# "Composer Brian Tyler... took on a Marvel film for no fee..."



## mosso (Jun 19, 2014)

I assume his agents negotiated a good back-end on it, but this kind of thing isn't the norm for Hollywood (where music is concerned) is it?

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

Of course that's assuming the "sources" are accurate.


----------



## Mike Marino (Jun 19, 2014)

> this kind of thing isn't the norm for Hollywood (where music is concerned) is it?



Not yet


----------



## Daryl (Jun 19, 2014)

And of course unless Brian, or his agent, spills the beans, nobody will know what the situation is.

I would bet that he gets a fee through his own company, which is investing in the movie, on the grounds that he will be hired. Smart investment, as the profits of the movie are likely to outstrip any fee he would charge anyway.

D


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 19, 2014)

2 points: 

1: everyone around is running like chichens with their heads cutoff in this new global worls and digital world when it comes to music and money. 
we cant figure it out. and as the article states, 
unions doesnt want to budge. which is similar to detroit auto union and other union jobs. 
yes, union has its merits back in the day, but today in a global economy and with all these massive shifts in technology, they are hindering everything and everyone to get work and driving jobs overseas. not that the goverment is doing it any harder for companies to go abroad, but thats were union could help... keep jobs here... not keep massive wages and drive biz elsewere. 
dont get me wrong, i am pro union and they could help sooo much in keeping all jobs in the US but so far they have been terrible doing anything. 

2: brian tyler is doing what ive been posting on this forums for years now... instead of upfront money.. negotiate back end fees. I KNOW...factually... how much there is in that.. 
and every single person working on productionand post only want to shove their precious "art" onto current tv and theatres... when that AND the back end makes a huge boatload of money. 
yes, i would of score marvel for free if i get a percentage of domestic and internaitonal sales. including free tv, pay tv, EST, VOD, AVOD, VOD, DVD, SVOD, domestic and foreign theatrical, syndication, games, merchandise, etc. 
omg, it would be like sooooo much more than getting any money upfront. like sooooo much more. and that is w/o including royalties. 
yes, its a risk... but you KNOW marvel is going to do good. 
i think everyone should push for this. if a project you are working on gets pickup then you have a lot of venues to make percentage point. 

in terms of the musicians and the back end fees, aka fees for dvd, vod etc, thats an interesting topic. unions should negotiate for that but not fight it. if london is doing it then it might be a better way to approach it. 
it were like estonia or other random country then thats a different story.
there could be other way of revenues for these musicans. lower fees but more work? like if they accept less fees they get X amount of work a year. 
which would mean a transition to musicans who used to getting paid more per gig now would have to get a lower fee but more steady, which might not work for the top players who can manage many gigs but would work for good talent with not so many gigs. not sure... i know more about point 2 above but still think musicians should get paid more uniformally and imo it could happen if there is more and steady jobs in LA.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 19, 2014)

Marvel/Disney must be really struggling if they can't pay the composer upfront. Perhaps we should start a Kickstarter campaign to help them out?

One more nail in our collective coffin. At least, like the musicians on the Titanic, we can keep on playing to the end, even if the guitar is missing a few strings.


----------



## Mike Marino (Jun 19, 2014)

> Marvel/Disney must be really struggling if they can't pay the composer upfront.



Are the deals coming from the production companies....or are the deals being offered by the composers? I suspect it's a little of both.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Jun 19, 2014)

Are you guys really equating someone here getting peanuts (or nothing) on an indie to BT shrewdly negotiating himself in as a producer on a Marvel film or am I just not getting joke?


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 19, 2014)

My point is that if enough composers start doing this, it'll trickle down to everyone.


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 19, 2014)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Thu Jun 19 said:


> My point is that if enough composers start doing this, it'll trickle down to everyone.



and as i said above... 

that imo is a good thing.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Jun 19, 2014)

Ok, I can see that. If just the notion of betting on the backend becomes popular enough then it will trickle down? Then producers actually have to pay us. Then they'll get annoyed and offer an upfront fee to make it go away. Who knows...

It is strange of the guy in the 'article' to call out BT and make it seem like he is doing anything wrong.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 19, 2014)

gsilbers @ Thu Jun 19 said:


> yes, i would of score marvel for free if i get a percentage of domestic and internaitonal sales. including free tv, pay tv, EST, VOD, AVOD, VOD, DVD, SVOD, domestic and foreign theatrical, syndication, games, merchandise, etc.



Biggest +1 in the universe.

The real mystery of this story is why Marvel / Prod Co agreed to it. Devil's in the details in these contracts of course.


