# Questions for the Pros - Independent Film



## damoy (Apr 22, 2009)

So I have some questions for those of you who have worked on various size independent films.

1. On smaller budget films, do any you do it all (one stop shop)? Or do you still hire a studio for live recording, mixing and mastering?

2. As you step up to larger projects, how do you ensure that your score sounds good in the theater? Is this completely at the hands of the folks you hire to mix and master? I'm guessing a studio with a reputation in the industry is key here?

3. When you start working with orchestras, what method do you use to sync to film? I've seen recording sessions with the film played on a big screen while the orchestra is playing. Is this what is normally done? Or is this just for blockbuster features? What do you all do? And do you do your own conducting or hire?

Or maybe you could just skip all the above and recommend a good book that covers these questions?


----------



## JohnG (Apr 22, 2009)

Hi Daniel,

When I weigh whether or not to score an independent film, I consider several motives for doing it; not all of them are there all the time.

1. They are paying you enough, after expenses, to make it worthwhile spending three to eight weeks on their project,

2. The film is artistically valid (moving, beautiful, delightful -- good in some significant respect),

3. The film is likely to be a commercial success (it already has a distributor),

4. You know, or know of, the reputation of the production team and they are good people,

5. They are paying enough so that at the end, you will have been able to hire players, a good engineer, and spend enough time mixing so that you have some exceptionally good music to show to others, and

6. You believe that, having never scored a feature, you will have a better chance landing a good project if you can say you did. This is sort of true, but of course, it's less helpful if the project is a dog that nobody is ever going to see or hear about.

(P.S. if you don't want the film the reason is "I'm too busy with another obligation." That's it.)

So, your questions have to be answered with these goals in mind:

1. If they are not giving enough money so that you can make a living and hire players, "Reason number 5" -- to get a good recording -- is highly questionable. It also raises the question about whether the film has a budget sufficient to get distribution -- "Reason number 3" -- in this amazingly competitive world. So if they are not paying enough to hire players and a good recording hall, then you had better at least make some money and be able to answer "yes" to some of the other reasons.

Specifically, I ALWAYS use live players or I don't do the job. Otherwise one ends up with a heap of music that may have little life beyond the film, and it's not very gratifying anyway. If you are a beginner, you need to learn how to work with players and incorporate live tracks into your music, even if it's just three or four soloists.

2. If by your question about the theater you are worried about having your music buried by sound effects or dialogue, or moved about, or not used at all, or used but not at all the way you intended, then you are right to be concerned. All these things happen at times, though not usually all at once. James Horner was not happy about what happened with his score to The New World in Terrence Malick's hands. There is no way to control this. Just try to work with people who make good movies so at least there might be a reason for it if they mess with your material.

3. For medium or larger budget projects, one does have playback of picture while recording. This is partly though for the director and other filmmakers. The players don't look at it except once in a while on playback (and not that much even then). You don't absolutely have to have the film playing to record to picture, as long as you have clicks that you are 100% sure about. However, it's really easy to have at least a laptop playing the picture and someone (paid or not) to watch and make sure it looks correct. Synchronising is not hard -- most DAWs will lock right up to the digital picture the production company gives you.

If you are a good conductor, great. If not, hire a conductor. Even if you ARE a good conductor, though, it's often a good idea to hire one anyway, freeing you to sit in the control booth and listen reeeeally carefully to make sure you are getting the sound you want. Unless you have plenty of time to hop off the podium and listen to playbacks in the booth while the orchestra sits there getting paid, it's often difficult to hear everything on the stand that you might want to hear. Also it allows you to deal with any problems the director or other executives perceive in the music. This is the main reason to hire a conductor and sit in the booth, in my view.

A book that addresses many practical issues like the ones you are asking about is called "On The Track" and it's quite helpful if you want to get the gist of things.


----------



## careyford (Apr 22, 2009)

Thanks John. Another really good, thoughtful post. I for one appreciate it.

Richard


----------



## José Herring (Apr 22, 2009)

Some excellent post by John G and Jeffc. I'll try to add my bit:

1) If you can, get a mix engineer. Even if he's working right next to you and you're mixing together. He'll have a different take on things and can always make things sound better. But, don't make the mistake of thinking that professional mixing will mask some so so music production. I'm always shocked out how lazy some composers are getting production wise and are just assuming that their music will sound "so much better" if they had an army of assistance and engineers. Trust me. If it doesn't sound good leaving your studio the chances of it sounding good at the mix is nil. Once the assistance and engineers get a hold of it they'll just magnify the weaknesses by a factor of 10. I was an intern once way back in a New York jingle house and the owner use to joke that you know a composer is giving up when he pulls out the old excuse, "we'll fix it in the mix". If it's not sounding 90% complete by the time you get to the mix stage it won't sound much better after. But if it is sounding good then that extra 10% will make a world of difference.

