this director from LA, loves my music, fits the feature film project they work on perfectly. They have an impressive crew of experienced members, known actors with great credits and a solid technical set-up. It's even my favorite genre, a nice horror, psychological drama thing. Always wanted to do one of those.

While skyping with the director, he mentions a "big name" composer" (who's name shall rest unnamed), he has a contact to, but he would rather not like to work with (music taste wise - sounding too dated, in his opinion). The composer is around for quite a while has been doing some very cool stuff in the 80ies everyone here has probably seen. I remember walking past a film poster when I was a kid he did the music in a film I wasn't allowed to see by the time.  

After reading the script and viewing the film, they ask how much I would charge. As this is my first feature, I'm unsure. Doing some research, knowing they are low budget, checking out some live recording options, evaluating the music style, I go for 12k $ for 40-60 minutes/composing only (non-exclusive rights, publishing stays with me). It seems like a very good and reasonable deal for them and I'm calculating the potential royalties within the budget.

Here comes the reply from the director : "even the big name composer" (I'm calling him the way he called him) would charge only 10k $.. Wow, OK..

But we are still talking - they will see what they can do call this producer guy who takes care of the budget/financing. OK, so let's wait and see. After a few weeks they finally heard back from him about the music budget and the next thing you know, they have NO budget left for the music, not a cent. Before you could say anything there comes : He was told by his producer that the BNC (big name composer) would do it for 3 points of the sales of the film. OK, thanks again..

So that is IF the film sales. The film would sell for "at least" 1.5 mil, that what the ("finally zero budget for the music"-) producer told them.. So 3% of this is an OK music budget, but it's still all hypothetical. So I tell them that I need to assure some income right away (that we can talk about splitting between points of sales and upfront fee) - for what represents probably at a few months of work, lots of communication, live recording of my instruments. While I certainly hope that the film will sell well, it's not certain.

So I'm writing them an email with my offer - did they even bother to reply? Nope, next think you know BNC is attached to the project and the people are never to be heard of again.

So mainly my price got dropped once by the BNC, and then since he already agreed to not take any upfront payment, there was no room left for negotiation for me. I think that sends a message clear to the film maker : no need to pay anything upfront to the composer, even if he is an established one. Probably the guy has a comfortable life living from his royalties and he wants to stay in the game at any rate, but it certainly is a weird experience.

Wanted to share this little story from the front with my fellow composers - if you have seen similar things around - Feel free to share!


----------



## Stephen Rees (Jun 4, 2014)

Markus S @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> price git



I think that is what they call a Freudian slip.


----------



## Ian Dorsch (Jun 4, 2014)

Some artist friends of mine in Germany had a similar experience a few years back, where they were contacted by a big Hollywood studio for previs work on a tentpole release. They submitted a quote for the gig, which the studio then used as leverage to get a local LA previs team to work for a cheaper rate.

It sucks, and it's apparently happening pretty regularly.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 4, 2014)

I can see this from both sides. Whilst it's frustrating to be priced out by someone who seemingly doesn't need the money, from a business point of view, if I was thinking of it as an investor and thought that the film was going to be successful, I can see exactly why it would be good to go for percentage points, rather than a fee. Let's say that they agreed to pay $12K, you can do the maths as to how much the film has to make in order to better that.

TBH this is becoming more and more common, and it's exactly what Cutting Edge does. They "create" a music budget, ensuring that all fees go through their company.

D


----------



## Folmann (Jun 4, 2014)

Thanks for your honesty - on such an important matter. The real challenge in our community is that good composers keep on saying "yes" to low or no paid gigs. It creates a ripple effect in two ways.

First of all you set a standard for what you are worth. So next time it will be in the same ballpark and you have locked yourself in.

Secondly there is a ripple effect of perception that hurts the entire community - in that composers should be working for free.

Integrity baby.

- T


----------



## Martin K (Jun 4, 2014)

Hi Markus!

Sorry to hear about this.

As sad as this development is, if this is becoming more and more the reality, it's good to be aware of it. Thanks a lot for sharing your story. 

best, 
Martin


----------



## José Herring (Jun 4, 2014)

It happens all the time. It's unfortunate, but it's a reality. The biggest competition in film for those trying to work their way up, are those that are on their way down, or have hit rock bottom. Sad state of affairs. 

In my life, I've done 1 differed payment job. It was a good little film and I wanted it. I won't name people, but the amount of top tier composers willing to "score" it via assistants was mind boggling.  This one worked out in my favor and the director was cool, he said he didn't want an assistant he wanted a real composer . I got it, but did have to share credit with a big name that ended up doing a few themes. In the end they paid after the film sold. Which was a good thing. 

But, that's just the state of affairs in this industry right now. Unfortunately it won't change anytime soon.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Jun 4, 2014)

Markus, 
Sorry to hear about this. (You're music sounds great by the way. really enjoying it.)

You said that they mentioned that BNC's music was a bit dated yet they went with him anyway over his deal (and maybe his name as well?). That tells me that they really weren't adamant about having the right music in the film.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 4, 2014)

I keep hearing this same story.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 4, 2014)

I think you should name the guy and we should all go on Facebook and shame him. I am only half joking.


----------



## dinerdog (Jun 4, 2014)

Classic shenanigans.


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 4, 2014)

i think there are other ways to negotiate. like getting points on international distribution. so anytme there is a license given by the distributor then the composer gets paid in addition to royalties. this way you can argue that everyone is equally investing in the risk. 
having the lawyer change a contract to reflect this will cost more than what they pay for the music so maybe have something already typed up to give so its a fast addition. 
of course sucks that composers cant charge as lawyers do and have to rely on wierd negotiations. but seems thats how they roll, trying to see oportunities on these maters and being creative on doing things differently might pay off. if not, we canjust keep bitching about it on a forum and see how the jobs go to the young ones.


----------



## dinerdog (Jun 4, 2014)

+1 Troels

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permali ... /06/whitey


----------



## The Darris (Jun 4, 2014)

Markus,

Sounds like you have hit a point in your career where good representation could help. You know, someone to go to bat for you when shenanigans like this are pulled. Overall this story sucks, especially for you, but hang in there. I wish you luck on future projects.

Best,

Chris


----------



## Markus S (Jun 4, 2014)

Stephen Rees @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Markus S @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> > price git
> ...



Nope, damn keys would hold still while I'm typing..


----------



## Markus S (Jun 4, 2014)

Daryl @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> I can see this from both sides. Whilst it's frustrating to be priced out by someone who seemingly doesn't need the money, from a business point of view, if I was thinking of it as an investor and thought that the film was going to be successful, I can see exactly why it would be good to go for percentage points, rather than a fee. Let's say that they agreed to pay $12K, you can do the maths as to how much the film has to make in order to better that.
> 
> D



Yes, but I can't pay my bills from hopes and dreams. I guess I have heard one too many talented person being sure about their future success. The film "might" sell well, or it it might not. The 1.5 mil $ distribution deal quote comes from the same person that finally screwed up the music budget and pulled the big name composer out of the hat, so allow to be doubtful about it.


----------



## Markus S (Jun 4, 2014)

Folmann @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Thanks for your honesty - on such an important matter. The real challenge in our community is that good composers keep on saying "yes" to low or no paid gigs. It creates a ripple effect in two ways.
> 
> First of all you set a standard for what you are worth. So next time it will be in the same ballpark and you have locked yourself in.
> 
> ...



Exactly my point and the reason I wanted to share this.


----------



## Markus S (Jun 4, 2014)

josejherring @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> The biggest competition in film for those trying to work their way up, are those that are on their way down, or have hit rock bottom.



I guess this sums the situation up pretty precisely.


----------



## Markus S (Jun 4, 2014)

givemenoughrope @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Markus,
> Sorry to hear about this. (You're music sounds great by the way. really enjoying it.)
> 
> You said that they mentioned that BNC's music was a bit dated yet they went with him anyway over his deal (and maybe his name as well?). That tells me that they really weren't adamant about having the right music in the film.



Thank you, well they missed out on a great score for their film (in all modesty).


----------



## Markus S (Jun 4, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> I think you should name the guy and we should all go on Facebook and shame him. I am only half joking.



Doubt he has a facebook account.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 4, 2014)

Markus S @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Daryl @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> > I can see this from both sides. Whilst it's frustrating to be priced out by someone who seemingly doesn't need the money, from a business point of view, if I was thinking of it as an investor and thought that the film was going to be successful, I can see exactly why it would be good to go for percentage points, rather than a fee. Let's say that they agreed to pay $12K, you can do the maths as to how much the film has to make in order to better that.
> ...


Don't get me wrong, I am on your side with this, but with my businessman hat on, I can see the other side as well.

D


----------



## Markus S (Jun 4, 2014)

gsilbers @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> i think there are other ways to negotiate. like getting points on international distribution. so anytme there is a license given by the distributor then the composer gets paid in addition to royalties. this way you can argue that everyone is equally investing in the risk.
> having the lawyer change a contract to reflect this will cost more than what they pay for the music so maybe have something already typed up to give so its a fast addition.
> of course sucks that composers cant charge as lawyers do and have to rely on wierd negotiations. but seems thats how they roll, trying to see oportunities on these maters and being creative on doing things differently might pay off. if not, we canjust keep bitching about it on a forum and see how the jobs go to the young ones.



Yeah well, as written before, I need some security on the income, or I can't spend so much time on the film.


----------



## Markus S (Jun 4, 2014)

The Darris @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Markus,
> 
> Sounds like you have hit a point in your career where good representation could help. You know, someone to go to bat for you when shenanigans like this are pulled. Overall this story sucks, especially for you, but hang in there. I wish you luck on future projects.
> 
> ...



Thank you! Tried to get in touch with agents, but without any luck so far.


----------



## Markus S (Jun 4, 2014)

Daryl @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Markus S @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> ...



Sure, I see your point. If I was certain that the film would sell for this price (in example the deal was sealed and signed), it would be a fair deal. I just can't allow myself to gamble with my time.


----------



## Markus S (Jun 4, 2014)

Thanks everyone for chiming in - feeling better about it already.  Keep 'em coming if you have other observations or experiences.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 4, 2014)

Markus S @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> The Darris @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Markus,
> ...


Yes, unfortunately most agents are lazy chancers. They aren't interested in fostering a relationship with someone who could be good, given the right opportunities, but as soon as you actually have some work, they will try to carve themselves a slice of your income. My suggestion would be to get a lawyer on a percentage to do the negotiations for you. You should always get a lawyer to check the contract anyway, so this kills two birds with one stone.

D


----------



## Markus S (Jun 4, 2014)

Daryl @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Markus S @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> > The Darris @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> ...



I'm sure if I have had a lawyer in there they would have said : But the big name composers negotiates without lawyer!


----------



## Daryl (Jun 4, 2014)

Markus S @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> I'm sure if I have had a lawyer in there they would have said : But the big name composers negotiates without lawyer!


Yeah, but at least you wouldn't have had to hear their BS.

D


----------



## jeffc (Jun 4, 2014)

That sucks, but unfortunately it is becoming a pretty common thing these days. For better or worst, a lot of the mid-budget films have gone away and there are either super big budget films or really low budget. And a lot of the real low budget films are sometimes great with great casts, prestige, etc. And if the film is good, then you might have an A-list guy willing to do it for free/next to free just to be attached to it, get a relationship with an up and coming director, etc. And it's hard, because if you look at it from the producer's perspective, of course they're going to go with the big name, why wouldn't they? And the big name can afford to do it without really caring about the money, because they've made their money on other big things. I've been in the mix on some films in the past few years and I can't believe who ends up getting the gig - super big guys. So it's frustrating, but it is the business, and you just have to keep plugging away and you'll grab one. Who knows when and why, there seems to be no upward, stepping stone path right now. Big budget, small budget, A list guys doing cable TV shows, etc. It's totally non-sensical but it is what it is. I think a lot of guys would be shocked to see what a composer was paid on some really big, Oscar caliber indie films. It would shock you how low sometimes. But on the flip side, you may land a studio film that pays way more than you thought you could get, strange things just happen all the time - it's just luck and persistence. But that's what we're all up against, so you got to just find a way to keep on keepin on until something happens. And then when it happens, you're pretty much right back at the bottom when you start looking for the next one . Rinse, repeat.....

And I will say one thing about agents, because they seem to get a bad rap around here. But I've worked with some incredibly great agents who work hard all the time. I've gotten many gigs that I would have never known about without an agent. So, just to clear the air a bit, because many people seem to trash them all the time. You have to remember that they've got a roster of clients, so it's give an take. Sometimes you talk all the time, sometimes you don't for two weeks. And you have to work as hard as they do. But I've never met an agent who didn't want to advance your career as much as you do. And of course they sign you when you have a project already - they need to make money. It's a partnership. Sometimes you get the gig, sometimes they do, but it's a bit selfish to think that an agent should only get paid if they find the gig. Both have to have some skin in the game I think....