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 19, 2014)

true givemenoughrope
. i think BT is actually doing something "different" which on these times were eveything is changing might be a very good thing.
specially if the PRO's are not having an impact on internet royalites and everything is going there. 
and the unions., well that article already says they are not helping. ... although they couild... like making all composers andmusicans get a chunk of the distribution pie. 
if each license is like $100k per tv station per country, plus any internet license deal.. then why not have that trickle down to composers and musicans. already the distributors are double dipping on internet deals vs tv/theatre but the arts is getting less? not a socialist thing that i am saying.. just fairness.


----------



## mr (Jun 19, 2014)

Daryl @ Thu Jun 19 said:


> And of course unless Brian, or his agent, spills the beans, nobody will know what the situation is.
> D



+1

Without knowing the details of BTs deal, there is no way of judging whether he is working for cheap.

Steve Jobs allegedly was paid an annual a salary of $1, however nobody would have accused him of bringing down CEO compensation. Of course he was heavily invested in the company, so he did not live a poor man's life.

Working for a big upfront fee and signing away all backend might yield much less in the end than the other way around, it depends. 

If a composer is also an investor, he has to make sure though that in the end he is compensated for both his work AND the risk he is taking on.
So if the film becomes a hit, his payout should be accordingly (much more than just his "composing fee"), to make up for those investments that won't do well.

Would be really interesting to know what BT negotiated and why. 
Maybe they offered him an upfront fee at first, but he preferred to be invested?


----------



## José Herring (Jun 19, 2014)

There are many reasons to work for differed payment. If there's a risky project and people are working in the hopes that the project becomes successful, ect..

But, in this case. It's just undercutting the market because he knows his music and his skill level can't compete with other more deserving composers who wouldn't work differed on a project like this.

You could look at it as "investing" in the BT brand name. The altruistic artist willing to fall on the sword because he believes in the project so much that he knows he can make it up later. But, given that every Marvel film is a guaranteed worldwide boxoffice hit. There's not much of a risk. So, it's just undercutting. In the worst way.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Jun 19, 2014)

If you look at the credits for the film Columbus Circle he is also listed as a producer. Genius this guy...


----------



## mr (Jun 19, 2014)

josejherring @ Thu Jun 19 said:


> But, in this case. It's just undercutting the marke....
> 
> ...
> So, it's just undercutting. In the worst way.



How can you say that without knowing details about the contract? 

In the OPs article there is no information on the actual financials. The article also contradicts itself.

It says, that _according to one source

- BT took on a marvel film for no fee

- BT works for free _ (not the same as working for no fee, so what is it now?)

-_ BT will have built in box-office incentives, so that he remains a wealthy guy _(implying he will make money from the movie, so he is not working for free)

Disclaimer: I'm not against unions at all, in Germany there are many successful examples! Unions are neither good nor bad per se.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 19, 2014)

Hurray for Hollywood. Most of us work in a very different environment, where the upfront is far better than the little royalties smaller projects generate, let alone zero from rentals, etc.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 19, 2014)

josejherring @ Thu Jun 19 said:


> But, in this case. It's just undercutting the market because he knows his music and his skill level can't compete with other more deserving composers who wouldn't work differed on a project like this.


So if you were offered this gig for no up front fee, but a percentage of all revenue generated by the film, you'd turn it down?



josejherring @ Thu Jun 19 said:


> But, given that every Marvel film is a guaranteed worldwide boxoffice hit. There's not much of a risk..


So actually it's a very smart investment then.

D


----------



## RiffWraith (Jun 19, 2014)

Of course, there is no way I can not weigh in on this.

_composer Brian Tyler, already a pariah of the community for his undercutting tactics_

Source?

_Tyler supposedly is scoring the movie for free._

That is false information; the one thing he is NOT doing is scoring the movie for free.

_Tyler will have built in box office incentives, and because composers receive royalties from foreign box office (they receive none from domestic), he will remain a wealthy scumbag._

I stopped reading there, as that statement is both contradictory, and pointless.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but weren't composers compensated back in the day with points? Wasn't that the case, and then when the studios figured out how much money the composers were actually getting, they then turned around and collectively put an end to that practice?


----------



## José Herring (Jun 19, 2014)

Daryl @ Thu Jun 19 said:


> josejherring @ Thu Jun 19 said:
> 
> 
> > But, in this case. It's just undercutting the market because he knows his music and his skill level can't compete with other more deserving composers who wouldn't work differed on a project like this.
> ...



hmmmm.....tough one. First of all, I'm naive but I'm a firm believer in working your way to the top. I would want them to want me to score the film. I'd rather save the differed for a film that I actually believed artistically in and wasn't just a business move.

But, then again. I did say that I don't know what I'd do if/when this ever happened to me. The thing that I won't do though is offer this up as a deal point. 