2) If the music is well composed, orchestrated, performed, programmed and mixed the chances are good that it will sound good in a theater. For indie films you'll create such a good friendship with the filmmakers that they will want you there for the final mix. It's a double edge sword. You have to tread carefully at the final mix and realize that the music is just one part of the sound. I usually just make suggestions on how to balance the music better, I answer any questions the mix engineer may have. The only time I strongly object is when something dumb like footsteps are playing way louder than some sensitive cue. I had a scene, it was all mystery, soft tension music playing as the lead character was headed to a creepy apartment building. Really effective and at the mix the engineer had clogging shuffling footsteps like totally drowning the music. I just spoke up and said that I thought the music carried the emotion of the scene a lot better than her high heels. Everybody agreed. Usually explosions, crashes and dialog are the only thing music really loses to.

3) There use to be the days when the music was recorded with the picture playing projected on a big screen. Those days are becoming rare. More likely you just sync to picture played on a video monitor in the booth or for the conductor. Of course this necessitates the use of a music editor on the scene to handle the sync issues. Personally, I just record and then play back to video sync on my computer for playback. These days you'll know well before you get to the stage whether or not your music is synced properly. So for me it's just one less thing I have to worry about and I can just concentrate on conducting and getting the best performance. I even noticed that John Williams was doing it this way on a session I saw. For me it's just better not to worry about picture playing while I'm recording.

My answers were very technical. John G and Jeffc handle the more creative aspects and reasons better than I think I could of.

best,

Jose


----------



## midphase (Apr 22, 2009)

"1. On smaller budget films, do any you do it all (one stop shop)? Or do you still hire a studio for live recording, mixing and mastering?"

One stop shop unless they're willing to pay for the extra bells and whistles on top of my fee. 

"2. As you step up to larger projects, how do you ensure that your score sounds good in the theater? Is this completely at the hands of the folks you hire to mix and master? I'm guessing a studio with a reputation in the industry is key here?"

You make sure you know (really know) what's coming out of your speakers by making your home studio as acoustically proper as possible and by knowing how to compensate for the inconsistencies. Very few "indie" films make it to theatres anyway...at best they'll do the festival circuit and lemme tell you...even Sundance and Tribeca have some pretty awful sounding theatres.

Other than that, I also rely on the dubbing mixer to make sure that the music is sitting in the mix correctly. If I feel that my low end might be problematic, I'll let the dubbing mixer know that at the start of the mix so that he can adjust his overall music EQ curve to compensate.



"3. When you start working with orchestras, what method do you use to sync to film? I've seen recording sessions with the film played on a big screen while the orchestra is playing. Is this what is normally done? Or is this just for blockbuster features? What do you all do? And do you do your own conducting or hire?"

Can't really comment on this other than say that by the time you have a proper budget for an orchestra, you also have a budget to hire guys that will take care of that stuff for you. In general terms, it's a click track being fed to your primary players and the conductor. I personally think that streamers and projection are holdouts from when there wasn't a better way and for the most part are director/producer eye candy.


----------



## damoy (Apr 23, 2009)

Thank you all for your informative and insightful posts. This does clear up a number of misconceptions (or no-conceptions) I had. I'll definitely be picking up "On The Track" as well. Thanks again!


----------



## gamalataki (Apr 24, 2009)

I think this thread sets some sort of record for the most accurate, insightful information in the shortest amount of time, posts and words. Without fluff.

Since these questions seem to get asked repeatedly, maybe this thread, or the answer posts, should find their way into a sticky somewhere.

As far as putting your name out there and only taking good films, I have a little to add.

After being in the music post industry for a long time, I only recently became interested in composing. To get any sort of paying gigs, I take whatever I can to get practice.

On my very first film, I realized that I didn't want to be associated with the crap I was working on. I told the producer that I used an alias when composing and that's how I wanted to be credited. It's a polite way of disassociating yourself and no one gets offended.

And I think streamers are still very useful


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 24, 2009)

"I personally think that streamers and projection are holdouts from when there wasn't a better way and for the most part are director/producer eye candy."

The first technique we were taught at Berklee was writing and conducting to stopwatch, and I still think that's valid. Streamers and punches, okay, but sometimes not using a click is a good way of writing.

Having said that, the last time I wrote that way was 20 years ago.


