# Losing gigs to people doing it for free



## MikeH (Jun 2, 2013)

Urrgh. It's probably for the best. The kicker is the Producer HAD a reasonable music budget (which was advertised) but got inundated with so many offers to do it for free that he's decided he's going to go with that unless I want to now do it for free. I'm trying to formulate a good response but I feel like I should just walk away and not look back.

UPDATE:

Well gents, it looks like there might be a happy ending to my particular story after all.

Turns out the free composers were unable to produce anything desirable and so the producers came back to me. I did a very (*very*) brief demo and (in their words) knocked it out of the park. So they're hiring me AND to top it off I was able to negotiate a much higher fee than they originally had offered. Kinda surprised, to tell you the truth. But I guess they learned their lesson in trying to get things on the cheap. 

This is a great discussion, though! So please continue


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 2, 2013)

He's pond scum. Walk away.


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 2, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Jun 02 said:


> He's pond scum. Walk away.



+1

I would write one word: "No!"


----------



## Rob (Jun 2, 2013)

he's losing, walk away...


----------



## MikeH (Jun 2, 2013)

Thanks guys! 

I almost feel more anger towards all those composers who willingly gave up the option of a good fee in order to score the gig. C'est la vie, I suppose.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 2, 2013)

MikeH @ Sun Jun 02 said:


> Thanks guys!
> 
> I almost feel more anger towards all those composers who willingly gave up the option of a good fee in order to score the gig. C'est la vie, I suppose.



They also are pond scum.


----------



## Madrigal (Jun 2, 2013)

If you're really interested in the gig, you should insist and tell the producer that you won't do it for free, because you offer a professional service that is worth paying for. 

In this business or any other, value and price go hand in hand. I know people that have lost some gigs because they didn't charge enough, their clients associated price with quality. Of course, it always depends on the client, situation and project. 

If you're confident about the level of quality you can provide for this project, you should tell the producer you won't do it for free, but that you will offer a better service that all of those amateurs who are willing to sell their 'expertise' for nothing. 

If he still wants you to do it for free, walk away. 

Mike Verta addresses this topic very eloquently in this podcast: 

http://mikeverta.com/wordpress/podcasts ... ting-paid/

Good luck! 

-M


----------



## MarkS_Comp (Jun 2, 2013)

Rob @ Sun Jun 02 said:


> he's losing, walk away...



Not necessarily. If this composer is able to provide the same quality score that MikeH can - or very close to it - then the produce comes out the winner here. If the composer can't, then you are right.

This is the state of the business these days. You as a composer are not competing against other good composers that cost about the same as you do - you are competing against other good composers _who will work for free_. And alot of these guys (not all, of course) have not even paid for many of the libraries that they use. We all either have to deal with it, or find another line of work.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 2, 2013)

MarkS_Comp @ Sun Jun 02 said:


> Rob @ Sun Jun 02 said:
> 
> 
> > he's losing, walk away...
> ...



True and the only solution is to call out those composers and make it clear to them that in the long run, they are cutting their own throats.

Student films, of course, is a different thing. There I have no problem with composers working for free.


----------



## MikeH (Jun 2, 2013)

I've listened to Mike Verta's podcast before and very much agree with him on this subject. For me it's all circumstantial re: whether I choose to work on something for free. I'm not against it, but in 95% of the cases it is ridiculous and a 'walk away' situation. 

Jay's right...the composers are cutting their own throats in the long run. If a producer is offering a decent budget and you have a plethora of 'composers' rushing to do it for free instead, there's something backwards about the whole thing. 

Oh well. I'm filled up all summer with paying gigs so at least there are some people out there that recognize the value of it all.


----------



## Madrigal (Jun 2, 2013)

MikeH @ Sun Jun 02 said:


> If a producer is offering a decent budget and you have a plethora of 'composers' rushing to do it for free instead, there's something backwards about the whole thing.



Indeed, it does seem completely desperate on the other composers' part: Wanting to do for free a project that actually has a budget for music. The competitive advantage should therefore be based on talent, experience, and style, not pricing. 

Imagine you need dental surgery. Most dentists you know charge $2000 for such a procedure and out of the blue, comes someone you don't know, who offers to provide the same service for free...suspicious? 

I guess there will always be composers out there with a decent set of skills, starting up, ready to do projects for free to build their portfolio. If the producer did have a budget for music, you should always try to reason with him beforehand. Try to explain the added value of hiring you instead of another who does projects for free. If he won't hear it, then it might not be worth your while to keep a business relationship with him. 

Nevertheless, happy to see you'll have a prolific summer! o-[][]-o


----------



## wst3 (Jun 2, 2013)

I think it's always a good idea to have the conversation... yes, he can 'hire' someone for free, or he can pay someone for the work. There is a difference... the effort put forth by the composer, the producer's perception of the value of the music, lots of things change when you have a professional arrangement. Worst case the composer who is doing it for free can walk away if things start to spin down the drain<G>! Someone getting paid doesn't have that freedom!

But, don't do it for free... you don't need to, and you'd only be hurting yourself and other composers if you do.

I've worked for nothing on friends projects, all of which would fall into the student film category. I've also worked for nothing at an all volunteer community theatre.

But I won't work on a project with a budget without getting a piece of the budget.

Similarly, I'll offer advice on technical matters for free, in conversation. But don't expect follow up support. Probably sounds harsh to some, but I think it's quite reasonable.


----------



## dinerdog (Jun 2, 2013)

On the off chance some of you haven't seen this, still required viewing:

Harlan Ellison -- Pay the Writer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jun 2, 2013)

The first conversation you must have is with yourself. Are you artistically worth the fee? 

Second, have you had previous experience scoring films and if so, do you have a demo reel of some type to verify your skill set?

Third, this is the music _business_. And in its variant form, it's still the old question, "why should I pay you more when I can get it for less from someone else?"

Everyone has to deal with this question. This is why it's so important that you be clear, be true, and be committed to writing and producing the music that's inside _you_ rather than imitating the sound of another composer and financially bargaining as the least expensive but better qualified sound alike.

This is a negotiation. And if you don't know how to negotiate there are plenty of books on the subject to guide. The principles are the same, regardless of the field of endeavor.


----------



## Mike Greene (Jun 2, 2013)

Here's what I always tell them when this sort of thing happens:

_"Dude, remember that time last year when we went to check out that new strip club in Lakewood? Two dollar drinks and ten dollar lap dances. How could we resist? Until the first dancer came out and she's missing a front tooth. And then the second one still had stretch marks from her pregnancy. Remember? Dude, I thought we both agreed then that it's better to just go ahead and spend a couple extra bucks instead of chasing bargains. I mean seriously, you don't want music with missing teeth and stretch marks, do you?"_

That story usually snaps some sense back into them. More importantly, it's why I consider visits to strip clubs to be a legitimate tax deduction.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Jun 2, 2013)

^If that isn't one of the best posts I've ever read on any forum...


----------



## Mike Marino (Jun 2, 2013)

Hahahahaha. Well played, Greene, well played!, LOL

I would re-state the fee you're requesting to score the film and let the director walk away from you.

- Mike


----------



## Brian Ralston (Jun 2, 2013)

This problem is not going away folks. I don't talk about this much...but I lost out on scoring a film late last year I had verbally been asked to score already, for a director I have worked with for 10 years, to an Oscar nominated composer who under bid little old me. Said composer offered to score it for FREE. A producer on the film thereby hired him for that reason over the director's wishes. This all happened quickly over a weekend that blindsided the director and of course me. The director was devastated and now that it is done...he still does not like what was delivered to him in the end. Why an Oscar nominated composer would feel the need to lower their perceived worth to zero is beyond me. But they did. And I unfortunately lost all respect for them in the process. And I use to look up to this person and their work. 

It happens. Move on. Don't burn bridges by what you say to them. It is business. They are making a financial decision. It will either hurt them because they will get what they pay for...or it won't and they will get lucky. Just be gracious and take the high road in any response.

The damage done is to us all in the end. Because that producer will forever in the future think, "My last film I got a score for free...let's see if we can do that again. It worked before...why not now?"


----------



## Ed (Jun 2, 2013)

Surely its not sustainable though. Composers cant live on free and those that are prepared to do it for free are usually, though not in Brians case, less qualified.


----------



## rgames (Jun 2, 2013)

Ed @ Sun Jun 02 said:


> Surely its not sustainable though.