Maybe that's why I'm still José Herring and not Brian Tyler :mrgreen: 

But, in truth I know a few "A-list" composers and I can't imagine any one of them doing this. But, I could be just wrong and naive and idealistic. And I've never been business saavy :lol:


----------



## Daryl (Jun 19, 2014)

josejherring @ Thu Jun 19 said:


> And I've never been business saavy :lol:


And that's one of the main points I keep bringing up. Most composers haven't a clue about business. Much as one might hark for the old days, they are pretty much gone, and we need to find new ways of sustaining income streams. I'm certainly not in agreement in doing work for nothing, but alternative ways of investing are always interesting for me.

The other thing to remember is that composers are one of a small, select group that does WFH but gets to keep some of their Royalties. Sooner or later this will stop and at that point we have to be very clear what our options are to sustain a career. One of these ways is by investing in projects that will make money, and as an Exec hiring yourself to do the work.

D


----------



## dinerdog (Jun 19, 2014)

As budgets get smaller, everyone in the entire production is getting paid less, with the possibility of more on the back end if the film is successful. This is already happening. I just hadn't heard of it on potential blockbusters. I'm guessing the possible back end is just that much larger. A great gamble if you can afford it.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 19, 2014)

dinerdog @ Thu Jun 19 said:


> As budgets get smaller, everyone in the entire production is getting paid less, with the possibility of more on the back end if the film is successful. This is already happening. I just hadn't heard of it on potential blockbusters. I'm guessing the possible back end is just that much larger. A great gamble if you can afford it.


And for all we know BT turned down a fee in order to get the back end. I would certainly make that choice, if I was given it. Imagine what a percentage of income from a film that size would be. It would dwarf any fee that one could negotiate.

D


----------



## mr (Jun 19, 2014)

Daryl @ Thu Jun 19 said:


> I'm certainly not in agreement in doing work for nothing, but alternative ways of investing are always interesting for me.



Me too!



Daryl @ Thu Jun 19 said:


> The other thing to remember is that composers are one of a small, select group that does WFH but gets to keep some of their Royalties. Sooner or later this will stop and at that point we have to be very clear what our options are to sustain a career.



Makes sense.



> One of these ways is by investing in projects that will make money, and as an Exec hiring yourself to do the work.



In effect, that would be a WFH fee (financed by the composer's investment company) + back end if the investment makes a profit. 
So it's almost the same as before (WFH fee + royalties), but with a higher risk, because there is a chance that the movie tanks.

So the composer/investor has to ensure to be compensated for the risk he takes on. Not every investment will yield a return.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 19, 2014)

*mr, I can see that you understand where I'm coming from here.*

The thing is quite often we act as if the reason people have scoring work is because they are the best that are around. That might be true, in some cases, but more often than not it is a result of networking, who you know, and nepotism. Someone who is talented, but has no contacts, doesn't stand a chance, and that's not the way it should be. So many jobs can be won by interview or audition. Composing for media is pretty much not one of them, as the jobs are never advertised, and you have no way of getting a chance to prove yourself.

I've thought for a while that if I had more time I would set up an agency, and rather than leech off composers who were already established, I would sign up a load of new composers who need a break, invest in projects that I thought were good enough to return my investment, and hire them to score them, making sure that at no stage they were left without support. At least then they would have a chance to gain those all important credits and be able to move on to other things. Maybe I'll find time in a few years...

D


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Jun 19, 2014)

Daryl @ Thu Jun 19 said:


> Imagine what a percentage of income from a film that size would be. It would dwarf any fee that one could negotiate.



On the surface, this makes sense.

However, I have heard rumors of "creative accounting" on the part of the studios...

(PS - this is true in any industry, not just Hollywood...)

So, sure, you get 3% of the PROFIT, but... oh, sorry to tell you Mr. Composer... the film that grossed $3 BILLION USD actually LOST MONEY once we figured out the whole cost structure... you know, piracy and all.

Then, you're screwed.

Sorry, I have no faith in "the system"... or any system for that matter. The thing that gets you paid is that someone (with power) believes in you and what you bring to the table. And they make sure the check gets written when that time comes.


----------



## Per Lichtman (Jun 19, 2014)

My take on back-end contracts is that they only make sure if you meet three criteria.

1) You can already cover living expenses and overhead without income from the project during the time you allocate for it.

2) You have skill in evaluating the profit potential (and likelihood) for a given project or can call upon someone that's proven themself to you in that area.

3) Have a council with experience or expertise (preferably both) in specifying the exact wording of the contract to limit ambiguity at the accounting stage. Once again, familiarity with their work is important.

If those three criteria are met, then I honestly can't see a problem with a back-end deal versus up-front compensation. But those three criteria are so rarely met that for many composers it's an academic issue.