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 4, 2014)

jeffc @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> That sucks, but unfortunately it is becoming a pretty common thing these days. For better or worst, a lot of the mid-budget films have gone away and there are either super big budget films or really low budget. And a lot of the real low budget films are sometimes great with great casts, prestige, etc. And if the film is good, then you might have an A-list guy willing to do it for free/next to free just to be attached to it, get a relationship with an up and coming director, etc. And it's hard, because if you look at it from the producer's perspective, of course they're going to go with the big name, why wouldn't they? And the big name can afford to do it without really caring about the money, because they've made their money on other big things. I've been in the mix on some films in the past few years and I can't believe who ends up getting the gig - super big guys. So it's frustrating, but it is the business, and you just have to keep plugging away and you'll grab one. Who knows when and why, there seems to be no upward, stepping stone path right now. Big budget, small budget, A list guys doing cable TV shows, etc. It's totally non-sensical but it is what it is. I think a lot of guys would be shocked to see what a composer was paid on some really big, Oscar caliber indie films. It would shock you how low sometimes. But on the flip side, you may land a studio film that pays way more than you thought you could get, strange things just happen all the time - it's just luck and persistence. But that's what we're all up against, so you got to just find a way to keep on keepin on until something happens. And then when it happens, you're pretty much right back at the bottom when you start looking for the next one . Rinse, repeat.....
> 
> And I will say one thing about agents, because they seem to get a bad rap around here. But I've worked with some incredibly great agents who work hard all the time. I've gotten many gigs that I would have never known about without an agent. So, just to clear the air a bit, because many people seem to trash them all the time. You have to remember that they've got a roster of clients, so it's give an take. Sometimes you talk all the time, sometimes you don't for two weeks. And you have to work as hard as they do. But I've never met an agent who didn't want to advance your career as much as you do. And of course they sign you when you have a project already - they need to make money. It's a partnership. Sometimes you get the gig, sometimes they do, but it's a bit selfish to think that an agent should only get paid if they find the gig. Both have to have some skin in the game I think....



+1
A good read!


----------



## rgames (Jun 4, 2014)

It is a bummer but it's not uncommon in any business.

When people invest in something they generally like to find someone else to share the up-front costs in return for a share in the back end - that's how we got Apple and Google and Facebook and and and... That's the essence of all venture capital deals.

It's easier to make money if you have money. You can throw it away at a lot of stuff that doesn't work when the one that does work pays big.

So how do you get started? Well, there's the rub... That's the part where creativity and interpersonal skills come in to play.

rgames


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 4, 2014)

And not to forget: These things all can happen because our so great money system!


----------



## dinerdog (Jun 4, 2014)

Another one who isn't really doing musicians a favor is Moby with his free music:

http://www.mobygratis.com

Another reality of our time.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jun 4, 2014)

I am going to point out something that I have not seen in this thread yet. Hear me out, and then feel free to offer up your opinion/experience, and even tell me I am wrong if that's the way you feel.



Markus S @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> ... I go for 12k $ for 40-60 minutes/composing only (non-exclusive rights, publishing stays with me).



IMHO, that is where you went wrong. That completely goes against what is customary, and established in the industry. Which is: the music is a WFH, it is exclusive to the film, the studio/producer keeps the publishing, and the composer keeps the writers. Once you start asking for publishing, and for the music to be non-ex., you run the risk of alienating the person from whom you seek employment. Because, it is not the norm, and you are asking for something that is not standard practice. Now, we can have a discussion on why you _should_ ask for these things if you are doing the work for next to nothing, but that's another convo. 12k, while not in the range of the 6-fig. salaries A-list composers command for major feature films, is not "next to nothing". For a low-budget film, it's actually pretty good - esp. nowadays. Now, if you had not asked for the pub., and made the music ex. in your offer, is it possible the director would have gone for Mr. BNC anyway? Of course it is. Is it possible he would have said ok to the 12k, and then later on turned around and told you that all of a sudden there was no money, and that you had to take points? Of course it is. But it's also possible you lost the gig (at least from the getgo) not because of the 2k difference, but because Mr. BNC offered 10k, exclusive, film keeps pub.

Just food for thought.

Cheers.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Jun 4, 2014)

^true but also think about what Moby and BNC are doing to their own careers. They have a name that they've worked for but decades later they are only sp attractive stylistically or otherwise that they have to do things for free to stay, or Moby's case, get in the game. Not exactly a sound business plan.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 4, 2014)

RiffWraith @ 4th June 2014 said:


> Markus S @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> > ... I go for 12k $ for 40-60 minutes/composing only (non-exclusive rights, publishing stays with me).
> ...



I hear you Riff. This can be a red flag in some producers' minds, but times have changed a bit. You can get publishing more often now than used to be the case, though not from everyone, to be sure.

Even if you retain publishing and copyright, you can make a deal such that the production company has an exclusive period (1 year, 5 years, as short as you can negotiate) from the date their film is released, for example. Or, if there's no certainty there ever will be a release, as is sometimes the case, some period of time from when the score is delivered.


----------



## Greg (Jun 4, 2014)

dinerdog @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Another one who isn't really doing musicians a favor is Moby with his free music:
> 
> http://www.mobygratis.com
> 
> Another reality of our time.



I really respect Moby and Mobygratis. It's a very noble thing to look at the big picture and embrace creative commons. Especially if his work can help kickstart a non-profit, or enhance an altruistic message, then that is more valuable than a sync fee IMO.


----------



## Ah_dziz (Jun 4, 2014)

I feel your offer was reasonable except for being non exclusive. Every production company I've ever worked with that is contracting for original music has had no wiggle room as far as having exclusive rights to the work. I have had decent luck retaining a share of publishing, but they studio always has control of the product. Money wise that's not a bad deal in my not so extensive experience. I just signed on for a low budget TV show for 10000 dollars all in for a maximum of 30 minutes of music over the course of a 10 episode season. I retain half the publishing which just adds to my ASCAP payments and gives me a larger cut if the studio ever licenses the music to anybody else which has happened more than I would have thought in my short career. And this production has access to an extensive library of music that they can use for free. I would have never taken this job for a cut of overall revenues because I don't have faith in the projects ability to even make it through a single season. The last show I worked for I would have gladly taken a cut over my fee as it has a huge cult following and I would have easily made 10 times my fee with a 1% deal. There are always going to be people who are willing to work for free just to get into business or because they are already set. I've done deals with no up front pay before but only for projects I believed in. 
You did the right thing IMO (except maybe for asking for non exclusivity) Save your energy for working with people who know what you are worth.

JJ


----------



## Markus S (Jun 5, 2014)

RiffWraith @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Markus S @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> > ... I go for 12k $ for 40-60 minutes/composing only (non-exclusive rights, publishing stays with me).
> ...



I am aware of this, but this issue was never discussed in the negotiation, especially not from the point on where there was no budget left. So for me it went wrong from this point on (no upfront payment at all cautioned by the offer from the other guy). The non-exclusivity could have been easily avoided and the publishing as well, if we added something like, in case of the film being sold etc. all publishing rights go to etc. If the film would not have sold, I would have kept the right to use the music for something else. I think I offered them an option on exclusivity, as well as publishing anyway in my offer, but we never came to discuss those details.

If this would have been the problem they would have stated it out like : OK, we agree with your budget, but we want exclusivity and the publishing for it, not "listen we don't have a budget for the music, the other guy does it for .. do you agree to those terms as well?"


----------



## Markus S (Jun 5, 2014)

jeffc @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> That sucks, but unfortunately it is becoming a pretty common thing these days. For better or worst, a lot of the mid-budget films have gone away and there are either super big budget films or really low budget. And a lot of the real low budget films are sometimes great with great casts, prestige, etc. And if the film is good, then you might have an A-list guy willing to do it for free/next to free just to be attached to it, get a relationship with an up and coming director, etc. And it's hard, because if you look at it from the producer's perspective, of course they're going to go with the big name, why wouldn't they? And the big name can afford to do it without really caring about the money, because they've made their money on other big things. I've been in the mix on some films in the past few years and I can't believe who ends up getting the gig - super big guys. So it's frustrating, but it is the business, and you just have to keep plugging away and you'll grab one. Who knows when and why, there seems to be no upward, stepping stone path right now. Big budget, small budget, A list guys doing cable TV shows, etc. It's totally non-sensical but it is what it is. I think a lot of guys would be shocked to see what a composer was paid on some really big, Oscar caliber indie films. It would shock you how low sometimes. But on the flip side, you may land a studio film that pays way more than you thought you could get, strange things just happen all the time - it's just luck and persistence. But that's what we're all up against, so you got to just find a way to keep on keepin on until something happens. And then when it happens, you're pretty much right back at the bottom when you start looking for the next one . Rinse, repeat.....



Good read, seems to be a pretty common situation after all.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 5, 2014)

JohnG @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> Even if you retain publishing and copyright, you can make a deal such that the production company has an exclusive period (1 year, 5 years, as short as you can negotiate) from the date their film is released, for example. Or, if there's no certainty there ever will be a release, as is sometimes the case, some period of time from when the score is delivered.


Or even just get the rights to secondary Publishing, because most film companies won't be bothered to do anything with the music anyway, other than use it on the film for which it was commissioned.

D


----------



## Markus S (Jun 5, 2014)

Ah_dziz @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> I feel your offer was reasonable except for being non exclusive. Every production company I've ever worked with that is contracting for original music has had no wiggle room as far as having exclusive rights to the work. I have had decent luck retaining a share of publishing, but they studio always has control of the product. Money wise that's not a bad deal in my not so extensive experience. I just signed on for a low budget TV show for 10000 dollars all in for a maximum of 30 minutes of music over the course of a 10 episode season. I retain half the publishing which just adds to my ASCAP payments and gives me a larger cut if the studio ever licenses the music to anybody else which has happened more than I would have thought in my short career. And this production has access to an extensive library of music that they can use for free. I would have never taken this job for a cut of overall revenues because I don't have faith in the projects ability to even make it through a single season. The last show I worked for I would have gladly taken a cut over my fee as it has a huge cult following and I would have easily made 10 times my fee with a 1% deal. There are always going to be people who are willing to work for free just to get into business or because they are already set. I've done deals with no up front pay before but only for projects I believed in.
> You did the right thing IMO (except maybe for asking for non exclusivity) Save your energy for working with people who know what you are worth.
> 
> JJ



Yes, I'll keep this in mind for future negotiations, but as I said above, I believe I had an option there for them anyway. There is a risk of the film never making any money and never getting published or distributed, so it seemed reasonable to not sign these away from the beginning.


----------



## Markus S (Jun 5, 2014)

JohnG @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> RiffWraith @ 4th June 2014 said:
> 
> 
> > Markus S @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> ...



Sure that could have been an option as well. My main problem with this the deal was, that the risk was too big to take on a project that demands intensive investment in time and energy, with no guarantee of payment at all. I even went down to half the budget for half the points, but they wouldn't be interested since they had the deal from BNC at hand, hence the low balling.


----------



## aaronnt1 (Jun 5, 2014)

dinerdog @ Wed 04 Jun said:


> +1 Troels
> 
> http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permali ... /06/whitey



That was a great email and I felt a slight 'whoop moment' build up inside me. The problem is another good composer is queuing outside the door who is willing to do it for free under the impression a credit on a high calibre production will lead to high demand and big bucks!

The solution - lock up all composers who are below a certain standard of talent, leaving just the best few hundred to get the work they deserve! Simple!


----------



## Ah_dziz (Jun 5, 2014)

Markus S @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> Ah_dziz @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> > I feel your offer was reasonable except for being non exclusive. Every production company I've ever worked with that is contracting for original music has had no wiggle room as far as having exclusive rights to the work. I have had decent luck retaining a share of publishing, but they studio always has control of the product. Money wise that's not a bad deal in my not so extensive experience. I just signed on for a low budget TV show for 10000 dollars all in for a maximum of 30 minutes of music over the course of a 10 episode season. I retain half the publishing which just adds to my ASCAP payments and gives me a larger cut if the studio ever licenses the music to anybody else which has happened more than I would have thought in my short career. And this production has access to an extensive library of music that they can use for free. I would have never taken this job for a cut of overall revenues because I don't have faith in the projects ability to even make it through a single season. The last show I worked for I would have gladly taken a cut over my fee as it has a huge cult following and I would have easily made 10 times my fee with a 1% deal. There are always going to be people who are willing to work for free just to get into business or because they are already set. I've done deals with no up front pay before but only for projects I believed in.
> ...



It really sounds like these guys were kind of terrible so this isn't the best example, but if there is upfront pay you can expect to sign away control of the music you write in almost every case (unless you are willing to offer the opposite i.e. if the movie never gets released you get to own your music, but you give them back a portion of the money). That being said it seems like you did everything you should and got screwed by a nameless big name composer. If these people ever approach you again be sure to bring this up (in a polite manner) and let them know that your quote includes the time they wasted of yours previously.