Depends on which segment of the market you're talking about. High end - I think you're correct. Middle- and low-budget, though, I think the sad truth is that it's perfectly sustainable. There are plenty of guys with day jobs who can write music that is "good enough" for free - they don't need the money, they just want to be involved. As Brian said, it's all driven by the bottom line, not by the quality of the music.

I always ask the same question when these discussions arise: How many people really care about the music? I'd hazard a guess that the answer is not many, so you don't need significant quality to meet their demands. Music production technology has improved to the point that it doesn't require a super-skilled composer and production facility to meet the "Good Enough" requirement.

We can take some solace in the fact that we're not alone - photographers have it worse. The Chicago Sun Times recently laid off its *entire* staff of photojournalists and sent the other journalists to classes on how to shoot photos with their iPhones.

Sure, the quality of the images will be a lot worse but how many people really care?

Supply and demand - you can't fight it. Better to accept it and figure out a way to deal with it.

rgames


----------



## kdm (Jun 2, 2013)

Brian Ralston @ Sun Jun 02 said:


> This problem is not going away folks. I don't talk about this much...but I lost out on scoring a film late last year I had verbally been asked to score already, for a director I have worked with for 10 years, to an Oscar nominated composer who under bid little old me.



Sorry to hear that Brian - it is frustrating for sure. A similar thing happened to me - lost a feature that would have been a good credit for me, to a well-known composer who offered to do the film for a fraction of this person's normal fee (decent budget for me, not much for what I think the composer would be getting for other successful features). 

Why are composers that are scoring major films taking these projects? Is there that much fear of losing work to other competition, regardless of the budget? (No doubt the answer is yes - it's a tough business for everyone). But, imho, it doesn't help the film if a busy successful composer delivers a less than enthusiastic, rushed end result because they are trying to squeeze a lower budget project in between much bigger budget projects. 

I can't blame the producers for going with a well-known composer, or the composer for taking the gig - it's their choice to make, and it is a business decision as much as anything. It does add some additional credibility to marketing their film, and that is what sells tickets and DVDs/Blurays. 

It is frustrating though, and you are right, it does hurt the industry as a whole even if most don't realize it when taking these gigs. In my opinion, it simply pushes the level of project and budgets that composers at other levels would otherwise be getting.

Win some, and lose some. Happens to everyone eventually. Just important to put those gigs behind us and keep moving forward.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 3, 2013)

rgames @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> Ed @ Sun Jun 02 said:
> 
> 
> > Surely its not sustainable though.
> ...


Much as I hate to admit it, Richard is right (and I hate to admit that Richard is right about anything....!). Some composers are so desperate for work that they will do anything to get their chance. Why should they care if they ruin the industry for everyone else? It's not as if anyone else will pay their rent for them.

Whilst there is a lot of hand wringing on this forum, we must all take credit for allowing this situation to occur. Not only have we all but destroyed the recording industry by using sample libraries (OK, the players have helped us along by being greedy and inflexible as well), but we also have library companies (and some people on this forum write for these companies) who are basically telling the industry that music is free.

The only way to fight back is to make our music better than all the wannabes, and accept that in the end there will be fewer composers who can make a living off this sort of work.

D


----------



## rayinstirling (Jun 3, 2013)

I have a CD player in my present car that's never had a CD in it.
The yearly cost of subs for Spotify is less than I would have spent on CD's only a handful of years ago but now I listen to a whole world of music never before available to me because I just didn't know it was out there.
The value of recorded music is diminishing and nothing can stop it happening.
Quality? I come across so many people that just don't care. Sad but true.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 3, 2013)

Whenever these posts come up - and they come up quite often - I always have to bring up the R word - royalties. Why has this word not come up in 22 posts?

That opens a right can of worms itself I appreciate, but it has to be factored in. In UK television at least, the system works pretty well, and depending on the type of show you are doing royalties will dwarf upfront payments. Anecdotally I know of one preschool series composer whose earning 1/4 of a million GDP a year on one relatively small gig (the series went global, and will run for many many years). I'm nowhere near that paydirt, but doing ok in my small little field, 90% or more of my music income is from royalties.

It's not a catch-all panacea for every scenario. I know in the US in particular it's a battle to get your royalties (Brian and I had a recent conversation on this elsewhere). But to me, it's nowhere near as simple as "working for free" (whatever that means) = pond scum. It's way more complex than that.


----------



## Tatu (Jun 3, 2013)

That's a shame, but what can you do... be better and they'll pay you for the job.

All indie movie and game sites are flooded with people offering to score anything for free.. and from what I've noticed, it seems like there's the same names year after year, so I wouldn't see them as a real threat.. :roll: (since no matter what, they haven't evolved to that "payed grade" of composers, so I assume that they simply suck at it and the producers/directors will learn their lessons from them. Harsh, but that's just my narrow opinion)

But when real pro's start doing it, it's both a bit sad (for you and others working their way up in the charts with small, yet payed projects), but also - in some cases - a nice gesture from them towards the up and coming big-name-directors. Even Hans does it, he admitted it himself in one of the threads here, though I don't know what the case was in that situation.


----------



## rayinstirling (Jun 3, 2013)

Guy,
Your view is from a position of already having "feet under the table" but what about the future? Everyday there are new young hopefuls thinking they can make a living from music and it just ain't going to happen.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 3, 2013)

rayinstirling @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> Guy,
> Your view is from a position of already having "feet under the table" but what about the future? Everyday there are new young hopefuls thinking they can make a living from music and it just ain't going to happen.



I can only speak for my tiny area of expertise, and for some time now payment has been massively skewed towards royalties. The system works very well, with the caveat that the money can take a long time to come in, and you might need to chase. I don't see how it's any different for newcomers in that sense, except cashflow issues are likely to be more acute. Getting your foot in the door is a separate issue really.

Royalties have had threads of their own here and deservedly so. Mileage varies hugely - I hear in the US you're basically often told to sign away your ownership. If you have no ownership and no fee, I agree that I see absolutely no point in the gig and it's very damaging to the industry as a whole. I'm pragmatic - I don't much care how the money arrives, as long as it arrives.

I've no idea what's going on in Brian's sad case. It's just possible that the producer said to him / her "I'll make sure you're on 100% writer / publisher share, and this has presold to 50 territories". Maybe not, but it's one explanation.


----------



## impressions (Jun 3, 2013)

^
the other explanation is that there are just too many of us and people are taking advantage of the need to exposure?

there are lots of hobbyist musicians wanting exposure that take up a considerable market slice and degrading the profession.

is that too much?


----------



## KEnK (Jun 3, 2013)

Daryl @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> ...Whilst there is a lot of hand wringing on this forum, we must all take credit for allowing this situation to occur. Not only have we all but destroyed the recording industry by using sample libraries (OK, the players have helped us along by being greedy and inflexible as well), but we also have library companies (and some people on this forum write for these companies) who are basically telling the industry that music is free.
> 
> The only way to fight back is to make our music better than all the wannabes, and accept that in the end there will be fewer composers who can make a living off this sort of work.
> 
> D


It's only a matter of time before working for free is not enough.
Pay to Play is right around the corner. 
That's the inevitable direction things are moving in.

The only solution is a Composers Union.
(Yes I know the idea recently failed big time)
Unions succeed in most other aspects of the film industry.
Without that protection, soon you will be asked how much you want to invest in the project in order to be the composer.

As to making better music-
Conceptually, I love the idea, but that's also not the direction things are moving in.

To many people willing to churn out crap for a few coins.
The more crap there is, the more it becomes the norm.
How often do you hear a soundtrack that's just a pad or arpeggio?
When did that become "composing"?

All this is happening because of the effects of technology on the Art-
You don't need to be a musician to write music anymore.
How many "do I need to know anything?" threads have you seen here?

Loops & Pads- what do you expect?

k


----------



## Daryl (Jun 3, 2013)

KEnK @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> Daryl @ Mon Jun 03 said:
> 
> 
> > ...Whilst there is a lot of hand wringing on this forum, we must all take credit for allowing this situation to occur. Not only have we all but destroyed the recording industry by using sample libraries (OK, the players have helped us along by being greedy and inflexible as well), but we also have library companies (and some people on this forum write for these companies) who are basically telling the industry that music is free.
> ...


Yes, I can see that happening up to a point.