----------



## damoy (Apr 24, 2009)

So I have another related question for you all. Mainly targeted as those of you who also compose for television. Do the rules change regarding samples vs live players? Or having the budget for a good engineer? I know there are a lot of television shows (even kids shows) with budgets for live players and all, but then we also have examples like "24". If the budget of the show can't support live players, is there anyway you can produce music that you are willing to attach your name to? Or do you walk away from the project?


----------



## midphase (Apr 24, 2009)

Jeff...take it away!


----------



## gamalataki (May 1, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Apr 24 said:


> "I personally think that streamers and projection are holdouts from when there wasn't a better way and for the most part are director/producer eye candy."
> 
> The first technique we were taught at Berklee was writing and conducting to stopwatch, and I still think that's valid. Streamers and punches, okay, but sometimes not using a click is a good way of writing.
> 
> Having said that, the last time I wrote that way was 20 years ago.


Nick, for someone who writes fairly articulately for his publication, I sometimes have a hard time deciphering what the heck you're talking about in forums 

When you look back at the tools that have become obsolete from the time we were at Berklee, the list is long. The stopwatch, the click book, the Flatbed Kem, the Movieola, the sandpaper for creating audio fades, going to Bentley Smoker for fresh, mag cutting, razor blades and getting nourishment from a slice at Charlie's have all fallen by the wayside......well, I'm sure there's an exception somewhere.

Click and streamers however, are still widely used today.

When you've got an accelerando, ritard or fermata and the next downbeat is a new time signature or tempo, the visual along with click is still the best tool for the job.
You don't need streamers for every cue, but you'll find them being used on every major scoring stage today.

Writing to click is different than conducting to click, but you know that.

I'm not sure if this is responding to your post or not, since I don't know how it related to the post you quoted or anything else. Just wanted to make sure no one got the impression streamers were dead. Just this thread.

Slice?


----------



## JohnG (May 1, 2009)

damoy @ 24th April 2009 said:


> ....Do the rules change regarding samples vs live players? Or having the budget for a good engineer? I know there are a lot of television shows (even kids shows) with budgets for live players and all, but then we also have examples like "24". If the budget of the show can't support live players, is there anyway you can produce music that you are willing to attach your name to? Or do you walk away from the project?



There are lots of reasons to work on a project and live players is one only. My first post ran through some other ones, like "artistically valid," "likely to get distribution," and "$$$$."

They are all pretty good reasons too; enough of one can make up for not enough of another. I just like working with live players, even if it's a solo guitar or wind player or hand percussion.

"24" is one of those cases where I think one would need massive resources to boost the sound a lot, because the scale of what he goes for on that show is so big. So, in other words, a live element would have to be a special case for that kind of material.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 1, 2009)

I don't know your true identity, gamalataki, but gee...I'm sure you really suck at whatever you do too when you're not working.  Slice? 

Actually I think what I wrote is perfectly coherent.

And I still agree with myself about writing to stopwatch - I'd still do that in the right situation. If you're going to conduct live players, don't need to hit much, and don't need to set up streamers and punches, it's still a very easy way to get the job done. The last time I did that was for a solo piano and cello cue, and it worked perfectly well. There was no need for a click, and this had a better feel.

Obviously you aren't going to do that if you're using a sequencer, but there's nothing wrong if you want to work that way. It all depends on the situation.


----------



## gamalataki (May 1, 2009)

Whoa Nick, That wasn't meant to be a dig. Chill! I guess when I introduced myself and told you my screen name I didn't make a very big impression. Not trying to hide, I thought you knew.

Of course we all gaff when we are banging away on forums and I fully thought you'd agree with me, that what you wrote wasn't exactly responding to "streamers being eye candy" and I still don't see the correlation, but it wasn't my intention to put a cactus in your pants. Sorry man.

I'll call you tomorrow on the VIMag line, if that's cool with you.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 1, 2009)

Of course it's cool, and I'm not bent out of shape - just bantering.


----------



## damoy (May 21, 2009)

JohnG @ Fri May 01 said:


> damoy @ 24th April 2009 said:
> 
> 
> > ....Do the rules change regarding samples vs live players? Or having the budget for a good engineer? I know there are a lot of television shows (even kids shows) with budgets for live players and all, but then we also have examples like "24". If the budget of the show can't support live players, is there anyway you can produce music that you are willing to attach your name to? Or do you walk away from the project?
> ...



Thanks again for helping me get my head wrapped around this. :mrgreen:


----------



## ENW (Jun 11, 2009)

An excellent thread. Lots of good, insightful comments.

Eric


----------