JJ


----------



## M.L. (Jun 5, 2014)

dinerdog @ 4/6/2014 said:


> Another one who isn't really doing musicians a favor is Moby with his free music:
> 
> http://www.mobygratis.com
> 
> Another reality of our time.




That's amazingly timely. I just lost a job to mobygratis yesterday. I just about gave up when the producer sent me the link.


----------



## dinerdog (Jun 5, 2014)

> I really respect Moby and Mobygratis. It's a very noble thing to look at the big picture and embrace creative commons. Especially if his work can help kickstart a non-profit, or enhance an altruistic message, then that is more valuable than a sync fee IMO.



Greg, that is all well and good, and we should ALL tithe %10 of our earnings to something we believe in, but this a composers forum and I'm talking about a multimillionaire potentially taking gigs from journeyman composers. Maybe he could fund the struggling musicians (start a school, do some workshops) and share his knowledge of what a good score could be? That might be a better use of his time and money (IMHO).


----------



## Peter Costa (Jun 5, 2014)

Forgive my ignorance, I've only dealt with a few contracts in my life, but what would be the point of requesting non-exclusivity if you are scoring to something specific? To be able to sell that music to other productions down the road as a library? As a producer or director, I would not want to see any music I have in a film be used later in reality TV or something that would IMO almost disrespect the film I worked hard on to create. Are non-exc. deals even seen at all?


----------



## JohnG (Jun 5, 2014)

Peter Costa @ 5th June 2014 said:


> Forgive my ignorance, I've only dealt with a few contracts in my life, but what would be the point of requesting non-exclusivity if you are scoring to something specific? To be able to sell that music to other productions down the road as a library? As a producer or director, I would not want to see any music I have in a film be used later in reality TV or something that would IMO almost disrespect the film I worked hard on to create. Are non-exc. deals even seen at all?



You are right, Peter, that some filmmakers can't tolerate this idea -- that their music might be in some cheap or offensive other production. 

But then, some filmmakers want a big orchestra for $25,000 too!

One way to address this concern is to make them an exclusive licensee for, say, three years (I hear five most of the time, but that's a long time to sit on one's music).

With editing and sometimes reworking / splitting cues, it's possible to make significant income from contributing score to libraries. It doesn't happen all the time, but I've been able sometimes to earn income from scores that otherwise would have generated limited back-end.

It's not at all out of line to start off with the premise that the production company gets a license to synchronise your music to the picture (and trailers / advertising / "making of" documentary -- anything to do with that picture) throughout the universe in perpetuity. So in other words you DON'T start with the work-for-hire position.


----------



## mverta (Jun 6, 2014)

I read your story and my first question was, "Who says the BNC did it for no money? The guys lowballing you?" Do you know that for an absolute fact? Super-skeptical about that, but, hey, everybody gets desperate at some point so it's not impossible.

One thing about discussions like this is how much people talk about "the industry" or "trends" or "things." Don't work for an industry, and don't worry about trends. There are 7 billion people on the planet, which means that there are more people on the Earth who will value precisely what you do, and pay you what you're worth to do it than you could ever take full advantage of in your lifetime. With all this interconnectivity we have now, spend your time finding them, instead of hoping they're in a given industry. Chances are, they're not. If you want to work in film more than you want to work with great people who will pay you right to do exactly what you do, then you lose your right to complain. It's just a question of priorities. Personally, I like it when those things happen to come together, but I will take a good paying job for a client that supports my work over a "high profile" POS with no money and douchebag executives to deal with any day. 

If a client can't tell the difference between your music and Moby's free stuff, fuck 'em.



_Mike


----------



## M.L. (Jun 7, 2014)

mverta @ 6/6/2014 said:


> There are 7 billion people on the planet, which means that there are more people on the Earth who will value precisely what you do.
> 
> If a client can't tell the difference between your music and Moby's free stuff, fuck 'em.



Ha ha, thanks Mike. Yeah I wasn't depressed for myself because she wasn't a useful client for future projects, plus I know she'll be ripping her hair out trying to find and make an already written track fit her project.

I was upset for the many young musicians who will struggle that much more to find student films or micro-budget projects to get early credits on when artists start giving music on free licenses.

But you're right, there must be tens of thousands of low budget projects out there to work on, and with today's technology we can have access to all of them.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 7, 2014)

mverta @ Fri Jun 06 said:


> If a client can't tell the difference between your music and Moby's free stuff, f#@k 'em.


Exactly. I would probably tell them that as well. :lol: 

D


----------



## mverta (Jun 7, 2014)

I remember when I was a kid studying history how often I read the phrase, "So he set out to seek his fortune elsewhere." It was just a given; if there was no love in the village, you found another village. You might have had to sail through storms for 3 months on a rickety ship, braving scurvy, but that's how you did it. 

It's still how you do it. 

_Mike


----------



## RiffWraith (Jun 7, 2014)

mverta @ Sun Jun 08 said:


> ... braving scurvy,



Oh, bring an orange and a couple of lemons with you, jeez....


----------



## José Herring (Jun 7, 2014)

mverta @ Fri Jun 06 said:


> If a client can't tell the difference between your music and Moby's free stuff, f#@k 'em.
> 
> 
> 
> _Mike



Precisely the attitude to take.

There are people that want your music, that value your music and will pay.

The trick is to find them and to be flexible enough as a composer.

I feel, that at my age now, to rise above the thundering herds I need to offer up something that nobody else is doing, but yet is still relevant to today's audiences. My next great hurdle creatively. But, it is fun exploring new horizons and finally realizing that I don't have to sound like anybody else.

If I go down in flames at least I go down being who I am. =o I think it's the only way to fight the low balling "trend".


----------



## Krayh (Jun 7, 2014)

Point is, there are to many composers out there today. If you cant make a living out of your composing work, maybe its time to look for another job.

I had a similar problem years ago, when I had my own website design company. The first years were great, but then a lot of people/students started doing the same thing. I had to drastically lower my prices at the point it was not worth it anymore.


----------



## Ah_dziz (Jun 8, 2014)

Krayh @ Sun Jun 08 said:


> Point is, there are to many composers out there today. If you cant make a living out of your composing work, maybe its time to look for another job.
> 
> I had a similar problem years ago, when I had my own website design company. The first years were great, but then a lot of people/students started doing the same thing. I had to drastically lower my prices at the point it was not worth it anymore.



While there are lots of "composers" flooding the market these days I've found there are still relatively few who are adaptable enough to work to the kind of schedules that a media composer must while still making quality music and being able to communicate what they are trying to do musically and why and also understand what the production is trying to accomplish with the music and why. This enters into things less with the large amounts of crap that is constantly being produced in which music is simply there because shows / movies are "supposed"'to have music but most of those productions will be using libraries anyway. I just can't bring myself to fight for a job where all they have to say about the music is "put some music in there to help move things along". I'll take those jobs because my kids have to eat but I'm far less flexible in negotiating with them, and I'm only going to care about the music as much as they do.
I find that producers are either interested because they know you can bring something to their project that they can't get elsewhere or they think they can screw you. There doesn't seem to be much middle ground. I've had a producer for a major show tell me that they have such and such big guy whose worked on this and that lined up but they're willing to give me a shot when I know for a fact that the big name guy has trouble working to a timeline and often turns in material that some poor music editor has to spend hours fixing so that it will work. 

This has turned into a long rambling pile of gibberish. I guess my brain is fried after a 12 hour mix session. What I'm trying to say is don't worry about what the other guys are doing. If you are talented and capable then you ask for what you feel you are worth and if some chump ( big name or no) is willing to do the job for nothing and the producers are okay with that then they deserve each other. I try to spend my energy cultivating relationships with people who understand the value that music brings to visual media and respect my ability to make that music for them in a timely fashion and in a way that helps them achieved their artistic goals.

Again sorry for the babbling. I just had a conversation with a studio producer who tried to use this same line on me last Friday and it reminded me of this thread.


----------



## AC986 (Jun 8, 2014)

You get a lot of talk in these subjects about crap music writers and poor communications with producers. It always winds up about the music. A lot of, if not most tv shows/programmes/films etc are crap. The shows are not worth watching unless you have an incredible attention span brought on by a monster lack of imagination and intelligence.
No really intelligent person could sit through most shows that go on tv without taking lots of drugs to the point of getting into a PVS.

Ergo, why do people not make a judgement about what they're writing the music for, namely the show and write music to that standard accordingly?


----------



## Daryl (Jun 8, 2014)

adriancook @ Sun Jun 08 said:


> You get a lot of talk in these subjects about crap music writers and poor communications with producers. It always winds up about the music. A lot of, if not most tv shows/programmes/films etc are crap. The shows are not worth watching unless you have an incredible attention span brought on by a monster lack of imagination and intelligence.
> No really intelligent person could sit through most shows that go on tv without taking lots of drugs to the point of getting into a PVS.
> 
> Ergo, why do people not make a judgement about what they're writing the music for, namely the show and write music to that standard accordingly?


The main problem is that most composers haven't a clue how to run a business. In fact I think that many don't even think of it as a business.

For example one of the most difficult things for an Indie producer to do is raise the capital needed to make the movie in the first place, so if I was looking for movies to score, I would find something that I believed was going to be successful, get my company to offer to invest the whole music budget in return for a decent slice of the movie, and then pay me to score it. Some would call that low balling. I would call it smart investing by my company.

D


----------



## BachRules (Jun 8, 2014)

Folmann @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Thanks for your honesty - on such an important matter. The real challenge in our community is that good composers keep on saying "yes" to low or no paid gigs. It creates a ripple effect in two ways.
> 
> First of all you set a standard for what you are worth. So next time it will be in the same ballpark and you have locked yourself in.


But you if you overcharge, you won't get hired, and that locks you in (out) too.



> Secondly there is a ripple effect of perception that hurts the entire community - in that composers should be working for free.


It doesn't hurt the composers willing to work for free, but I guess you don't consider them part of your community? People in this to make music will adapt; people in this to make $12,000 have other options besides composing.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 8, 2014)

BachRules @ Sun Jun 08 said:


> Folmann @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for your honesty - on such an important matter. The real challenge in our community is that good composers keep on saying "yes" to low or no paid gigs. It creates a ripple effect in two ways.
> ...


All it locks you out of is a badly paying gig. No loss.



BachRules @ Sun Jun 08 said:


> > Secondly there is a ripple effect of perception that hurts the entire community - in that composers should be working for free.
> 
> 
> It doesn't hurt the composers willing to work for free, but I guess you don't consider them part of your community? People in this to make music will adapt; people in this to make $12,000 have other options besides composing.


If you are a professional composer, you get paid. If not, you are an amateur, so no, you're not part of a professional community.

D


----------



## Markus S (Jun 10, 2014)

Ah_dziz @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> Markus S @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Ah_dziz @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> ...



Good read, yes, there was quite a bit of time lost on my side to get into the project (for experience won, I guess) and they do not seem to care much about it (since they wouldn't even have the decency to tell me that they decided to work with BNC). I'm still glad I insisted on being paid something upfront, if ever they come back, they'll know the deal. If I take on a deal I'm not comfortable with, I'll be poisoning my work time and probably the score, too.

And yes, it was kind of terrible (despite the cast and crew). From reading the script I thought it was great, but when I saw the film I started to doubt. I still could have written some great music for it. In fact the film badly needs great music to add a layer to the story and sort of hide the weaknesses of the acting and the cut (don't we all love to write music to try and fix these). So, IF that would have been a film that would have blown me away, I might have taken the risk(as Daryl suggests). But this is even more awkward to me that the other guy was so keen to do the movie. I mean, what does he car? Or will he just send cues along he did before and paste them on the movie?


----------



## Markus S (Jun 10, 2014)

Peter Costa @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> Forgive my ignorance, I've only dealt with a few contracts in my life, but what would be the point of requesting non-exclusivity if you are scoring to something specific? To be able to sell that music to other productions down the road as a library? As a producer or director, I would not want to see any music I have in a film be used later in reality TV or something that would IMO almost disrespect the film I worked hard on to create. Are non-exc. deals even seen at all?



Yes, what JohnG said.


----------



## Markus S (Jun 10, 2014)

mverta @ Fri Jun 06 said:


> I read your story and my first question was, "Who says the BNC did it for no money? The guys lowballing you?" Do you know that for an absolute fact? Super-skeptical about that, but, hey, everybody gets desperate at some point so it's not impossible.
> 
> One thing about discussions like this is how much people talk about "the industry" or "trends" or "things." Don't work for an industry, and don't worry about trends. There are 7 billion people on the planet, which means that there are more people on the Earth who will value precisely what you do, and pay you what you're worth to do it than you could ever take full advantage of in your lifetime. With all this interconnectivity we have now, spend your time finding them, instead of hoping they're in a given industry. Chances are, they're not. If you want to work in film more than you want to work with great people who will pay you right to do exactly what you do, then you lose your right to complain. It's just a question of priorities. Personally, I like it when those things happen to come together, but I will take a good paying job for a client that supports my work over a "high profile" POS with no money and douchebag executives to deal with any day.
> 
> ...