KEnK @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> The only solution is a Composers Union.
> (Yes I know the idea recently failed big time)
> Unions succeed in most other aspects of the film industry.
> Without that protection, soon you will be asked how much you want to invest in the project in order to be the composer.


A Union won't solve anything. All that will happen is that the Producers will hire non-Union composers. So we'll be in exactly the same situation. TBH there is nothing wrong with investing in the film, as long as you are getting a proportional share of profits to your investment. I think that this is what Cutting Edge does.


KEnK @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> As to making better music-
> Conceptually, I love the idea, but that's also not the direction things are moving in.
> 
> To many people willing to churn out crap for a few coins.
> ...


I think there is a lot of truth in what you say, but maybe that's a good thing (wearing my cynical hat). If every composer sounds the same because none of them know anything, apart from how to use the tools enough to fool a Production team that doesn't care about standards, a lot of the work will be dirt cheap. However, there will still be paid work for Productions that do care, and unless you actually do know what you're doing, you wouldn't be able to deliver. So in the long run there will be fewer composers, but it could be a more professional group of people.

D


----------



## kdm (Jun 3, 2013)

Daryl @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> TBH there is nothing wrong with investing in the film, as long as you are getting a proportional share of profits to your investment.



I am going to disagree simply based on the common conclusion in this thread alone - the value of music is declining and every scenario illustrated here is contributing. We can't pay our mortgages, rent, buy food or necessities with an extension of our risky investment: "I'll pay you as soon as this film sells $20M in the box office and I get my back end - you don't mind risking this payment with me do you?"

But yet that's exactly what investing is - taking on someone else's risk. At one time perhaps the concept seemed artistic and even visionary, but it has no boundaries now and as such, it is contributing to the erosion of music and artistic value. 

Every time someone doesn't get paid what quality music is worth, or their status in the industry is worth, the overall value declines a little bit more. "Investing" is a high risk in this industry. When producers and production companies can bank on people being willing to share their risk, they become more willing to risk more as typically there is no guaranteed payment, or back end for them to cover - i.e. their risk is significantly lowered if everyone "invests" (aka, donates) their time and talents. You have to pay cash investors back, usually at least. In most cases, they won't have to pay "investing" service providers unless they contract for a guaranteed payment, but why would producers spread the risk that far when so many composers (and others) are willing to even forgo a decent contract on the hopes of a credit, much less a back end? It's the same "work for free" mindset, different circumstances. 

It is the mindset of working for free *now* that has to change. Running a business doesn't involve buying lottery tickets every week hoping to make it big, yet that is what "investing" and working for low/no budget is - a high risk, low payout lottery. 

Royalties aren't the answer either, no matter how lucrative they have been in the past, or present - that trend is declining quickly. 

I seriously doubt even if thousands of us were to organize, we won't make a dent in the trend led by Google, Apple, Spotify, and others. This just another form of "investment" that is not only at high risk, but also of little concern to anyone beyond the composer/musician/artist - so who is there to stand up for royalties as a means of income when the recipient is the only one who values it? Buyers need to "invest" in the product they are buying by paying a reasonable price, or they disconnect from the value of that product itself. Royalties aren't paid by the actual consumer or even the direct buyer so they have no direct connection to the value of the music beyond the $0.99 they pay for a download, or even less for streaming. Instead, royalties are nebulously floating around in pools with PROs via broadcast outlets that increasingly question why they have to pay for something that should have been paid for elsewhere, and is based on a usage model few understand. Too much disconnect from the actual cost of the product itself creates a lack of value in the product.

I agree, unions won't help, esp. since most here in the US are geographically limited. The only solution I see (and it may be the highest risk solution) is to set oneself apart with a high degree of talent, skilled delivery and project value, and that's what I have banked my career on. If I am wrong in the long run and the mass production loops and pads music bed method does continue to rule the industry, at least I tried to do what I love, the way I love to do it.


----------



## KEnK (Jun 3, 2013)

Daryl @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> ...A Union won't solve anything. All that will happen is that the Producers will hire non-Union composers. So we'll be in exactly the same situation...


My Wife's been a 2nd AC in the Union (ICG) for 20+ years now.
Every aspect of the film industry has a union- 
Grips, Electrics, Wardrobe, Writers, Actors, even Craft Service.

A Production company has to pay huge fines for violating terms in the various contracts.
The Unions are on top of it enough that the companies seldom want to bother trying to
save a few bucks by hiring non-union, or even trying lesser infractions.

Only Composers are, as a group, to stupid to realize that this will work for them too.



Daryl @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> ...I think there is a lot of truth in what you say, but maybe that's a good thing (wearing my cynical hat). If every composer sounds the same because none of them know anything, apart from how to use the tools enough to fool a Production team that doesn't care about standards, a lot of the work will be dirt cheap. However, there will still be paid work for Productions that do care, and unless you actually do know what you're doing, you wouldn't be able to deliver. So in the long run there will be fewer composers, but it could be a more professional group of people...



Sorry- but I'm extremely cynical.
I see the direction moving away from skilled craft 
and more towards the "push button ready made soundtrack kits" that already exist. 

IMO, a Composers Union is the only way out of this mess.

k


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 3, 2013)

KEnK @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> I see the direction moving away from skilled craft
> and more towards the "push button ready made soundtrack kits" that already exist.



That's one reason why I do not like this loop libraries with partly finished phrases.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 3, 2013)

KEnK @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> Daryl @ Mon Jun 03 said:
> 
> 
> > ...A Union won't solve anything. All that will happen is that the Producers will hire non-Union composers. So we'll be in exactly the same situation...
> ...


Except that this sort of practice is illegal in the EU, due to the fact that we have Human Right legislation.



KEnK @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> Daryl @ Mon Jun 03 said:
> 
> 
> > ...I think there is a lot of truth in what you say, but maybe that's a good thing (wearing my cynical hat). If every composer sounds the same because none of them know anything, apart from how to use the tools enough to fool a Production team that doesn't care about standards, a lot of the work will be dirt cheap. However, there will still be paid work for Productions that do care, and unless you actually do know what you're doing, you wouldn't be able to deliver. So in the long run there will be fewer composers, but it could be a more professional group of people...
> ...


Which won't work, as I said above.

D


----------



## Daryl (Jun 3, 2013)

kdm @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> Daryl @ Mon Jun 03 said:
> 
> 
> > TBH there is nothing wrong with investing in the film, as long as you are getting a proportional share of profits to your investment.
> ...


That's exactly what an investment is. Risky. If you don't consider it's a good investment, don't invest. Simple.

D


----------



## KEnK (Jun 3, 2013)

Daryl @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> Except that this sort of practice is illegal in the EU, due to the fact that we have Human Right legislation.


Sorry Daryl-

I'm unfamiliar w/ how the EU film industry works.
Exactly what "sort of practice is illegal"?
Not sure if you mean a Union fining an errant Prod Company is illegal, or that
a Union is unnecessary because of the Human Rights legislation.

As to a Composer's Union not working- 
We'll just have to continue to disagree on that.

It's certain that _not_ having a Composer's Union is not working

k


----------



## rgames (Jun 3, 2013)

KEnK @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> Pay to Play is right around the corner.


It's already here. If you're working for free you're already paying to play.

You paid for the hardware. You paid for the software. You pay for the room in which you work. You pay in the time spent writing the music. From a business standpoint, any additional fee paid to have your music on the production might actually be the smallest part of the total fee you pay.

If you're not covering your expenses and time then you're already paying to play. So, even if you're being paid and it doesn't cover your expenses and time then you're still paying to play.

Royalties are, in fact, an important piece of the puzzle for a lot of composers. But I'll bet dollars against pennies that the royalty model is on its way out. Again, you need to consider the segment. I think royalties might continue to be lucrative for mid- and high-end films but at the low end everything is going to be distributed over the internet (where the royalties are basically nothing). In the TV world, I think your quickest path to royalties is to get a gig in audio post, make some contacts and then start writing the music for the shows you do post on. Similar paths might actually work in film, too - who was the Dreamworks guy who took the producer gig so he could hire himself to do the score? Can't recall...