Many composers have fairly high overhead between their audio tech. equipment and studio leases (even those working from home), with little in the way of reserves to tithe them over between jobs. In that situation, deferred payment simply does not make sense.

So in terms of the ability to make a deferred payment contract work, more affluent composers are at an advantage, since they are more likely to be able to meet those three criteria. But it's not just more affluent composers that are getting something out of backend deals.

I know one composer that worked on a gaming project for an indie outfit. They became so involved in generating a following for one of the games they worked on, that on the sequel they were offered (and accepted) 10% of each game sale - on top of their modest fee. You don't tend to see plain language options like that in larger operations, of course.

I think the most important thing is going to be make sure that composers keep getting compensated in a fashion that works for the composer in question. If you can't handle deferred payment, there should keep being composing jobs that don't rely on that. If those dry up, we'll be in trouble. But at the same time, it's good for back end options to open up to us, too, as we are able to take advantage of them.


----------



## Per Lichtman (Jun 19, 2014)

Also, while I think that the topic is very much worse discussing (and worth having concerns over, to be sure) I can't help but point out that the article originally linked to at http://nikkifinke.com/musicians-vs-union/ is extremely poorly written and favors the author's conclusions over any factual basis for them (including the misleading statement that led to the title of this very forum thread).

As several posts before mentioned, the author also feels free to jump to conclusions even when their own words present as fact statements that contradict those very conclusions.

It would be nice to read a better written take on the subject, if anyone felt like supplying one.


----------



## cortlandcomp (Jun 19, 2014)

Per Lichtman @ Thu Jun 19 said:


> I know one composer that worked on a gaming project for an indie outfit. They became so involved in generating a following for one of the games they worked on, that on the sequel they were offered (and accepted) 10% of each game sale - on top of their modest fee.



How does a composer know how many copies are sold?


----------



## Per Lichtman (Jun 19, 2014)

@cortlandcomp The contract can either include access to the same tracking data that the company receives (in this case it was sold online, only, making a simple possibility) or can specify that the composer be provided with reports at set intervals.

It is of course up to the composer to make sure that the wording of that (and the choice of tracking method) work well. In the event that tracking is provided by a third party, it is of course preferable that the third party directly provide data to the composer, rather than relying on the client to "parse" or "interpret" it first.


----------



## rgames (Jun 19, 2014)

Working for no up-front fee is a very common business practice. It definitely *is not* the same as working for free. There are plenty of deals that involve no up-front payment. Your job as a business owner is to play them out in your head and see if they make any sense for you.

One of the most basic rules in business is to avoid ultimatums like "I only work for up-front fee" or "I only do work that has back-end payment".

Evaluate each opportunity on its own merits and how it relates to you and your goals.

rgames


----------



## Per Lichtman (Jun 19, 2014)

@rgame Well said!


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 19, 2014)

Most of us who compose as a full-time job are not as selective as one might think. We take the gigs 'cause we need to pay the bills, not because we evaluated that they fit goals other than the very basic one (need money real soon).


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Jun 19, 2014)

cortlandcomp @ Thu Jun 19 said:


> How does a composer know how many copies are sold?


This was exactly my point. 

In good business relationships, contracts are a formality. If you have trust, these details are a no-brainer... if not, you are already screwed.

And, truthfully, no matter how good your contract is, it can always be contested, deemed unenforceable, stalled using legal tactics, etc. In the meantime, you are not getting paid. 

I do empathize with Ned's perspective... not as a composer, but as someone who has run a work-for-hire business for many years. You can't really consider back-end payments if your mortgage is due next week.

Not everyone has the luxury of waiting around for a gravy train that may never come.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 19, 2014)

In all sincerity, my gravy train has come. I make a really good living both from upfront and backend. But I've been in the biz for 20 years. And I still remember what it's like not to have a big catalogue of work, what it's like to get small royalty cheques. And for all those lean years I was damn glad to have some good money upfront, I didn't have the luxury to wait for the bigger projects, the ones I would only get after having put in the 10,000 hours or whatever. So if we're just shooting the shit about A-List-ers, fine, let's analyze the business pros and cons, but if we want to discuss how this could affect many of us here, we have to consider much smaller gigs, with low royalties, for people who don't already have a few million in the bank.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 20, 2014)

marclawsonmusic @ Fri Jun 20 said:


> Daryl @ Thu Jun 19 said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine what a percentage of income from a film that size would be. It would dwarf any fee that one could negotiate.
> ...


Of course, and anyone who would agree to share the profits without the aid of a really smart lawyer would be pretty stupid, IMO. However, if you screw all your investors, you never get any ever again, so the reality is if a studio/production company really wants to run a business, they won't screw the people who supply the money.

D


----------