Well, I only hear it from them, but this composer is now officially attached to the project, so it seems correct. You think they would sort of lie about it, telling me he does it for these points and no upfront payment, but in reality pay him good money? What's the point?

Not sure if the rest of your post is general thought or directed at my case, but remember these guys actually approached me in the first place asking me how much I would charge for an original score in the style of my music they heard on the Internet.


----------



## Markus S (Jun 10, 2014)

Ah_dziz @ Sun Jun 08 said:


> If you are talented and capable then you ask for what you feel you are worth and if some chump ( big name or no) is willing to do the job for nothing and the producers are okay with that then they deserve each other. I try to spend my energy cultivating relationships with people who understand the value that music brings to visual media and respect my ability to make that music for them in a timely fashion and in a way that helps them achieved their artistic goals.



Agreed to this.


----------



## Markus S (Jun 10, 2014)

BachRules @ Sun Jun 08 said:


> Folmann @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for your honesty - on such an important matter. The real challenge in our community is that good composers keep on saying "yes" to low or no paid gigs. It creates a ripple effect in two ways.
> ...



The composer who works for free hurts first of all himself. Because if you work for free the perceived value of your music is nothing, niet, zero. And you hurt yourself if you have invested thousands of dollars and countless hours in acquiring and learning the tools you need to satisfy the artistic demands of your (non-paying) client. Because he is a client after all, it is his vision, his project you have to fit in with it. 

And it does indeed hurt the composer's market as a whole, this kind of low balling, as well as working downright for nothing (or promises and dreams), because you are cutting the legs of the one who will ask for decent payment. You may not care for this, since it's not your life that is touched, but if you destroy the market you are hurting yourself again, because you will never find a place where you can make a living from music. Most composers work for free to "get a foot in the door" (or in this case, "stay in the game") and the like, so the dream (or aim) is to ultimately earn a living in the industry.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 10, 2014)

Markus S @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> And it does indeed hurt the composer's market as a whole, this kind of low balling, as well as working downright for nothing (or promises and dreams), because you are cutting the legs of the one who will ask for decent payment. You may not care for this, since it's not your life that is touched, but if you destroy the market you are hurting yourself again, because you will never find a place where you can make a living from music. Most composers work for free to "get a foot in the door" (or in this case, "stay in the game") and the like, so the dream (or aim) is to ultimately earn a living in the industry.


Markus, unfortunately this is an argument you can't win, particularly here, as many people use composing to supplement their days jobs.

You also have to realise that every time you use samples of an acoustic instrument on a score, you are undercutting the composer who would have hired musicians for the score, so in a sense you are also low balling.

D


----------



## ddplz (Jun 10, 2014)

Markus S @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> After reading the script and viewing the film, they ask how much I would charge. As this is my first feature, I'm unsure. Doing some research, knowing they are low budget, checking out some live recording options, evaluating the music style, I go for 12k $ for 40-60 minutes/composing only (non-exclusive rights, publishing stays with me). It seems like a very good and reasonable deal for them and I'm calculating the potential royalties within the budget.


How is your offer a good deal for them, if someone else is offering do it for less? How did you arrive at the figure $12k?


----------



## Markus S (Jun 10, 2014)

Daryl @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> You also have to realise that every time you use samples of an acoustic instrument on a score, you are undercutting the composer who would have hired musicians for the score, so in a sense you are also low balling.
> 
> D



No, I don't agree here, this isn't comparable. 

Looking at your example the situation would be more like a musician asking for a certain fee, then another musician (with great credits) goes under it, then offering to work just for a share on the sales of the score, once the composer says he has no budget for live musicians at all. Try explaining this to an orchestra.

The sample based software is another type of license all together, since you are not custom developing. 

Comparing to use sample (technology I paid for) and not hiring live musicians (who do not have to work, since I didn't hire them) is apples and oranges to me.


----------



## Markus S (Jun 10, 2014)

ddplz @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> Markus S @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> > After reading the script and viewing the film, they ask how much I would charge. As this is my first feature, I'm unsure. Doing some research, knowing they are low budget, checking out some live recording options, evaluating the music style, I go for 12k $ for 40-60 minutes/composing only (non-exclusive rights, publishing stays with me). It seems like a very good and reasonable deal for them and I'm calculating the potential royalties within the budget.
> ...



You should send them your resumé.


----------



## ddplz (Jun 10, 2014)

Daryl @ Sun Jun 08 said:


> If you are a professional composer, you get paid. If not, you are an amateur, so no, you're not part of a professional community.


So the amateurs willing to work free aren't hurting any community they're a part of. They aren't hurting the amateur-composers-willing-to-work-for-free community.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 10, 2014)

Markus S @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> Daryl @ Tue Jun 10 said:
> 
> 
> > You also have to realise that every time you use samples of an acoustic instrument on a score, you are undercutting the composer who would have hired musicians for the score, so in a sense you are also low balling.
> ...


Hang on a second. Are you really saying that you think you should have the right to stop someone else charging less than you do, whilst retaining the right to use samples and thus undercut composers who only use live musicians? Don't you find that a little bit hypocritical?

D


----------



## Markus S (Jun 10, 2014)

Daryl @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> Markus S @ Tue Jun 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Tue Jun 10 said:
> ...



Can you please quote me on where I am saying somewhere that I think I should have the right to stop someone from charging less that me?

And no, I do not find anything hypocritical here, but I sure respect your opinion on it.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 10, 2014)

Markus S @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> Can you please quote me on where I am saying somewhere that I think I should have the right to stop someone from charging less that me?


Sorry, I may have misunderstood, but I thought that this was what the whole thread was about.

D


----------



## Markus S (Jun 10, 2014)

Daryl @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> Markus S @ Tue Jun 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Can you please quote me on where I am saying somewhere that I think I should have the right to stop someone from charging less that me?
> ...



No problem. I posted this mainly to just state a situation I encountered and to say that IMO this kind of low balling hurts the market as a whole (including the low balling ones). We know this from starting out composers, but it is new to me to get this behavior "from above", even though apparently it is quite a typical situation.

So I'm just sharing the experience, hearing other peoples views on it and hopefully giving food for thought here and there.

This said (on the subject of using samples via hiring musicians), my offer includes 95% live instruments & live recordings with high end gear in a specifically designed room, as I am a multi instrumentalist collecting and playing many instruments.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 10, 2014)

The idea that how much anyone charges regardless of their position is an amoral thing that has no real effect on everyone else ois a pernicious and short sighted idea IMHO.


----------



## ddplz (Jun 10, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> The idea that how much anyone charges regardless of their position is an amoral thing that has no real effect on everyone else ois a pernicious and short sighted idea IMHO.


The idea that composers are entitled to make any money seems pernicious and short sighted to me. There are so many composers looking for an audience, you could probably find some willing to pay for an audience to listen to their music. It seems frankly ridiculous to criticize people for choosing to compose for free. It sounds like the last gasp of a dying union, and I don't see why anyone outside the union would mind.

I asked above where the O.P. got the idea that $12k was the right price for what he was offering, and he dismissed my question, so the question remains. Where does anyone get the idea what's a fair price?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 10, 2014)

So basically you are saying there should be no such thing as professional composers?


----------



## José Herring (Jun 10, 2014)

ddplz @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> The idea that composers are entitled to make any money seems pernicious and short sighted to me. There are so many composers looking for an audience, you could probably find some willing to pay for an audience to listen to their music. It seems frankly ridiculous to criticize people for choosing to compose for free. It sounds like the last gasp of a dying union, and I don't see why anyone outside the union would mind.
> 
> I asked above where the O.P. got the idea that $12k was the right price for what he was offering, and he dismissed my question, so the question remains. Where does anyone get the idea what's a fair price?



Wow. I thought I'd heard every position until now.

Are you seriously advocating that a composer has no right to charge? Am I reading you right, I hope I'm not.

Look, if we wanted to work for free, then why would we exchange our music for others to use or share? Working at your own expense for the benefit of another is called slavery.

I write all day long sometimes for free. I don't then go and give the music away to a film company for any reason. I feel that if somebody is going to use it, then pay me for it, period. I can write music for my amusement or to test new ideas or try a new style, but I don't expect that people are going to use that. But, if somebody is going to use my music, then pay.

12k is a low ball offer already for a feature. Not saying that I haven't done plenty similar or even for less, but if you're asking why does he have a right to charge 12k, then you're really out of the loop. 12k isn't even a good price for a decent tv episode.

Even in Prague if he were to get an orchestra he'd be lucky to get 15 minutes of music out of that budget. It's peanuts for music. Nothing, nada. He was being generous. He wanted the gig and he sat down and tried to figure out the lowest he could do it. 

I did something similar and my budget was 20k. And that was low ball, and I didn't get the gig because some dumb ass composer offered to do it for 7k. And, then couldn't deliver so the filmmaker went even lower. At which point I was telling him in so many words to fuck himself. Not because artistically I didn't believe in what he was doing, but because he was just playing composers against each other trying to get the lowest price and I figured he wasn't really interested in music. Just cheap music. I have no time for that anymore. I'm out of that game.


----------



## ddplz (Jun 10, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> So basically you are saying there should be no such thing as professional composers?


No, I'm not saying that much. I'm saying the $12K jobs should be reserved for composers offering something worth $12K more than what the free-composers are offering, and times appear to be changing, in that the free-composers are getting better, so it's getting harder to compose something that's truly $12K above what free-composers are doing. If a kid teaches himself how to compose and does it for free for fun, it's not impressive to see a bunch of old guys complaining about what the kid's doing.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 10, 2014)

ddplz @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jun 10 said:
> 
> 
> > The idea that how much anyone charges regardless of their position is an amoral thing that has no real effect on everyone else ois a pernicious and short sighted idea IMHO.
> ...


Nobody is entitled to make money for any profession. Society decides whether or not what they produce is of any value. Unfortunately. However, in the same way as someone who is quite good at DIY is unlikely to be a master carpenter, an amateur with a computer and a few samples is not likely to be a master composer. It could happen. Just unlikely. Therefore if high quality is required, which also means delivering on a deadline, a professional is much more likely to get the job done. If you hire a professional, you have to pay them. That is true for any profession. If quality doesn't matter and there is no deadline, there is no reason why anyone shouldn't have a go.

BTW, how is your computer music writing program coming on?

D


----------



## Musicologo (Jun 10, 2014)

Well, I'm somewhat for the "fair price" should be related to the real revenue. If the end product (movie with the music, etc, etc) ends up losing money then 12K it is in fact a LOT and unfair... if the movie ends up making 5000K, then 12K is ridiculous... In my ideal there should be a connection between your living standards AND the market... So I guess a "fair price" should always include a X amount indexed to the minimum living wage of your country/culture (to reflect your time and craft) + a % of the real profit (to reflect the merit of its effectiveness).

You could end up with something like - my work is worth 
"3.5 times minimum wage for the period I'm working for you + 8% of the gross revenue of your movie", or something like that.


----------



## ddplz (Jun 10, 2014)

josejherring @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> Wow. I thought I'd heard every position until now.
> 
> Are you seriously advocating that a composer has no right to charge? Am I reading you right, I hope I'm not.
> 
> ...


You misunderstood me. I'm not denying your right to charge money, however much you like, a billion dollars if you want, and that's your right. Are you denying that the buyers have the right to reject your offers? And if they exercise their right to reject your offer, of course you don't still have to do any work, so it's nothing like slavery.

"if you're asking why does he have a right to charge 12k, then you're really out of the loop". It seems like there's more than one loop here, and your loop is having difficulty coming to terms with the market effect from the increasing supply of compositions.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 10, 2014)

I am all for the free market as long as it does not degenerate into the Libertarian nonsense that if everyone just does what is best for himself/herself it is best for society


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 10, 2014)

Man, reading some of these revolutionary posts (can you beat free?) makes me feel so happy to have had a career for decades before this ongoing debacle. o[]) :cry:


----------



## JJP (Jun 10, 2014)

Musicologo @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> Well, I'm somewhat for the "fair price" should be related to the real revenue. If the end product (movie with the music, etc, etc) ends up losing money then 12K it is in fact a LOT and unfair... if the movie ends up making 5000K, then 12K is ridiculous... In my ideal there should be a connection between your living standards AND the market... So I guess a "fair price" should always include a X amount indexed to the minimum living wage of your country/culture (to reflect your time and craft) + a % of the real profit (to reflect the merit of its effectiveness).
> 
> You could end up with something like - my work is worth
> "3.5 times minimum wage for the period I'm working for you + 8% of the gross revenue of your movie", or something like that.



That's exactly the thinking behind things like Secondary Markets payments, royalties, and residuals. Sadly, that's what people are arguing is a deal-breaker and unrealistic in today's market.