Regarding the union, I would support it but I can't see how it would ever make a difference. The composer doesn't have to be physically on the set or even in the same country, so you can't really compare to unions who cover gigs that are required on set - the composer can reside somewhere where the costs are substantially less. Comparisons to the writers guilds are not appropriate because viewers pay a lot more attention to the writing than the music (think of how often you hear about bad writing vs. bad music from TV / Film critics). So there's a lot more consumer pull when it comes to quality of writing than there is for music. Therefore, quality of writing will have a lot more effect on the bottom line than quality of music. It follows, of course, that the people who do the writing have a lot more leverage than those who do the music.

Another thing to consider is the fact that so much music nowadays is licensed from a library vs. purpose-composed. A lot of that licensing is of tracks written by bands for whom the licensing is a secondary form of income - so they're happy to give away the music so long as it has some impact on CD sales (which I find hard to believe, but that's what they say). That's driving down the value of music for the media, as well.

Then throw on top of all of that the iTunes effect that has devalued music in general and you get a pretty bleak picture for composers. (By the way - if you really want to do something for composers then start an anti-trust lawsuit against Apple for their manipulation of the music market, that'll have much larger impact than a union).

The bottom line is that you have no leverage unless you impact the bottom line. For media composers, that's a hard sell.

rgames


----------



## Daryl (Jun 3, 2013)

KEnK @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> Daryl @ Mon Jun 03 said:
> 
> 
> > Except that this sort of practice is illegal in the EU, due to the fact that we have Human Right legislation.
> ...


In the EU you don't have to be a member of a Union in order to work. Employers are not allowed only to hire Union members either. It's not that Unions are unnecessary, it's that their power was severely curtailed in the 1980s.

Of course in the film industry, most films with big budgets do adhere to union agreements, because it is easier than the alternative, but they don't have to, and for smaller projects it may be beneficial not to.

D


----------



## Brian Ralston (Jun 3, 2013)

KEnK @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> IMO, a Composers Union is the only way out of this mess.
> 
> k



3 HUGE things against that right now. At least in the USA.

1. US Department of Labor has defined composers and songwriters as independent contractors and WILL NOT ALLOW us to unionize. The only way to change that is new legislation redefining who can unionize...or the Dept. of Labor reversing its decades old decision. And the trend in legislation right now is very much against the artists in general. They are even taking steps now to write new copyright law to make it easier for folks to use copy-written material without acquiring rights. Does anyone think they are going to rule in favor of composers on something like this now, that has precedent ruling against us unionizing going back decades?

2. More and more product is being made by not the big studios...but by independent production companies that exist to make the single film...then cease to exist. Those companies are not signatories to any union. And we are not talking about small unknown films. Anyone heard of Marvel? Disney is a signatory and if these films were made by Disney...they would have to use AFM musicians as they are already signatory to that union. But the films are only distributed by Disney but made by Marvel which has no signatory agreement in place. And will not sign one. So...they go overseas to avoid the AFM union musician rates in the states. This is a whole other issue, but indicative of what would simply happen IF composers had a union anyway. A composer does not have to live here to compose for a film. And once you remove that...you remove the strength any local union would have.

3. See #1 above.


----------



## mverta (Jun 3, 2013)

What Brian said. Plus, there are 7,000,000,000 people on the planet. You can find plenty of people who value you, value you what you do, and will pay you accordingly. You can't squeeze blood from a stone, and you can't legislate people into valuing you. If you insist on trying to make money from people who don't want to give you any, you will fail. The key to making a living today is to diversify the type of projects you do, and expand your territory. We're a connected world - reach out. You need only a tiny, tiny fraction of that 7 billion to have a stable life.


_Mike


----------



## KEnK (Jun 3, 2013)

rgames @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> ...Regarding the union, I would support it but I can't see how it would ever make a difference. The composer doesn't have to be physically on the set or even in the same country, so you can't really compare to unions who cover gigs that are required on set - the composer can reside somewhere where the costs are substantially less. Comparisons to the writers guilds are not appropriate because viewers pay a lot more attention to the writing than the music (think of how often you hear about bad writing vs. bad music from TV / Film critics). So there's a lot more consumer pull when it comes to quality of writing than there is for music. Therefore, quality of writing will have a lot more effect on the bottom line than quality of music. It follows, of course, that the people who do the writing have a lot more leverage than those who do the music.
> 
> Another thing to consider is the fact that so much music nowadays is licensed from a library vs. purpose-composed. A lot of that licensing is of tracks written by bands for whom the licensing is a secondary form of income - so they're happy to give away the music so long as it has some impact on CD sales (which I find hard to believe, but that's what they say). That's driving down the value of music for the media, as well...


While I am personally not a Union Organizer or Activist, I am decidedly Pro-Union.
I could mention the effects of the dismantling of Unions and Deregulation on the US Economy, 
but I'll save that for another time.

The main thing a Composer's Union would do is to ensure that a Union Production Company hire a Union Composer. 
This could include that Library Music is also Union based. 
Imagine that!
The vast majority of Commercials, TV shows and Films are Union.
Consumer perspective on various Unions is irrelevant-
The Film Audience is not generally aware of what most of the standard Film Crew does-
Where is the "consumer pull" concerning what a Grip does? 
Yet this is also a Union gig.

Writer have more leverage than Composers entirely because of the Writers Guild.
Consumer awareness is not an issue.

k


----------



## impressions (Jun 3, 2013)

i think everyone who considers himself a pro, and wants to live by its craft(and not just a hobby) will agree the situation has become unbearable.

the question is, what can we do about it?

nothing?

that's all the brain power we got?


----------



## rgames (Jun 3, 2013)

KEnK @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> Consumer awareness is not an issue.


I disagree - here's why:

You're discussing legal issues. Brian mentioned legal issues above. I actually think we can overcome the legal issues. The more fundamenal issue is that even if you overcome those legal roadblocks you still have to overcome the economic roadbloacks. Doing so looks extremely unlikely.

You can't legislate demand. You can try, but you'll always lose. Economics always wins over legislation. Milennia of human history have shown that to be the case.

I wish that weren't the case but we can't just legislate a world that we wish would work. There have to be economic forces that support our wishes or we're just wasting our time.

rgames


----------



## reddognoyz (Jun 3, 2013)

Brian Ralston @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> KEnK @ Mon Jun 03 said:
> 
> 
> > IMO, a Composers Union is the only way out of this mess.
> ...




This is a problem that my company encounters everyday with voice talent. 

It's the same with AFM, of which I am an active member. 

99% of the productions we work on have international partnerships. That's a problem our clients are having with talent unions across the board.

Producer: hey there collective bargaining union xxxxx, I'd like to hire your talent for this new show we're doing, it's a series with 26 episodes about cops who are also vampires. 

Collective bargaining agency rep:

Great!!! where's it going to be broacast?

Prod:

"Well, we don't know yet for sure, we want to find a broadcaster here in the states, that's the gold mine of course, but right now we have a buy in Abu Dhabi, and things look good for a sale in Croatia, our partners there have enough money to put the show/movie/cartoon together, and they will gamble on a US sale once the series is completed."

Collective bargaining agency rep:

"Great! well....... get back too us once you know what the details are of the USA buy...then we can talk.... we're still stuck in the 20th century are are completely unprepared for the international market place as it exists today... see ya! have a great day : ) : ) : )"


Prod:

"....ummmmm okay , gotta go, I have a call back on the other line from an agent for the talent who wants to work, and will cross the union line for money to feed their family. see ya! have a great day...."


In addition, and without exception, every contract I've signed for Disney and Nickelodeon this century have this wording in the contract. I am quoting directly here.

"The Score, Demos and Masters shall be recorded “non-union” (i.e. outside the jurisdiction of all unions, guilds and collective bargaining agreements)."


----------



## KEnK (Jun 3, 2013)

@ Brian-

My Wife's 20+ years in ICG would seem to belie your arguments on
the futility of a Composer's Union. 

She is considered "Freelance" rather than an "Independent Contractor".
This small detail means for one thing, 
that everyone in the ICG can get unemployment benefits.
More importantly it means there is a Union to protect everyone
in that field from exactly the kinds of things you and all of us are continuing to encounter.

She constantly works for one shot Prod Companies that must adhere to Union regulations.
It works for every aspect of the Industry.

As to your argument about a Composer not being "on site",
see my previous post.

Seems that it's very easy to find a million reasons why a Composer's Union won't work.
Maybe it's a better idea to concentrate on the few reasons why it will work.

Or we can continue on w/ the Downward $piral we're in now.

k


----------



## rgames (Jun 3, 2013)

KEnK @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> Seems that it's very easy to find a million reasons why a Composer's Union won't work.
> Maybe it's a better idea to concentrate on the few reasons why it will work.


There's only one that matters: economics.

Focus on that and everything else becomes a non-issue.

rgames


----------



## jaredcowing (Jun 3, 2013)

Whether or not a composers' union would work, does anyone else see a few similarities here with what's going on with the VFX industry? An overcompetitive field that results in a bidding war that in turn results in rates that are so low, even the groups that get the contract can't survive on their income and go under. Not entirely the same situation but still interesting. VFX industry is contemplating a union, if they do I'd be curious to see if it helps or hurts.


----------



## KEnK (Jun 3, 2013)

To reddognoyz and rgames,

So it would seem that by what both of you are saying,
is that you have resigned our futures as composers to being no better than 
working at a Textile Factory in Bangladesh.

No rules can be applied.
It's the Endless Race to the Bottom.

Is that what you mean?
or did I miss something?

k


----------



## Darthmorphling (Jun 3, 2013)

impressions @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> ^
> the other explanation is that there are just too many of us and people are taking advantage of the need to exposure?
> 
> there are lots of hobbyist musicians wanting exposure that take up a considerable market slice and degrading the profession.
> ...



Isn't every composer a hobbyist until they get paid? 

I just saw a video, where a well known composer talked about how they did gigs for free in the beginning. They then proceeded to say that you should never do that as it takes away paying gigs from people. I read a post by a moderator here who said they would work for free if it was for a friend. 

As an outsider looking in, what I am seeing is a lot of fear of new composers, and the "stupid" consumers who do not value music. The reality is if "professionals" are working for free, but get upset when "hobbyists" do the same thing using pads and prebuilt construction kits, then your way of life is slowly degrading. It is the professionals who should be blamed.

In education we have the same problem. We used to have after school tutoring and the rate was 31.50 an hour. Once the economy crashed, that was cut immediately. However, there were still teachers who would do it for free. Those teachers are the most vocal about having to do it for free, but continue to do so. Our district knows this will happen so why would they institute the extra pay again?

The only thing you can do is to value your own work and charge what you think it is worth to you. It seems as if this profession is overly saturated and the ones who don't make money will eventually move on.


----------



## Brian Ralston (Jun 3, 2013)

KEnK @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> @ Brian-
> 
> My Wife's 20+ years in ICG would seem to belie your arguments on
> the futility of a Composer's Union.
> ...



You are not completely understanding what I am saying. The US Government WILL NOT ALLOW composers to unionize. Why? Because we inherently own the copyright of the material we create. Therefor THEY have defined composers as "independent contractors" which by legal definition in US law CAN NOT unionize. 

The problem with that is that production companies force composers to give up that ownership of copyright by making them sign "work-for-hire" agreements (completely legal) that sign away the ownership rights they inherently own by law. These are not my rationalizations...but actual rulings by the US supreme court in the early 1980s. The last time composers tried to unionize and it went all the way to the Supreme Court. 

*The studios (AMPTP who all the union agreements are with) were quoted as saying in the recent unionization effort with the Teamsters that "As independent contractors, they can’t organize under federal labor law. We don’t believe anything has changed.”*

Game over.

http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=8273


----------



## reddognoyz (Jun 3, 2013)

no... we still get to make music  I personally am doing okay, but I work really really really hard. I just don't see how we are getting back to where this industry once was. most of the composers I came up with are gone gone gone. 

Back in the day working on a commercial often meant creative fee, afm, sag/aftra if there was singing, because you would go on that even if you sat in the room with the singers and lip synced. As a studio, there we're dubs and messengers, and that's all pretty much gone away...

I believe the fee for scoring a cartoon was more than twice what it is today. 

the rules that can be applied are, you can make a decision on passing on a job if the pay is too shitty vs. the work involved. Someone else will do it for sure. people WILL pay to do music...it may suck and the client may not care if it sucks. that is there prerogative.


----------



## rgames (Jun 3, 2013)

KEnK @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> So it would seem that by what both of you are saying,
> is that you have resigned our futures as composers to being no better than
> working at a Textile Factory in Bangladesh.
> 
> ...


No - and remember, I'm on your side.

What I'm saying is that you need a value proposition, not a legal proposition. You have two approaches in dealing with the production:

1. "Pay me $X because I'm union and that's the rate".

2. "Pay me $X because it will increase the value of your production."

You need #2, not #1. You can legally create #1 but, in the end, it will always fail if it does not also do #2.

Comparing composers to factory workers in Bangladesh is not appropriate - the composers working for little or nothing are not doing so because they have to. They're doing so because they want to - they're working other jobs to make a living. Slave labor is a human rights issue - composers aren't slave labor. Economic forces should be fought for human rights issues but not for folks who have other options.

No composer ever said "Crap, I guess I have to work as a composer to stay alive."

rgames


----------



## drasticmeasures (Jun 3, 2013)

Guys, 

There are all good discussion topics here, but the problem I'm having with this thread is that everyone is assuming they're being told the truth....by a producer.

Basing a theoretical discussion, let alone life choices, based on what a producer tells you is a....misguided approach.

The reality is no one is going to tell you "The filmmakers want a 'name' they can trust, and they'd rather hire that person than have you score it for free".

[Some famous composer] isn't scoring a film for a director he's never worked with for free....not with [a serious] agent. Think about it.

[Note: This post was edited by a moderator]


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 3, 2013)

rgames @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> Royalties are, in fact, an important piece of the puzzle for a lot of composers. But I'll bet dollars against pennies that the royalty model is on its way out. Again, you need to consider the segment. I think royalties might continue to be lucrative for mid- and high-end films but at the low end everything is going to be distributed over the internet (where the royalties are basically nothing). In the TV world, I think your quickest path to royalties is to get a gig in audio post, make some contacts and then start writing the music for the shows you do post on. Similar paths might actually work in film, too - who was the Dreamworks guy who took the producer gig so he could hire himself to do the score? Can't recall...



Wow, er... where to begin...

The job in audio post. Unless you have a good relationship with a producer and / or are a music editor, I think that's very bad advice. I was chatting to a fellow dubbing mixer who, unlike me, is a staffer at a post house. He is also an aspiring composer. In his work experience, getting creative with music was a case of moving the in-point of a track by 3 frames - that was about as much as he was / is allowed to do. It's a fallacy to think that you can throw away the music put on in the edit and then replace with your own - might get you fired, actually.

As most here know, I am a dubbing mixer as well as a composer. Sometimes I'm hired because I have a good reputation for working with music AND I have a good working relationship with the producer, and I'm allowed to change something (on approval) if I feel it isn't working well. It's a job I take seriously. I sometimes use / compose my own music, but just as frequently I'll use library or a commercial track if it can be cleared. I never change music unless I feel it can be improved in some way. In essence - I have to make the show better, and every decision I make has to be justified in those terms and those terms alone. If I abuse my position, I'm in serious trouble, so I don't.

OK, on to the broader issue of royalties in decline. Why are they in decline? They're not in the UK. The royalty system is very complex, global, and has taken many decades to get where it is today. It needs to be protected, and moved forward as technology changes. Royalties are payed on the BBC iplayer (on demand service) and on YouTube, to use two examples. The rates are too low, but the system is in place - the hard bit.

If we as composers give up on the system, it will never be replaced. The PRS, ASCAP etc need to be at the forefront of keeping the system relevant and working for composers going forward, haggling and hassling for good rates. For many good reasons stated here, the union can't and won't happen. But we have these organisations who are - in theory - there to protect our interest. They already exist, and yet it seems we undervalue them.

I'm kinda gobsmacked at what is being allowed in the US and elsewhere in terms of throwing away a composer's ownership. A rule of the PRS in the UK is that this is illegal. If you are a member, you're not allowed to sign away your ownership of any track. That's controversial, sometimes a PITA in some circumstances, but I totally get why they do it. Fundamentally, it keeps the system afloat and stops the entire revenue stream - designed to protect copyright - being stolen by production companies.

It might be easy for me to say from 3,000 miles away, but I think you guys have got to get organised in the US. Sod the fatalism here of saying "royalties are done for" - don't allow it to go. It was hard - very hard - to be put in place, and once its gone its gone. So fight for it.