----------



## rgames (Jun 10, 2014)

There's only one simple issue: supply and demand. The supply of composers far exceeds the demand for their services, so union or not you'll never adapt to that imbalance so long as it exists.

Nobody has ever said "Crap. I guess I have to be a composer." It's a choice, not exploitation, so the market should be free to dictate whatever it wants. People who work in sweat shops or regions where there is limited economic opportunity need protection from exploitation. Not composers - everyone who chooses to compose does so knowing full well that there are other opportunities to make money.

Because there is no exploitation, it's hard to argue that there should be minimum wages or any such controls. If there's no exploitation, doesn't everyone have the right to compete for the gig and decide what meets his needs? Should we deny someone the right to work for little or no money? Of course not - that's discrimination.

Therein lies the problem: you can't discriminate against a huge group of people who choose to work for little or nothing. As long as they exist, there's no point in trying to set minimum wages or any other type of regulation on compensation.

rgames


----------



## mverta (Jun 10, 2014)

rgames @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> There's only one simple issue: supply and demand. The supply of composers far exceeds the demand for their services, so union or not you'll never adapt to that imbalance so long as it exists.



Well, again - the supply of composers _who want to work in videogames or tv and film_ exceeds the demand (and the quality threshold is extremely low, which doubles the glut).

If you want to work in a particular industry more than you want to work, period, then you're beholden to this stuff. If you just want to compose music, don't work for industries, work for people. There's a planet full of them who will pay properly, and with whom you can make appropriate arrangements to sustain your livelihood. 

That's my advice to up-and-comers: go find the _good_ work, hone your craft, and if and when the field you originally aspired to work in becomes tenable, you'll only be that much more prepared to jump in. In the meantime, love your work and your life, and provide for yourself and your family. That is a choice, too, and a far more rewarding one, from my chair.

_Mike


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 10, 2014)

rgames @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> Should we deny someone the right to work for little or no money? Of course not - that's discrimination.
> 
> 
> rgames



Perhaps not, but when big name composers who don't need to nevertheless undercut lesser successes by working for next to nothing, we have the right (and I would say the obligation) to say "shame on you", even if they don't care.

If I had my way there would be a Facebook page for calling them out on it publicly. If they believe they have done nothing wrong, they should have no problem with it.


----------



## mverta (Jun 10, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> rgames @ Tue Jun 10 said:
> 
> 
> > when big name composers who don't need to



Define "need to." More to the point, who exactly gets to say what I do and don't need? 

If "Big Name Composer" doesn't "need" the money, but absolutely loves a project, has such passion for it - maybe sorely needs soul replenishing - and is willing to work for nothing to do it, who on Earth has the right to tell him/her they can't, or shouldn't? That argument ITSELF suggests that money is the only reason to do what we do, and if it is, there are better and easier ways to make money - including composing music for things other than videogames.

_Mike


----------



## ddplz (Jun 10, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> Perhaps not, but when big name composers who don't need to nevertheless undercut lesser successes by working for next to nothing, we have the right (and I would say the obligation) to say "shame on you", even if they don't care.
> 
> If I had my way there would be a Facebook page for calling them out on it publicly. If they believe they have done nothing wrong, they should have no problem with it.


My new career-goal is to be the subject of one of your Facebook shame-pages.


----------



## Saxer (Jun 10, 2014)

there are lots of reasons why a 'big name composer' takes low budget jobs. often they have their own team of co-composers, ghostwriters, orchestrators. low budget films might be chances for them to make own projects under the big names roof.


----------



## AR (Jun 11, 2014)

I still ask myself: "Who is the bigtime composer?" ...well, I actually lost a gig to another composer just a few days ago. The investors had some protigee they wanned to push. But looking up biographies of many composers, I think, there are pretty much a few who weren't replaced in their whole career. -> just the name a few examples: Howard Shore-JN Howard / Alan Silvestri-Klaus Badelt&Hans Zimmer / Danny Elfman-Chris Young, you could go on...


----------



## Markus S (Jun 11, 2014)

ddplz @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jun 10 said:
> 
> 
> > So basically you are saying there should be no such thing as professional composers?
> ...



Well, you seem to get worked up about the 12k number, lots of money, isn't it. 

First off, welcome to the forum, if you really stand behind what you are posting here, it is a good thing to discuss these matters. But it would be helpful, if you introduced yourself a bit, especially your age, if you are paying bills yourself, if so with music with something else and in what country.

If you are having rent to pay, assurances, professional material and software (no cracks on my setup), food, electricity, taxes, health assurance, etc. you will realize that your 12k $ are quickly out of the window.

We are talking about a full time job, no time to earn money with anything else.

OK, the real question is : do I offer the same thing? No, I don't. I believe the score I would have written would sound very different from the score they will get. It's not just that he does the same job for less. He does the job differently.

Apart from the composing, I play everything live, this includes, violin, viola, cello, ethnic instruments, like the duduk and other strange flutes, ethic percussions and weird objects, like skulls and glass objects. I am doing exclusively custom sound design. I'm not opening up Symphobia or Evolve and hitting a key.

All is recorded in high end quality, meaning the recordings are as good as it gets, with the best microphones and pre amps in the world. I spent countless hours working on the acoustics of my room to get a professional sounding studio.

Of course I could just accept the risk, do a quick score, hit a few keys, but that's not the way I like to work and feel comfortable with.

I am not doing 20 minutes a day in this style, it will be only a minute or two a day, counting in reworks, file transfers and communication. 

So given this, yes, it's a good deal for them. It is for the least a service I want to make sure I get paid for, or else I do something else.


----------



## Markus S (Jun 11, 2014)

josejherring @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> 12k is a low ball offer already for a feature. Not saying that I haven't done plenty similar or even for less, but if you're asking why does he have a right to charge 12k, then you're really out of the loop. 12k isn't even a good price for a decent tv episode.
> 
> Even in Prague if he were to get an orchestra he'd be lucky to get 15 minutes of music out of that budget. It's peanuts for music. Nothing, nada. He was being generous. He wanted the gig and he sat down and tried to figure out the lowest he could do it.



Thank you, José, this is well said and straight to the point.


----------



## Markus S (Jun 11, 2014)

ddplz @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> You misunderstood me. I'm not denying your right to charge money, however much you like, a billion dollars if you want, and that's your right. Are you denying that the buyers have the right to reject your offers?



I'm afraid you might be missing the point of the discussion at hand. First of all, no one is denying the right of anyone to set prices and to reject offers. However there comes a point where you cannot make a living doing music anymore if you are not going to charge a certain amount of money. 

You will not be able to buy new material and will not be able to pay sample developers or musicians and orchestras for their work. So this market goes down as well, bringing the (music) economy to it's knees in a race to the bottom. You might have noticed, if you are not living with your parents anymore, that prices have a tendency of rising aggressively these last years, while budget going drastically down.

The case is a great demonstration of what goes wrong. The composer has some really big credits and he is low balling me on a very reasonable budget (as José stated, it is low budget already). How is the upcoming film maker to see this? How comes this guy charges so and so, while this "big name composer" charges only.. They don't even know he is low balling, they think I'm out of my mind.

If he would have stated a good budget, and I would have stated a decent budget as well, they would have found the money and chosen based on music and maybe credits.


----------



## ddplz (Jun 11, 2014)

Markus S @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> ddplz @ Tue Jun 10 said:
> 
> 
> > EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jun 10 said:
> ...


I believe the effort you put into your music probably does make it worth more, but I still don't see where you get the figure "12k". You keep mentioning the bills you need to pay, but I don't see how that factor makes your offer a better deal for producers. You're sure 12k is a good deal for producers, though, and assuming you're right, you should have no problem finding other producers willing to pay 12k.


----------



## ddplz (Jun 11, 2014)

Markus S @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> there comes a point where you cannot make a living doing music anymore if you are not going to charge a certain amount of money.


But I totally understand that. There are like millions and millions of people who want to earn a living making music and don't get what they want.


----------



## Markus S (Jun 11, 2014)

Saxer @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> there are lots of reasons why a 'big name composer' takes low budget jobs. often they have their own team of co-composers, ghostwriters, orchestrators. low budget films might be chances for them to make own projects under the big names roof.



True, haven't thought of that possibility as yet.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 11, 2014)

And all those people (ghostwriters, orchestrators) are going to work for free?


----------



## Daryl (Jun 11, 2014)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> And all those people (ghostwriters, orchestrators) are going to work for free?


This is a very good point (although ghostwriting should be outlawed, IMO). Also a project has, at the very least, to break even, and if you have assistants and studios to run, your fee would most likely have to be higher than someone just working out of their bedroom.

D


----------



## dinerdog (Jun 11, 2014)

Quite a few people here sound like their making excuses for the lowballing or finding reasons why this is just "natural selection". Save that for your Philosophy 101 class.

It's part of why musicians can't really unite for the common cause. A big composer takes a low paying gig, a mid level composer takes a cheap (paying) gig, and others continue to do stuff for free. You can argue all you want that this is "how it works" or "you made the choice to be a musician" and all that other [email protected]#, but in the end we get treated how we act.

To quote The Hollywood Shuffle: "If you don't stand for something, you'll go for anything".


----------



## Daryl (Jun 11, 2014)

However, nobody has yet defined what "lowballing" means. To me it means that I am charging less than I need to avoid making a loss.

For example, if it coast £50K to run my business, even when there are no projects, and I need £20K a year to live on, then my projects need to bring in roughly £1500 a week in order for me to survive, even without project related costs. Therefore if a gig is going to take a month, I have to be sure that in the long run it pays at least £6K. Now if I factor in some downtime for meetings and the like, my month long project need to pay more than that.

Of course someone who has a big mortgage and a shed load of kids, needs to make more. However, if my quote is lower than theirs, even though I seem to be higher up in the profession than they are, does this mean that I'm lowballing? Or is it just the case that if I charge more than I need to, I am being greedy? These are not really easy questions to answer, and I haven't even talked about my company investing in the project.

D


----------



## dinerdog (Jun 11, 2014)

Daryl - I don't know if your replying to my post, but it sounds like your being philosophical (what is lowballing anyway?) AND your making excuses for BNC (house, kids, team etc.).

Why not apply rgames "philosophy" to him? Maybe "Big Name Composer" should get another gig at this point (he's had his day), trim his staff or any other number of things that we're using against newer composers. Poor BNC, maybe he "has" to take lower paying gigs to make his nut.

Your stating obvious business decisions - Higher overhead? - Need to charge more etc...
That goes for all of us. The reality is, it's dog eat dog with no one looking out for anyone else in the industry is what I'm saying.

Now there are some serious exceptions. When I mentioned Moby giving his music away (please don't bother defending that here) I wanted to say that what we need from those Big Name Composers is apprenticeship and mentoring. Hans Zimmer is a crazy shining example of how the elder statesmen of this industry should act. He's not calculating his bottom line, he's just want's the obsessed dreamers and doers to get their chance to rise.

Markus's example isn't a definitive example either. We don't know the back story. His competing composer may have a real financial need and is doing anything and everything, but I'm just amazed at the divide here on what's acceptable and good for this industry.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 11, 2014)

*dinerdog*, I wasn't specifically replying to you, but the idea that someone shouldn't work on a project that they want to, because they ought to let younger, inexperienced people have the work, makes no sense. It's not for you to say that anyone has "had his day". That's their decision; not yours. I certainly agree that mentoring is a very good idea, and it's something that I've been doing for many years, but I certainly don't blame other people if they choose not to do it.

The music business is called a business because that's what it is. I don't see that people should act differently just because it's music, even though I may choose to do so. In your world Tesco would charge much more than the local corner shop, on the grounds on the grounds that they are a big name company. In fact it's the opposite, and they do everything they can to under-cut the opposition. :wink: 

D


----------



## dinerdog (Jun 11, 2014)

Agreed! I guess that's what makes the discussion here tough. There really is no answer, just an evolving landscape. It's pretty uncharted at this point, with less and less that can be done to change it. Perhaps I should be a little more "philosophical" :wink:


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 11, 2014)

mverta @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jun 10 said:
> 
> 
> > rgames @ Tue Jun 10 said:
> ...



Of course, it is a case by case thing, but I literally got hired and un-hired within 72 hours on a low budget film that was not going to pay me very well that trust me, nobody could have had "a passion to do" by a more famous composer who came in at the last minute and agreed to do it for just the back end, no front money.

That guy is pond scum and who has the " right to tell him/her they shouldn't? "

I do. We all do


----------



## Daryl (Jun 11, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> Of course, it is a case by case thing, but I literally got hired and un-hired within 72 hours on a low budget film that was not going to pay me very well that trust me, nobody could have had "a passion to do" by a more famous composer who came in at the last minute and agreed to do it for just the back end, no front money.
> 
> That guy is pond scum and who has the " right to tell him/her they shouldn't? "
> 
> I do. We all do


Not really, you don't. You are thinking of it as a composer, rather than a businessman.