The boss of Audio Networks was here recently saying his members are earning good money from youtube and TV trailer spots. They seem proactive in chasing their members money. This seems a productive way forward, especially since the implication was that many other libraries do not do a good job at this. I'd be interested in hearing more direct experience in this area.

Finally, I totally agree with the point about selling yourself in terms of worth. If someone needs music to sound like big epic wallpaper, then there's not a lot you can do. But, as a composer, can you tell a story? Can you enhance the world of a show? Can you make a gag work? That's your skill, your talent, your worth. It doesn't matter how many loop libraries you do or don't earn, it's your still as a storyteller that will get you gigs.


----------



## impressions (Jun 3, 2013)

Darthmorphling @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> impressions @ Mon Jun 03 said:
> 
> 
> > ^
> ...



hah, if pro's are working for free they are to blame-but- i'm pretty sure a pro can do it once or twice but afterward it'll start backfire to his bills/rents.
unless he's got tons royalties which aren't alot of people who can just live by that(1 out of thousands-not the most).

regarding "every pro was once a hobbyist until he got payed"- consider this situation: there's thousands or tens of thousands of new composers coming out music schools every year to the world(not counting the independent ones). and maybe they aren't making it after a few years of trying and leave, since its so hard to sustain. so the fact is that there is still all that new traffic every year, that grabs a significant market slice VS those that are already there. surviving game. and why? because people are willing to work for free.
I consider 1,2 works for free legit for new comers. but time that with the thousands every year, or tens of thousands, and its pretty over-populated free music makers- especially if they can deliver.
I'm not sure how many of them are that Idealistic regarding "living by your craft".

I don't care if you're a hobbyist or a pro-if you're competing along with the market, and you knowingly flatting it to zero because that'll get you the gig-you're a bastard. selling your craft short and everyone's else.

this has got to stop, but it won't.
because its over-saturated.
and because people are willing to gamble on their career working for free.
It's a stamina surviving game where the guys with the best chance of sustaining are those doing it as a side job, because they already got a day job. they don't care if its for free. but for those that try to live by their craft, and it is a craft, it will wither if they aren't on some cozy deal. or don't have another sustainable gig. and it's also ruining the craft itself. how can someone write great music if he's got the shittiest chances of a respectable future? its a suicide mission without any hope.

what's with free work anyway? what's justifying about it? nothing. you work for hours-you even put your soul to it, and all you get on the BEST scenario, is some acclaim to your name-which still gives you the name for the guy who did it for free. what kind of acclaim is that?

your teachers should strike-if they think they got a case there. no one should work for free, we've got enough troubles with money as it is.


----------



## sluggo (Jun 3, 2013)

"who was the Dreamworks guy who took the producer gig so he could hire himself to do the score?"

I think you are thinking of Michael Giachino

-Yeah a brilliant move, but he has the chops (usually) to back it up.


----------



## rgames (Jun 3, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> It might be easy for me to say from 3,000 miles away, but I think you guys have got to get organised in the US. Sod the fatalism here of saying "royalties are done for" - don't allow it to go. It was hard - very hard - to be put in place, and once its gone its gone. So fight for it.


It doesn't matter how you get paid, only that you do. Royalties are one way but not the only way (and for a lot of folks, including big Hollywood names, not the best way). Composers seem to want to hang on to that model because "That's how it's always been done." Well, physicians used to accept payment in livestock. They moved on to other modes of payment and seem to be doing OK.

Furthermore, engineers, scientists, and a whole bunch of other high-paying careers almost never allow IP ownership by the individual. Should engineers start fighting for the right to own their IP? They don't but somehow seem to do ok....

So, sure, royalties are a piece of the puzzle. But I don't see a lot of promise for internet royalties and it's inevitable that media will be delivered via the internet in the future. The royalty system is complicated, archaic, unfair, and tough to manage. So just get paid up front and save everyone the hassle.

Does the engineer get paid every time someone drives over the bridge he designed? No - he gets paid up front and makes a very good living by doing so.

The fact is that almost no professions allow you to own your IP if you're an employee - hence the US court ruling that says composers are independent contractors because they retain that ownership. With all due respect to my fellow composers, that's how it should be and how it is for pretty much every other profession. In that regard, composers have a case of wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

Now, if the royalty model is going away and composer's desire to cling to that model is what's preventing them from unioninzing, then shouldn't they re-think their stance on that issue?

Again, that doesn't solve the economic problem but it's a solution for moving towards a union.

rgames


----------



## kdm (Jun 3, 2013)

Daryl @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> That's exactly what an investment is. Risky. If you don't consider it's a good investment, don't invest. Simple.
> 
> D



Daryl - with all due respect, no, it really isn't that simple, and here is why: Not everyone evaluates "investment" as wisely as you, I or others here might - in fact, I would go as far as to say most composers do not evaluate film investments wisely. And I think you may have missed the broader picture:

*Every* composer considers whatever low budget or free project they take as an investment - either in the form of exposure, experience, the relationship, or back end (any or all of the above). 

And every aspiring director and producer thinks their film is going to be a hit, regardless of their track record with previous films. 

And if their last film was successful enough for said composer to see it as a "good" investment, then why wouldn't said producer be able to pay the composer? (And by "good" investment I mean rationally see cause to expect a reasonable return based on past success of this producer, rather than diving in on a wing and a prayer).

That leaves awareness/PSA/fund raising films and purely artistic endeavors as the only remaining investment scenarios.... but who is donating their amazing work to save the composing industry so we can keep donating to these types of projects? 

No one. 

And how much of one's artistic fulfillment can we cash in to pay the mortgage? 

None. 

There just isn't nearly as much reasonable justification for composers "investing" in a film as most might assume. Leave that for venture capital and production companies with the cash to spend, or composer/producer teams that have seen their success and want to contribute something to a cause, or an historical or artistic film investors won't consider and wouldn't be made otherwise. But even there, I would hope all would tread carefully. 

A general "it's an investment in my career" mentality just feeds the consumer's perception that we do, and should, work for free so they don't have to pay to see or hear our work. 

As noted here, we are less represented, less organized, with less negotiating credibility than any other industry, and we are losing more value and credibility almost daily now. Who in their right mind would "invest" their career in an industry that is devaluing your work this much? There is no future for the industry in this line of reasoning. 

As for finding one's niche where people value you - absolutely true, but the problem is there are fewer of those people each year, and there will be even fewer the longer this trend continues. 

I may have posted this in another similar thread, but a marketing expert once said that a business should never offer discounts on it's product - especially service oriented businesses. Customers grow to expect the (e.g.) 30% off coupons, and eventually won't shop without them. So effectively, that product is now valued 30% less, and the business is taking a standard 30% loss on their margin for that product. Sound familiar?

This expert suggested offering some value added (like a free coffee mug with the purchase of an office chair, or a free year of alignments with the purchase of a new set of tires). But we are pretty much at the place where composers are having to offer talent as a value-added service just to get lower paying gigs.


----------



## Markus S (Jun 3, 2013)

I really can't see the point in working for free. If I am not paid, why not sit in the sun and enjoy drinking coffee. I'm not getting paid, but it is much nicer.

This discussion comes along often. If you work for free you BELIEVE you will be paid ultimately. But there is no cause -> effect law that guarantees you this will ever happen. Instead if you work for free you are killing the market you want to earn a living in - you are working against yourself and it is less probably you will succeed. 

You want to get paid? Ask for money. I believe - and this was the same 10 years ago - it is as difficult to get an unpaid job nowadays as a paid job. Only they will treat you like shit because your worth is perceived depending on how much you cost. If it is zero, well then your work is worth zero.

Anyway, yes, to the OP - it sucks. But you might want to do a bit of "education" and explain the situation to the people you deal with. Why you need a budget, what you invest, what you have to offer and why it costs money. I'm sure everyone gets this.


----------



## Darthmorphling (Jun 3, 2013)

impressions @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> Darthmorphling @ Mon Jun 03 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't care if you're a hobbyist or a pro-if you're competing along with the market, and you knowingly flatting it to zero because that'll get you the gig-you're a bastard. selling your craft short and everyone's else.
> ...



Our biggest concern right now is having to pay $1,300 a month for health care at the moment. Even then, most teachers are passive and never want to complain.

I do agree with you about the working for free part. I don't ever plan on doing this for pay as I enjoy the freedom doing it for fun offers me. If by some chance, someone wants to use my music, I will be getting paid. I have five kids that cost a lot of money, so my time is valuable and I will not be doing it for free.

I did work for free once, but it was for my eight year old's piranha project. I'm pretty sure he'll expect me to do it for free again :mrgreen: 



Be amazed at the skill that went into the string writing. 

Don


----------



## kdm (Jun 3, 2013)

Darthmorphling @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> I did work for free once, but it was for my eight year old's piranha project. I'm pretty sure he'll expect me to do it for free again :mrgreen:



Awesome. Kind of puts the whole industry, and this thread into proper perspective.


----------



## jeffc (Jun 3, 2013)

rgames @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> Guy Rowland @ Mon Jun 03 said:
> 
> 
> > It might be easy for me to say from 3,000 miles away, but I think you guys have got to get organised in the US. Sod the fatalism here of saying "royalties are done for" - don't allow it to go. It was hard - very hard - to be put in place, and once its gone its gone. So fight for it.
> ...



Not to get too far off topic here, but this isn't a necessarily fair analogy. 

In the context of working for free, royalties shouldn't be part of the equation. A producer hiring you on his film/tv show/ etc. pays a fee - it can be a lot, or free, as in the case of the discussion here. But that is all the producer pays to get music in his film.

Royalties are paid by the broadcasters of the film. These don't cost the producer a penny. They are not paid by him. So, really have no place in the discussion of working for free. Royalties are the same on the backend, regardless of what was paid up front. And probably why some people do something for a low upfront, knowing there may be a backend. And with internet broadcasting and the future of royalties, if Ascap/Bmi and everyone make the right moves, there can be MORE broadcasters in the future, with potential additional revenue streams. The discussion is still ongoing but it's being talked about. Yes Youtube royalties are low (but exist), yes Spotify streaming royalties are low, but the reality is, the network TV/Cable TV royalties are in reality growing still. Ascap has paid out more year over year for a while. And yes, that can change as more broadcasts move online, but again, if the right moves are made, this may divert portions of the broadcasters license fees to online license fees, but it can still work to our favor in the long run. Obviously if every court case is lost and every decision turns against the PRO's, then yes, we can be in trouble, but it's surely not the case yet. And to suggest that we shouldn't get intellectual property or royalties for our works suggests that you've never seen what they can add up to. I doubt you would ever suggest that argument if you had.

Again, sorry to get a bit off track, but it's important in the whole context of whether to take a gig for free or not. Obviously working for free on a piece of crap is not worth anything, but if somehow you have an offer on a film that you think could be the next Pi or something great, might be worth taking a shot at it.

And, to further back Nathan's point, producers always have ways of finding money if there's something or someone they value paying for. That's just how it is. I can tell of a few films I've done that were supposedly out of money, but in the eleventh hour they find the money to license a song that cost more than the whole score budget.... 

JC


----------



## Brobdingnagian (Jun 3, 2013)

jeffc @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> I can tell of a few films I've done that were supposedly out of money, but in the eleventh hour they find the money to license a song that cost more than the whole score budget....
> 
> JC



DON"T Get me started. Or when you quickly cover a source cue at the eleventh hour and then have the un-self aware music supe tell you (in digits) how much money you just saved them.....meanwhile, when your agent tried to get a more fair deal, they didn't have anything else in the music budget... :roll: 

Snarky comment over. I know, I know. It is what it is. Perceived value etc.


----------



## Brobdingnagian (Jun 3, 2013)

Nathan Furst @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> Guys,
> 
> There are all good discussion topics here, but the problem I'm having with this thread is that everyone is assuming they're being told the truth....by a producer.
> 
> ...



Nathan's and JeffC's posts are of incredible value and insightful, people. Thanks for taking the time to share gents. 

As for your comment, Nathan, I agree, not with his agency.


----------



## rgames (Jun 3, 2013)

jeffc @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> In the context of working for free, royalties shouldn't be part of the equation.


I strongly disagree - they're part of the revenue stream and relate directly to what a composer needs to be paid by the production. For example: would I write a 30 sec main title for free? Well, if it's for a go-nowhere production, then the answer is no because there is almost zero likelihood of any back end. However, if it's for a new show with a good chance of ending up on a major network then of course I would do it - the royalty stream could be huge. The presence or absence of royalties absolutely has a bearing on my willingness to do it for free. And since that is the topic of the thread, it is absolutely on-topic.

However, the part I never seem to be able to communicate is the fact that the lack of royalties is not, necessarily, a bad thing. It's just a different way of doing business.

Consider this example: let's say you write a bunch of music for a TV show. It's going to broadcast and it will likely generate $1000/year in royalties for 5 years. You also get paid $5000 up front.

Now, those $1000/year for 5 years have a present value of something like $3500. So, if you got no royalties, you would need an extra $3500 up front to make up the difference. Over those five years, there would be no difference in your financial standing with regard to revenues generated from the work you did for that production.

You can do it with royalties or without and make exactly the same amount of money.

Given that fact, and given the likelihood of ever receiving significant royalties from the internet, don't you think it makes more sense to switch the conversation to demanding more money up front?

Doing so has the added benefit of nullifying the Supreme Court's primary argument against the composers' union.

Sounds like win-win, doesn't it?

rgames


----------



## Brobdingnagian (Jun 3, 2013)

Brobdingnagian @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> Nathan Furst @ Mon Jun 03 said:
> 
> 
> > Guys,
> ...




*Forgot to add, regardless, I am sad to hear the story of what transpired. We've all had a few jobs lost to bigger names over the course of our careers. Part of the process. FWIW, hang in there. I missed out on a streak of 3-4 projects in a row a few years ago to bigger fish. I was gobsmacked they (or their agents) were even aware of said projects, for these level of clients. Eventually, the planets realigned themselves. Forever forward. 

-B


----------



## reddognoyz (Jun 3, 2013)

rgames @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> jeffc @ Mon Jun 03 said:
> 
> 
> > In the context of working for free, royalties shouldn't be part of the equation.
> ...



I have a good friend who writes tv themes and echo's your sentiment. He's told me as much. The fee is completely inconsequential compared to the back end for a tv theme on a show that has a robust broadcast. not so for the underscore, there's still back end, but not like the theme. The upfront for underscore can be pretty decent though, if you can hack the workload.


----------



## YuHirà (Jun 3, 2013)

> Even Hans does it, he admitted it himself in one of the threads here, though I don't know what the case was in that situation.



It was certainly for "*An Everlasting Piece*". 

_'Ironically, the project turned sour publicly when Dreamworks refused to hire Zimmer, Levinson's composer of choice with whom he had created his Academy Award winning Rain Man over a decade ago. Declining employment of Zimmer to the project was an even greater curiosity when considering his blockbuster score for the Dreamworks juggernaut Gladiator the previous summer, as well as Spielberg's stated affinity for his music since Crimson Tide. As a solution to the problem, Zimmer agreed to compose a small score for the comedy as a favor to Levinson. Upon doing this, Dreamworks jumped to retain the rights to the music by paying Zimmer the minimum amount to establish legal title over the score: a single dollar.'_

*Filmtracks*
http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/everlasting_piece.html


----------



## Musicologo (Jun 3, 2013)

1) The problem is structural and it is not in the music world. It is everywhere. There are not enough jobs in the world for everyone. Not even enough wealth or resources to be fairly distributed. We are too many. And technology replaced part of the tasks that needed to me "hand-made". People have to move and create other niches to survive. technology boosts "mass production" - it happens in most sectors. But one thing is a mass produced skirt, another is a tailored hand made skirt. They are two different markets.

2) There will be a time for mass produced music in general. Algorithmic generated scores. And those will put off a lot of composers in unemployment. But heck, samplers also put off a lot of musicians without a recording or session job. There is already too much music in the world. We don't need more music - remember? some broadcast companies are already living with the stock music they already have - recycle, recycle. 

3) In the end, you'll always get what you pay for. If you want a crafted music to your desires you end up paying a human to do it, and pay real musicians to play it.
If you don't want, then you don't want. It's your decision.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 3, 2013)

rgames @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> Guy Rowland @ Mon Jun 03 said:
> 
> 
> > It might be easy for me to say from 3,000 miles away, but I think you guys have got to get organised in the US. Sod the fatalism here of saying "royalties are done for" - don't allow it to go. It was hard - very hard - to be put in place, and once its gone its gone. So fight for it.
> ...