Let's say someone has an investment company that invests in films, called Tarts and Vicars Investments. They hear about a film that should do good business and decide to invest in it, on the proviso that they can specifically fund the music budget. In return for paying £100K, they get a 5% share of the film and can pick whatever composer they like. Now let's say that T and V hires me for £30K and spends £70K on production, hiring the best players they can and recording in Abbey Road 1. As long as the film does well, T and V is able to make money and invest in more films. If it does badly, they lose their money. Either way, I'm covered for the time and cost in writing the score.

Now let's say that I happen to own T and V. So, am I doing the job for nothing? Not according to my accounts, but either way I've taken the job from you.

D


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 11, 2014)

I have no problem with that scenario UNLESS someone else is already well under consideration and you come in with a low ball offer and take it away. 

At that point I am going to call youout and hope that one day I have the opportunity to tell you to our face what i think of you. (Not you specifically, Daryl, the composer in this example.)

All comes down to this: you either believe that successful composers have a responsibility not only to themselves but to the health of the composing community or you do not. 

In the past it was a given that they do but in this "Age of Me" less so.


----------



## ddplz (Jun 11, 2014)

This thread is like a communist-composers manifesto. Communism always sounds good to the people with their hands out for welfare, but not so good for the rest of society.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 11, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> I have no problem with that scenario UNLESS someone else is already well under consideration and you come in with a low ball offer and take it away.
> 
> At that point I am going to call youout and hope that one day I have the opportunity to tell you to our face what i think of you. (Not you specifically, Daryl, the composer in this example.)
> 
> ...


No such thing as having any sort of rights by being under consideration. The gig is either yours, or it isn't. If Ford offers me a better deal on a car, when I was considering Renault, it's tough luck to Renault if I go with Ford.

If your music is so important to the project, you will get the gig, no matter who else comes into the fray with whatever deal they propose. If it isn't, you won't. All that would have happened is that the producers and director have basically told you that you're not important enough to them. So under those circumstances, do you actually want the gig?

FWIW this actually happened to me on a ballet I was commissioned to write. In fact I had already written half of it. However, I didn't take it personally. It just meant that if the company ever asked me to do something else in the future, I would insist on getting a contract in advance and also increase my fee. As their project bombed at the box office, I didn't really lose out, except by the fact that I had already written half of the music, but pretty much all of it has now been re-cycled, so I didn't lose out.

D


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 11, 2014)

Nonsense. In between Communism and Libertarianism is a wide swath that thankfully most Americans traditionally support. It is the essential balance between striving for individual freedom and a civilized society.

In the end, it boils down to this:
you either believe that successful people (not just composers) have a moral obligation to "give back" to an industry that has benefitted them greatly by trying to make things better for everybody or you believe that they only need to do what is best for themselves.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 11, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> Nonsense. In between Communism and Libertarianism is a wide swath that thankfully most Americans traditionally support. It is the essential balance between striving for individual freedom and a civilized society.


I'm afraid that we'll just have to agree to disagree then.

D


----------



## ddplz (Jun 11, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> civilized society


Would civilization really fall apart if some composers got other jobs, part-time at least, so they could pay their electricity bills? They might even find their music improving once they weren't stressed about their electricity bills? Composers being able to pay their electricity bills might even be viewed as a good and healthy thing for the composer-community?

But then there are also those who wouldn't be satisfied just making good music -- those who want to "rise" (quoting dinerdog), which I guess means some amount of fame? But I don't imagine civilized society has ever depended on the success of those so self-absorbed that they would value fame.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 11, 2014)

Fine, Then lets have part time bankers who moonlight as bakers; CEOs who also sell shoes on the weekend; TV producers who do series for Showtime also part time working the popcorn stand at the theaters.

The death of the professional anything. Sounds like a great thing for people to work towards.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 11, 2014)

It's such a great thing that Kafka had a job in insurance, or else he might never had the incentive to write at night instead of sleeping.

Composers and wanna-be's, listen up: music is now only worth the time it takes to drop it onto a timeline. We have more than enough music for image already. There are libraries with 150,000 cues. Let's get back to playing for that day's rent and food, travelling from town to town with our laptops. Our music, expressing our true blues, can only be better! 

Just think about the possibilities of bartering: a chicken for a trailer, 3 square meals for an YouTube wedding video, a week of AirBnB in Brooklyn or Paris for a short film soundtrack, coffee at Starbucks for a month for a feature score.


----------



## Markus S (Jun 11, 2014)

ddplz @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> I asked above where the O.P. got the idea that $12k was the right price for what he was offering, and he dismissed my question, so the question remains. Where does anyone get the idea what's a fair price?



And I believe I asked you to state your situation, so that we can understand a bit more where you are coming from. For all I know you might be a 14 year old living with his parents and using a cracked version of Fruity Loops to make music.

While we are at it, with the work for free and all, I suppose you bought your music software and paid for the samples you are using. Or have you not? Virtual instruments and software cost thousands of dollars. Since you are not posting under your real name, why bother, so please tell us, what setup you have and if you have paid for it or not.


----------



## dinerdog (Jun 11, 2014)

+1 - haha, maybe it's Moby. :wink:


----------



## rgames (Jun 11, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> you either believe that successful people (not just composers) have a moral obligation to "give back" to an industry that has benefitted them greatly by trying to make things better for everybody or you believe that they only need to do what is best for themselves.


This is where composers are very different from other professionals. Composers are inherently a "look at me" group. They have to be or they'd never composer anything. The need for recognition is what really drives composers so they're unlikely to give it to anyone else.

Consider this: in the sciences, the mantra is "Publish or Perish". You have to get your name as lead author on major papers in prestigious journals in order to be considered "somebody". It's the equivalent of getting the credit for a major motion picture, or a major concert music award, so the medium is different but the basic idea is the same as in the world of composers.

Here's where it's different: at some point in their careers, people in the sciences transfer the focus to their students/proteges/younger co-workers. If you're a scientist past your 40's and you're not a co-author listed behind someone younger, it's a mark against you because you're not contributing to the next generation of scientists and, therefore, science as a whole is worse off.

Now ask yourself this question: when have you ever seen a film composer who wants to give the title credits to someone else? It happens a little bit in the concert music world, but I haven't seen it in the media world.

Maybe, though, that's how it's supposed to be in the music world. Maybe there is no "community" and the real purpose of composers is to look only within themselves and extract all the musical ideas they possibly can. Science is different because it's searching for truths that exist independent of humanity. Music is, of course, tied to humanity. As long as that's the case, though, it'll be tough to create any sense of community and I don't think these problems will go away.

rgames


----------



## dinerdog (Jun 11, 2014)

I have to say Richard, I differ with a LOT of things you say, but on the composer community I totally agree. It's not a pessimistic view either. Maybe it's the nature of securing (insecure) work, but I've never felt we were a particularly sharing bunch. Of course there are (probably many) exceptions (let's not get technical), but overall, not a sharing vibe.

A big part is probably just the nature of the work. I've always noticed that painters or writers had a different camaraderie. They usually have vastly different styles and audiences. We, unfortunately are mostly competing for the same work and very often aping the same style at times. Again, let's not be technical because we'd all like to be unique and ultimately wanted for our own style, but by and large we're required to use a somewhat familiar vocabulary and function in a similar way until we're "famous".

So we face some unique constraints that other creative profession don't. I do like the science and teaching aspect of the others, it would be cool if you got to a certain level and the norm was to start teaching and disseminating your knowledge instead of needing to always have a leg up on the competition.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 11, 2014)

Stephen, in the 9 years I've been here, I've seen a great number of experienced composers disseminating their knowledge, starting with Rctec, Mike Verta, Jay, Hannes, Rob, John G, etc, etc.


----------



## ddplz (Jun 11, 2014)

Markus S @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> so that we can understand a bit more where you are coming from


"Where I'm coming from" is just wondering how you arrived at the figure $12k as a fair price. I understand the part where you have bills to pay and you want income to cover the investment you made in equipment, but your personal needs don't add any value to your product, so all that seems irrelevant when calculating what's a good price from the producer's perspective. I'd expect a charity agency to be concerned with your need to pay bills, but I wouldn't expect a producer to care. Society could hardly afford to subsidize every person who decides he wants to spend all his time making music. In any case, charging $12k is working for you, and I guess that's all that matters.


----------



## rgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> Stephen, in the 9 years I've been here, I've seen a great number of experienced composers disseminating their knowledge, starting with Rctec, Mike Verta, Jay, Hannes, Rob, John G, etc, etc.


That's true, but it's not the same as sacrificing a major credit to bring someone else up.

Plus, a lot of composers/musicians wind up making money sharing their "knowledge" with other composers/musicians. In other professions it's exactly the opposite - the senior guys PAY the younger guys to work for them and mentor them along the way. That's true even at the student level: if you go to graduate school in science or engineering you get an adviser who PAYS your tuition along with a small stipend to live on - nobody pays for graduate degrees in science or engineering.

Here's another thought: have you seen the Golden Gate Bridge? Do you know who designed it? Shouldn't he get a credit? How about the Empire State Building? Should that architect get a credit? Those achievements are as good as any score for any film and yet the lead creatives had no need for a credit. There are no giant banners with the architect's name draped on the building. Composers, however, make sure their credits are explicitly defined in the contract!

As long as that's the case, you'll be hard-pressed to build a sense of community.

Again, I'm not passing judgement. Maybe that's how it has to be for composers. I'm simply stating a fact.

rgames


----------



## givemenoughrope (Jun 11, 2014)

ddplz @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> I understand the part where you have bills to pay and you want income to cover the investment you made in equipment, but your personal needs don't add any value to your product, so all that seems irrelevant when calculating what's a good price from the producer's perspective.



I understand that you are playing devil's/producer's advocate but this is a clear straw man. If I break my leg on the way to the podium at the scoring stage I can't charge extra for that either. No one is calculating a price solely on the price of gas, milk and Apple computers. Your standing, your skill, your credits, etc is more what you're worth. The rest needs to be covered for it all to make sense. $12k isn't enough for someone to give up other gigs unless they can afford to take a "vacation" and score the thing. You're trying to take a macro view on something you don't understand. Sorry. 



rgames @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> have you seen the Golden Gate Bridge? Do you know who designed it? Shouldn't he get a credit? How about the Empire State Building? Should that architect get a credit? Those achievements are as good as any score for any film and yet the lead creatives had no need for a credit. There are no giant banners with the architect's name draped on the building. Composers, however, make sure their credits are explicitly defined in the contract!



They don't need a credit to get the next gig bc they have the Golden Gate bridge on their resume. Can you stop giving advice as if you're a full-timer? it's annoying and confusing.


----------



## chillbot (Jun 11, 2014)

ddplz @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> Markus S @ Wed Jun 11 said:
> 
> 
> > so that we can understand a bit more where you are coming from
> ...



I don't really understand. It's not that I charge 12k, it's that there's an end product-- a film, a television show, a video game, whatever it is-- that product has a set budget for which they hope to create the product. Everyone who is contributing time or skills towards the product is getting paid. 12k is just a number, a percentage of the budget. If the producers all of a sudden feel like the music is not worth 5% or 3% or even 1% of the budget how is that fair to me...? Because someone else is willing to do it for less? I guess that's one way to balance a budget but your product is going to suck if you keep doing that and you're not going to last very long as a producer. I'm very confused by this conversation.

I would also add that 12k is not my price, it's *my* budget and I figure out how to make the music for it. If I have 120k I'm doing certain things, if I have 12k I'm doing certain things, if it's 1.2k that certainly changes things. In all cases what I keep for myself to cover living expenses is a small percentage it's certainly not the entire 12k. The end product has a budget, I have a budget, why are we hung up on this? Don't look at it from the side of what the composer "charges" look at it from the side of what the product can afford for music.


----------



## ddplz (Jun 11, 2014)

givemenoughrope @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> I understand that you are playing devil's/producer's advocate but this is a clear straw man. If I break my leg on the way to the podium at the scoring stage I can't charge extra for that either. No one is calculating a price solely on the price of gas, milk and Apple computers. Your standing, your skill, your credits, etc is more what you're worth. The rest needs to be covered for it all to make sense. $12k isn't enough for someone to give up other gigs unless they can afford to take a "vacation" and score the thing. You're trying to take a macro view on something you don't understand. Sorry.


No need for you to be sorry, because I was just asking questions because I don't understand. If it makes you feel somehow important to point out that I don't understand everything, go for it. I'm not playing devil's/producer's advocate, though, so your accusation is wrong. I was going by what he said, and he keeps mentioning the bills he has to pay, as if that somehow increases the value of his product. It's a recurring theme in his posts, as you can see for yourself.

If more composers with comparable standing, skill, credits, etc. enter the market, then the monetary value of composition is going to decrease. That's economics which you apparently don't understand; sorry. Luckily this isn't happening, and that's why the O.P. had no problem finding a $12k job today from a different producer.



givemenoughrope @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> rgames @ Wed Jun 11 said:
> 
> 
> > have you seen the Golden Gate Bridge? Do you know who designed it? Shouldn't he get a credit? How about the Empire State Building? Should that architect get a credit? Those achievements are as good as any score for any film and yet the lead creatives had no need for a credit. There are no giant banners with the architect's name draped on the building. Composers, however, make sure their credits are explicitly defined in the contract!
> ...


His post wasn't annoying or confusing to me, and he never claimed to a full-timer. If it bugs you, please just ignore him next time, but I'm interested in what he has to say, and you're not the only one reading. Thanks.


----------



## ddplz (Jun 11, 2014)

chillbot @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> ddplz @ Wed Jun 11 said:
> 
> 
> > Markus S @ Wed Jun 11 said:
> ...


It's fair to you because it's just an offer and you're free to reject it. If you don't like the offer, you don't have to accept it. If you accept it, that's your responsibility and you can't blame anyone else for that.



chillbot @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> Because someone else is willing to do it for less? I guess that's one way to balance a budget but your product is going to suck if you keep doing that and you're not going to last very long as a producer. I'm very confused by this conversation.


If more composers enter the market who can deliver a non-sucky product for 3%, then the producers can hire those composers instead of you, and the producers won't end up with sucky music. Markets change, and there's nothing unfair about that. If the market changes so that someone doesn't like it anymore, he can walk away, which would be the intelligent thing to do, or he can complain as many here are doing and hope that someone calls a wambulance for him.



chillbot @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> Don't look at it from the side of what the composer "charges" look at it from the side of what the product can afford for music.


That's not how producers look it -- not the producers who are going to stay in business. If the cost of adequate music goes down (which it's doing), a producer would be wise to spend less on music and use the saved money for other improvements.


----------



## chillbot (Jun 11, 2014)

Yes but the film has a budget, it's not just music. So you're saying if the costumers and set designers and grips and writers and actors and cameramen and blah blah blah... basically everyone who works on a film comes in and works for free...? What happens to the budget? Films are now going to be made for $0? That's not happening... so you're going to pay 10k for costumes and 0k for music, or whatever. I suppose most everyone except composers *do* have a union.

That's not the point, the point is for X amount of dollars you are going to get certain things such as live musicians, recording studios, engineers, etc. For 0 dollars you are going to get sampled orchestra and half the amount of time spent on it because the composer will be flipping burgers the other half of the time. How is this comparable? 

I guess from your last sentence it comes down to what you consider to be "adequate music". You say that the cost of adequate music is going down, but that depends on your definition of adequate. You're going to hear a difference in music for 20k or 2k, same as you will notice a difference if you make a movie for 2M or 200k or 20k. I guess where we disagree is where you think a producer looking to "stay in business" will stay in business long paying $0 for music just because someone is willing to shit out adequate music.

I'm not sure why I'm still typing I will go away now. I don't even remember what I'm arguing about.


----------



## ddplz (Jun 11, 2014)

chillbot @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> Yes but the film has a budget, it's not just music. So you're saying if the costumers and set designers and grips and writers and actors and cameramen and blah blah blah... basically everyone who works on a film comes in and works for free...? What happens to the budget? Films are now going to be made for $0? That's not happening... so you're going to pay 10k for costumes and 0k for music, or whatever. I suppose most everyone except composers *do* have a union.
> 
> That's not the point, the point is for X amount of dollars you are going to get certain things such as live musicians, recording studios, engineers, etc. For 0 dollars you are going to get sampled orchestra and half the amount of time spent on it because the composer will be flipping burgers the other half of the time. How is this comparable?
> 
> ...


The price of music is dropping without any effect whatsoever on how the music sounds. Same people, same equipment, doing the same thing as they used to, now costs less, because more people are trying to make music, and that means you will get more talented people willing to take home less money when all is said and done.


----------



## mverta (Jun 11, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> In the end, it boils down to this:
> you either believe that successful people (not just composers) have a moral obligation to "give back" to an industry that has benefitted them greatly by trying to make things better for everybody or you believe that they only need to do what is best for themselves.



No matter how you keep framing it, it appears that you alone hold the right to define what is and isn't an acceptable way for us to do that.

I believe that we have a moral obligation to give back, but how I do that; how I define that is up to me. Lowballing an amateur can be seen as screwing a newbie, or protecting the industry/giving back to the industry by protecting the quality of work that gets out there, which ultimately affects the valuation. No matter which side of that tortured argument you want to take, nobody can say that the act itself is absolutely, irredeemably immoral or unethical!

I'm sorry you lost the gig, but you shouldn't be; it wasn't your gig and they didn't value you. You will never know the other composer's motivations and why you were ousted, but you certainly can't say that it was purely for spite. We take jobs for all sorts of reasons, and we don't owe those reasons as explanations to justify our lives to anyone. But let's say for arguments' sake it was simply a malicious, personal attack on you; he did it just to fuck you. Well, here I would encourage you to lean on your worldly expertise to consider just how far that will actually get him in this or any other venture, and secondly, that your would-be employers are fine with that sort of person. Either way, you're best off without any of them.

In yours or the OP's scenarios, we only know one fact: The other guy wanted, and got the gig. I think before we indulge too many wild speculations about their motivations and cast aspersions on their characters, we might consider what total sore loser douchebags that makes us look like, and move on.


_Mike


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 11, 2014)

mverta @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> nobody can say that the act itself is absolutely, irredeemably immoral or unethical!
> 
> _Mike



I will.


----------



## David Story (Jun 11, 2014)

mverta @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Wed Jun 11 said:
> 
> 
> > In the end, it boils down to this:
> ...



The appropriateness of a gift is in the eye of the beholder not the giver. 

A lot of cannibals posting. :twisted:


----------



## givemenoughrope (Jun 12, 2014)

ddplz @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> His post wasn't annoying or confusing to me, and he never claimed to a full-timer. If it bugs you, please just ignore him next time, but I'm interested in what he has to say, and you're not the only one reading. Thanks.



Says the guy who has 27 posts. Yes, markets change. So what. Not everyone has the same skills. You're making connecting your logic together with half truths and your imagination. You're a troll. You don't like that people want to charge for their work or even attempt to make a living at what they enjoy doing so you're trying to rationalize why they shouldn't expect to do so. 



ddplz @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> That's not how producers look it -- not the producers who are going to stay in business. If the cost of adequate music goes down (which it's doing), a producer would be wise to spend less on music and use the saved money for other improvements.



Sure but the producer who thinks he can get a great orchestral score for $12k every time (or ever) probably won't be a producer for very long. 



ddplz @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> The price of music is dropping without any effect whatsoever on how the music sounds. Same people, same equipment, doing the same thing as they used to, now costs less, because more people are trying to make music, and that means you will get more talented people willing to take home less money when all is said and done.



Who is using the same equipment? What are you talking about? Pro Tools? Samples? Not everyone uses the same gear bc not everyone writes the same kind of music. Paint everything with a broad brush. Troll elsewhere. Thanks.


----------



## ddplz (Jun 12, 2014)

givemenoughrope @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> Yes, markets change. So what.


So you're having difficulty coming to economic terms with the effects of that change -- and this despite your amazing post-count, you troll.


----------



## Markus S (Jun 12, 2014)

ddplz @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> Markus S @ Wed Jun 11 said:
> 
> 
> > so that we can understand a bit more where you are coming from
> ...



OK, this is my last post to you on this subject, as you ignored my questions and mostly my answers and I am starting to think you are here to troll the forum.

We do not know if you are a musician or if you need to gain a living in a way or another, we do not know what country you live in and we do not know if you are using cracked software to compose.

If you are using cracked software, know that apart from it being illegal doing so, these companies are able to continue to produce great software and samples, because "old" composers like us are charging for our work and pass on some of the income. If music was all for free, it would be the end of these tools and companies.

If you are not a musician, I wonder what motivation you might have to post on a composer specific forum. Whatever you do as work, I am sure you like to be paid for it.

Now, for the discussions sake I will still answer your question - why would a producer care for my needs as a human being (this is getting somewhat absurd)? Because if I can't sustain myself doing music, I will have to do it as a part time or week-end job. 

My clients want to be able to get me on the phone anytime, they want me to work 100% on my commission and they want someone who really knows his stuff, because he has been doing it for years (10 years in my case). They want professional service and they are actually happy to pay for it. I have never heard this type of reasoning from a client, like "how can you charge this much, how is it justified". And to tell you the truth, I was hesitant to post this topic in public all together, because I have made such a low offer. But I do believe these things have to be discussed, and I think it's a great discussion.


----------



## vicontrolu (Jun 12, 2014)

Hey Marcus,

Your price is 200$/minute, in case you finally had to do 60 minutes. Thats pretty low, probably not ethic to go below this amount, specially since you already have some experience.

How much do you think you would have gotten approximately from publishing rights in such a project?

Cheers


----------



## ddplz (Jun 12, 2014)

Markus S @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> ddplz @ Wed Jun 11 said:
> 
> 
> > Markus S @ Wed Jun 11 said:
> ...


I think you are here to troll the forum with your complaining about not getting a job, your jealousy of the guy who got the job instead of you, and your paranoid suggestions about other forum members.

Back to the discussion, producers don't really need you to be a full-time composer, because other composers are offering comparable service.


----------



## mverta (Jun 12, 2014)

David -

If the value of the gift is purely in the eye of the beholder, then intent has no value, and ultimately empathy has no value.

Case in point: My 3 year-old son broke something irreplaceable and very precious to me trying to make into a "present" for me. Am I to judge him based on my reaction, which was to be devastated? Your suggestion otherwise seems cruel to me. We cannot devalue the intent of the doer. If I push you down on the ground violently, out of the way of a bus, you can choose to see that as an act of love, or an act of assault. But you have no absolute moral authority to deem it assault if you choose to see it that way. The intent matters. The circumstances behind the doing matters.

So while Jay is entitled to however much holier-than-thou he can muster, and with my blessing - at least we know where he unabashedly stands, which is refreshing - the truth is he doesn't know what was behind the circumstance for certain, any more than the OP does - both are speculating. It remains my position that in absence of certainty, we are probably best to ease off on the public cries for lynching. Seems a strange position to take exception to, to me...

I try to give back to the community through my masterclasses; sharing every tip and trick I know; everything I've learned along the way. I suppose I should consider myself lucky that Jay hasn't just decided that's making life harder for other pro's and increasing competition unfairly. He might just as well have! I mean who's to say, once you throw out my intentions; once you've decided that how you choose to see things is therefore immutable fact; and the superior moral stance, at that.


I dunno... perhaps I should warn people with similar philosophies, though: I signed up for a life with no rock-solid security; I still have to hustle every day. I still wake up hungry, and if I don't hunt, I don't eat. It doesn't matter what my credentials are, and it doesn't matter that I've been at it 25 years. If I need the gig, I'll go for the gig, and happily turn cities to salt in the process if need be to get it. I expect nothing less from other hunters. Now, if you're so fat and happy and secure that there are entire tiers of paying work you can simply forgo forever such that taking them would be nothing but malicious on your part, congratulations; you're far more successful than I am. I've never dreamed of such an always-full larder. I have also learned that some of the most rewarding work is in the humblest of places with the smallest of budgets. 

I also think about John Williams, who absolutely has nothing more to prove and doesn't need the money, who showed a crystal clear sense of propriety and hunger when he virtually stepped in and announced he was doing the new Star Wars. It was Michael's gig; Michael is JJ's composer. But Johnny's not dead yet, so his career isn't over. He didn't have to underbid anybody, he merely had to make a phone call for a gig he really doesn't need. But he wanted it. And he went and got it.

And that's a good thing. The world of music will have more gems in it than if he hadn't.

_Mike


----------



## Jaap (Jun 12, 2014)

What a crap ddplz....

Like any other business we are working with a craft here. We are not speaking about artistic music that you write for the sake of art itself, but we are talking here about offering a service that is part of a larger commercial package (a movie).

Do you think any graphical artists, 3D artists etc work for free on for example a game like World of Warcraft or any other game? Of course not!
Do you think designers at Apple, Google, or whatever in this freaking world are doing there job for free. No of course not! We here on this forum should stand together and make sure we are getting paid respectfully for the services we offer.

We are filling a job role, just like any other part of a crew which all get paid accordingly, so why shouldn't we make a calculation of what are costs are and what (as in just like any other jobs) you need to have as basic income.

Stop trolling around with this stupid posts hidden behind a nameless avatar. 

Shoosh troll! (o)


----------



## ddplz (Jun 12, 2014)

Jaap @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> We here on this forum should stand together and make sure we are getting paid respectfully for the services we offer.
> 
> We are filling a job role, just like any other part of a crew which all get paid accordingly, so why shouldn't we make a calculation of what are costs are and what (as in just like any other jobs) you need to have as basic income.
> 
> ...


And I encourage you to stand together with the other people here who don't understand economics, and I encourage you standing together to tell producers you want more money for music which is no better than what other composers are offering for less money. I 100% encourage you to take a stand, you silly troll.


----------



## mverta (Jun 12, 2014)

Jaap @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> We are filling a job role, just like any other part of a crew which all get paid accordingly, so why shouldn't we make a calculation of what are costs are and what (as in just like any other jobs) you need to have as basic income.



People on crews in other industries (I'm one of them, too) don't get paid "accordingly," we get paid what the market will bear. SOME people work for less than they should and get screwed. Others don't. The calculation of what costs are and what you need for a "basic" income is utterly impossible to define; the cost of living in Kansas is night-and-day different from living in LA, for example, so forget that. But more to the point, ALL OF THIS IS ELECTIVE. We don't have to work in a shitty industry that doesn't pay us properly. There are more opportunities for composers on this planet than they could ever hope to take advantage of in their lifetimes. If we choose not to take the good gigs that pay well, because we just "want to work in videogames," then we're signing up for a gig that currently doesn't value people very well. That's on us. We don't have to do it for one picosecond. We can't sign up to be ass-reamed and then complain that the towel we're biting on tastes funny.

_Mike


----------



## Jaap (Jun 12, 2014)

I understand economics perfectly  I have been managing to live on my music business just fine, I know perfectly well how the market works with supply and demand and that it is a non stop (and healthy) struggle with producers to be clear on the money end, but as long as it professional and the producer also knows that investments are done (like studio time, recording etc) and that one also needs to have a some money covered for their own time.

It is not just our money that is suffering with actions like these. Also this means that studios don't get paid enough, musicians are working underrated, software developpers are getting less money etc etc.

This kind of low balling as Markus is describing is not only painful for our normal wallet, but for the whole industry and created a chain of happenings that people will get underpaid.


----------



## Jaap (Jun 12, 2014)

mverta @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> Jaap @ Thu Jun 12 said:
> 
> 
> > We are filling a job role, just like any other part of a crew which all get paid accordingly, so why shouldn't we make a calculation of what are costs are and what (as in just like any other jobs) you need to have as basic income.
> ...



I agree here Mike. My basic income costs can be much lower then yours in LA, but the basic costs of producing should be the same more or less when calculating recording sessions, studio time etc.
What you need to have for your own accord to survive depends on your living situation and should not be the defining factor in the pricing (that depends on how many jobs you should take in order to come around and/or other sorts of income from other parts of the industry).

However I do think that production costs are so underestimated and that too many composers throwing out too low figures that are not even covering all the expenses made and that is in my opinion destroying no matter what branch of our industry.


----------



## ddplz (Jun 12, 2014)

Jaap @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> a chain of happenings that people will get underpaid.


The only people who will get underpaid are ones who want to get underpaid. See MV's post above. Again, I encourage you and those who agree with you to stand together and tell producers you refuse jobs which underpay. Do something real, instead of just complaining on a forum full of people who already agree with you.


----------



## mverta (Jun 12, 2014)

You're delving into these amorphous, impossible-to-control variables like "being professional." We don't have to change the world; let's take a page from Ghandi and be the change. If WE don't work for shit money, that's enough. The "industry" is just a lot of "we's" put together. If some of us DO work for shit, they bring the party down, so let's go to another party! I hire A-tier musicians all the time, on projects which are far less notable, with smaller budgets than big-session film scores, and they're constantly telling me how much more rewarding the work is. So let's just stop with the idea that the only places for musicians to earn livings are in the undervalued table-scrap jobs of soulless corporations and producers. That's not even close to a fact, and we're not obligated to work there anyway. We don't get what we deserve in life, we get what we accept, period. Every second we spend trying to muscle or bully somebody who doesn't want to value us into valuing us is not only wasted time, but wasted opportunity to be making more money in more rewarding careers. Be the change.

If you want to help up-and-comers, broaden their horizons. Send them out to the vast, rich world of opportunities and encourage them to find people to work for, not industries to slave for.

_Mike


----------



## Markus S (Jun 12, 2014)

mverta @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> You're delving into these amorphous, impossible-to-control variables like "being professional." We don't have to change the world; let's take a page from Ghandi and be the change. If WE don't work for [email protected]#t money, that's enough. The "industry" is just a lot of "we's" put together. If some of us DO work for [email protected]#t, they bring the party down, so let's go to another party!
> 
> _Mike



It sounds like this is somewhat opposing what has been said, but I believe this is exactly what I did. It's not like I took the job and then complain about it. I stood by my offer, varied it a bit to a compromise. Also, again, these guys came to me, not me looking for them.


----------



## Jaap (Jun 12, 2014)

ddplz @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> Jaap @ Thu Jun 12 said:
> 
> 
> > a chain of happenings that people will get underpaid.
> ...



If you read my post you can see that I do that already. That is what i do, tell producers that I don't take the job because it is underpaid. I know how to stand up for my own business and to manage my financials.


----------



## mverta (Jun 12, 2014)

Jaap @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> If you read my post you can see that I do that already. That is what i do, tell producers that I don't take the job because it is underpaid. I know how to stand up for my own business and to manage my financials.



And that's it; that's all you need to do. Period; end-of-story; thank you goodnight. Just encourage others to do this and the "industry" will magically fix itself. I work in VFX, as well, which is closing shops at the rate of about 1 an hour and you know why? They underbid each other 'til they can't pay their bills and have to shut down. Well how fucking stupid is that? They've held a bunch of protests, out there on Hollywood Blvd with green shirts on and little posters and stuff. It's cute. 



Markus S @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> It sounds like this is somewhat opposing what has been said, but I believe this is exactly what I did. It's not like I took the job and then complain about it. I stood by my offer, varied it a bit to a compromise. Also, again, these guys came to me, not me looking for them.



Well, Markus, I'll tell you this: just in this thread you've spent 100x more energy on this thing than it ever deserved.  The scenario you described happens about a billion times a day, and you just stick and move on. In fact, it's best to learn to smell it nice and early so you don't waste valuable time on it in the first place. Vegas odds are that if you are talking to a producer, he is a lying scumbag piece of shit who doesn't value you. Start there, and be happily surprised by any information to the contrary. I don't think you ever clarified if you knew for a fact that anything you were told was true; I would suspect most of it was lies or half-truths. I bet if you'd agreed to do the gig for free - in fact, if you offered him 10k to do the gig - he'd still have turned you down, because there were other things motivating the BNC choice. Investor stuff, public-relations stuff; he was blowing him on weekends, something. It's always some convoluted set of smarmy dealings and suspect people; that's the business. It's why when you find those few great people who value you, you hold onto them for dear life, and you build careers together. 

Anyway, don't sweat any of this, and also don't stand for it. Stick to those guns, and fall out of love with industries and businesses; they're like abusive partners. 

_Mike


----------



## ddplz (Jun 12, 2014)

Jaap @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> ... I do that already. That is what i do, tell producers that I don't take the job because it is underpaid. I know how to stand up for my own business and to manage my financials.


Then I won't worry about your situation, and I'll go back to replying to the union-thug types trying to form a mob to lynch composers willing to work for cheap.


----------



## Markus S (Jun 12, 2014)

mverta @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> Markus S @ Thu Jun 12 said:
> 
> 
> > It sounds like this is somewhat opposing what has been said, but I believe this is exactly what I did. It's not like I took the job and then complain about it. I stood by my offer, varied it a bit to a compromise. Also, again, these guys came to me, not me looking for them.
> ...



Don't worry about me and how I spend my time and energy - and it does seem you do value a good discussion on the subject as well. 

If it happens all the time, I sure did not see much threads around here about this situation (invisible elephant?), so this makes a first.


----------



## mverta (Jun 12, 2014)

Markus S @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> Don't worry about me and how I spend my time and energy - and it does seem you do value a good discussion on the subject as well.
> 
> If it happens all the time, I sure did not see much threads around here about this situation (invisible elephant?), so this makes a first.



You know I only worry because I love you.  We're all facing the same stuff.

I didn't realize yours was the first post to address this, and if so, yes it's a giant elephant with an 800-pound gorilla riding on its back, but shit need be said.

_Mike


----------



## Markus S (Jun 12, 2014)

mverta @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> Markus S @ Thu Jun 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't worry about me and how I spend my time and energy - and it does seem you do value a good discussion on the subject as well.
> ...



Well, appreciate the love!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 12, 2014)

It's tough. It's a competitive business and always has been but there were always lines people did not cross to get a gig. I have competed with other composers for years and years, lost far more jobs than i got but got some, and only in 1 instance that I am aware of did someone do this. Hell, I lost a TV movie with a $30,000 music budget to David Shire, a great composer and Academy Award winner, I was kind of appalled that he would do it for that kind of money. But I never held it against him because we were all told when we submitted that that was a fixed music budget, non-negotiable to be higher, and it would not have occurred to any of us to negotiate it _down_.

I know a lot of working composers in LA. Most of them are more successful and live a more expensive lifestyle than I do. But I don't believe even one of them, if they were competing with me for a score, would say to a producer "hire me, I will do it just for the back end money" or even, "hire me, I will do it for much less than Jay."

If they did and I found out about it? We would no longer be friends. Given the opportunity I would tell that person to their face that they ware a piece of excrement, and I would tell every composer I know "stay away from this guy, he is not a mensch." 

In the end we are about _more_ than just the toys we acquire, the money we make, the lifestyle we live, and even the music we write. We are about what people will say about the way we conducted ourselves on this earth when we leave it. 

Things change. I get it. But our ethical code should not.


----------



## ddplz (Jun 12, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> It's tough. It's a competitive business and always has been but there were always lines people did not cross to get a gig. I have competed with other composers for years and years, lost far more jobs than i got but got some, and only in 1 instance that I am aware of did someone do this. Hell, I lost a TV movie with a $30,000 music budget to David Shire, a great composer and Academy Award winner, I was kind of appalled that he would do it for that kind of money. But I never held it against him because we were all told when we submitted that that was a fixed music budget, non-negotiable to be higher, and it would not have occurred to any of us to negotiate it _down_.
> 
> I know a lot of working composers in LA. Most of them are more successful and live a more expensive lifestyle than I do. But I don't believe even one of them, if they were competing with me for a score, would say to a producer "hire me, I will do it just for the back end money" or even, "hire me, I will do it for much less than Jay."
> 
> ...


You're talking about a time when 99% of the entertainment industry was controlled by a Los-Angeles based oligarchy that ignored the world beyond their cocktail-party friends. Today you're up against 14-year-old kids in Singapore who can deliver, and the industry can no longer afford to shut them out. These kids don't give a jack about your schmoozing and nepotism ("ethical code").


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 12, 2014)

People will do what they will do and will not what they will not. I have had my say so I am done.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 12, 2014)

Please don't let this place become KvR.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 12, 2014)

14-year old kids who can deliver... a bunch of excrement. 
Your argument, ddplz, is just hot air. 
Please stop trying to get attention by throwing mud around, otherwise I won't be able to get the image of you as a young chimp trying to impress the tribe by throwing leaves at the elders out of my mind.


----------



## Stiltzkin (Jun 12, 2014)

Somewhat relevant to this, but all of you guys who do feature films quite often, what do you charge after musician expenses?

Would help to know what kind of figures I should give as I've got a couple of gigs lined up as a result of my first gig, but now have no idea what I should charge!

I know this is a bit of a "it depends" question, but some rough figures would be interesting?

Say anything with a budget good enough to be shot on RED?


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 12, 2014)

Stilzkin, it's a big topic, and I think it might be better for you to start a new thread with that subject. That said, shouldn't there already be a sticky on that subject? It's not like it only comes up once in a while...


----------



## ddplz (Jun 12, 2014)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> 14-year old kids who can deliver... a bunch of excrement.
> Your argument, ddplz, is just hot air.
> Please stop trying to get attention by throwing mud around, otherwise I won't be able to get the image of you as a young chimp trying to impress the tribe by throwing leaves at the elders out of my mind.


Cry it out, Ned, you're in good company here, lots of old men crying here.

Here you go:

http://youtu.be/768h3Tz4Qik


----------



## Jaap (Jun 12, 2014)

Hi ddzplz,

Welcome to our new service!


----------



## Markus S (Jun 13, 2014)

mverta @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> he was blowing him on weekends
> _Mike



This discussion has been eye opening for me about the secret workings of Hollywood..


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Jun 13, 2014)

Markus S @ Fri Jun 13 said:


> This discussion has been eye opening for me about the secret workings of Hollywood..



Not just Hollywood, really. Most businesses work the same way. In fact, most of _life_ works this way.

Great thread (with the obvious exception).


----------



## Brian Ralston (Jun 19, 2014)

http://nikkifinke.com/musicians-vs-union/


----------



## M.L. (Jun 25, 2014)

M.L. @ 5/6/2014 said:


> That's amazingly timely. I just lost a job to mobygratis yesterday. I just about gave up when the producer sent me the link.



Well they came crawling back and I got the job.

Doesn't mean much overall, but I thought I'd share a bit of good news amongst all the despair, however small.


----------