I don't think that's a realistic analogy. Don't forget it's not just media compoers who are affected here, it's all songwriters. And authors. It's a basic IP concept. Although you say you feel it's an important part of the equation, you seem amazingly cavalier to me in seeing its demise. Think through the implications. There are many hand-wringing threads about the decline of bands / songwriters / recorded music here with folks struggling to make ends meet - the one revenue stream that still really works for those folks is the royalty system, and you want it taken away?

Also, as many have stated here, upfront fees are dropping / have dropped. I want to be running AWAY from depending on them, not towards them. In TV-land, it's long been the case that with blanket agreements in place, you're usually not fighting the case for paid composition vs unpaid, it's a strawman. You're fighting between low/unpaid composition vs library / commercial music. There will be a small line in the budget to get an original theme / song(s) composed if you're lucky, and that's it. 

In these circumstances, the royalties are a lifeblood. I wasn't making the example up of a composer who earns 1/4m GDP pa on the basis of one short preschool series. Royalties work for all sides - yes productions save money, yes the composer gets paid - often extremely well. That folks, is a genuine win-win scenario.

However, like you I disagree with jeffc saying that for some reason we should discount them completely on some principle. Like I say, I'm a pragmatist. I do know how absurdly low budgets are on productions theses days (could tell so many stories... mustn't...). If there is a good mechanism for a producer getting someone else to pick up the tab on a score, than great I say. I do appreciate they have extremely limited resources, usually far more ambition than they can practically realise and so need every pound to go as far as it can. If I've been "working for free" on that basis, someone tell the taxman quick, cos I can save myself a fortune.

I get the notion that you get more perceived worth if you are being paid for, but that becomes almost an esoteric point in such circumstances. My value is not determined by what a producer pays me, it's by my relationship with that producer and the end result of what I've contributed to their show. That's how I get repeat business, and word of mouth new business. Yet if I were to demand a "sensible" upfront fee, all my work will cease. Instantly. Why? Cos its a new line in the budget that already has to be slashed by 40%. It's completely unrealistic. 

You are right that the royalty system is complex - that's part of my argument of why it needs to be protected, it can't be set up again. Once it's gone its gone. Here in the UK in the 60's, an infamous Dr Beeching decided to remove a massive part of the UK's railway infrastructure on cost grounds. We've been living with the consequences ever since... it's not economically viable to restore what was lost, but it sure would have been in many cases viable to have simply kept it going. In our case, it's already adapting / adpated to new media. The hard work, the infrastructure, is already in place and working on a daily basis.

I can never seem to get this point across - but if there are problems with the system (and there are) for heaven's sake don't throw it away, work to improve it. All this pointless talk of unions, when we have organisations sat there right now working for us, that we seemingly often ignore. You're not getting paid for trailer TV spots? Take it up with them. You're getting a pittance from YouTube? Take it up with them. Royalties are a big, big solution to many of these problems - it needs celebrating and talking up, not talking down.


----------



## MikeH (Jun 4, 2013)

Well gents, it looks like there might be a happy ending to my particular story after all.

Turns out the free composers were unable to produce anything desirable and so the producers came back to me. I did a very (*very*) brief demo and (in their words) knocked it out of the park. So they're hiring me AND to top it off I was able to negotiate a much higher fee than they originally had offered. Kinda surprised, to tell you the truth. But I guess they learned their lesson in trying to get things on the cheap. 

This is a great discussion, though! So please continue


----------



## Tatu (Jun 4, 2013)

LOL!

Good for you and for them!


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 4, 2013)

Brilliant!


----------



## Ciaran Birch (Jun 4, 2013)

MikeH @ Tue Jun 04 said:


> Well gents, it looks like there might be a happy ending to my particular story after all.
> 
> Turns out the free composers were unable to produce anything desirable and so the producers came back to me. I did a very (*very*) brief demo and (in their words) knocked it out of the park. So they're hiring me AND to top it off I was able to negotiate a much higher fee than they originally had offered. Kinda surprised, to tell you the truth. But I guess they learned their lesson in trying to get things on the cheap.
> 
> This is a great discussion, though! So please continue



Lol. That's probably one of the best posts I've seen. Congrats Mike, and it shows there's some hope for all of us to earn a living!


----------



## dgburns (Jun 4, 2013)

Good news post of the month.

I've heard the saying-if you think it's expensive hiring a pro,just wait till you hire an amateur!

frankly,in context of the whole budgets,we are such a piss ant part of the pie even when paid decently....


----------



## reddognoyz (Jun 4, 2013)

That's fantastic news


----------



## ed buller (Jun 4, 2013)

ha...perfect end to the story. Pay peanuts...get monkeys

good luck

e


----------



## Madrigal (Jun 4, 2013)

Congratulations! Looks like an epic win. =o


----------



## reddognoyz (Jun 4, 2013)

This thread got me to look at filmmusicmag.com and the usually ridiculous solicitations there. This one appears to offer you negative 100% of your publishing for their right to sell the music to someone who provides background music.Oh, and you have to pay to submit your music. What a great deal!! where do I sign up????


----------



## MarkS_Comp (Jun 4, 2013)

MikeH @ Tue Jun 04 said:


> Well gents, it looks like there might be a happy ending to my particular story after all.
> 
> Turns out the free composers were unable to produce anything desirable and so the producers came back to me. I did a very (*very*) brief demo and (in their words) knocked it out of the park. So they're hiring me AND to top it off I was able to negotiate a much higher fee than they originally had offered. Kinda surprised, to tell you the truth. But I guess they learned their lesson in trying to get things on the cheap.
> 
> This is a great discussion, though! So please continue



Good friggin' deal! :D


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 4, 2013)

MikeH @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> Well gents, it looks like there might be a happy ending to my particular story after all.
> 
> Turns out the free composers were unable to produce anything desirable and so the producers came back to me. I did a very (*very*) brief demo and (in their words) knocked it out of the park. So they're hiring me AND to top it off I was able to negotiate a much higher fee than they originally had offered. Kinda surprised, to tell you the truth. But I guess they learned their lesson in trying to get things on the cheap.
> 
> This is a great discussion, though! So please continue



Good for you!


----------



## MarkS_Comp (Jun 4, 2013)

reddognoyz @ Tue Jun 04 said:


> This thread got me to look at filmmusicmag.com and the usually ridiculous solicitations there. This one appears to offer you negative 100% of your publishing for their right to sell the music to someone who provides background music.Oh, and you have to pay to submit your music. What a great deal!! where do I sign up????



What you see there is a standard composer deal. There is no issue with anything in that ad - that is exactly what it should be. The only issue is the "pay to submit your music" part. THAT is wrong.


----------



## impressions (Jun 4, 2013)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D1cap6yETA


----------



## reddognoyz (Jun 4, 2013)

What you see there is a standard composer deal. There is no issue with anything in that ad - that is exactly what it should be. The only issue is the "pay to submit your music" part. THAT is wrong.[/quote]


I agree that the split is standard. The only thing lacking is the getting paid part, which I personally like, a lot. They are asking for free music, which they are going to sell. I guess this is the model for doing library music, but I'm not sure there's a lot of back end to be had with this outfit, a big established library music company wouldn't be trolling...


----------



## guydoingmusic (Jun 4, 2013)

MikeH @ Tue Jun 04 said:


> Well gents, it looks like there might be a happy ending to my particular story after all.
> 
> Turns out the free composers were unable to produce anything desirable and so the producers came back to me. I did a very (*very*) brief demo and (in their words) knocked it out of the park. So they're hiring me AND to top it off I was able to negotiate a much higher fee than they originally had offered. Kinda surprised, to tell you the truth. But I guess they learned their lesson in trying to get things on the cheap.
> 
> This is a great discussion, though! So please continue



Congrats!! Glad it worked out for you.


----------



## madbulk (Jun 4, 2013)

reddognoyz @ Tue Jun 04 said:


> What you see there is a standard composer deal. There is no issue with anything in that ad - that is exactly what it should be. The only issue is the "pay to submit your music" part. THAT is wrong.




I agree that the split is standard. The only thing lacking is the getting paid part, which I personally like, a lot. They are asking for free music, which they are going to sell. I guess this is the model for doing library music, but I'm not sure there's a lot of back end to be had with this outfit, a big established library music company wouldn't be trolling...[/quote]

I think there's gotta be a misunderstanding.
You get paid half the licensing if and when it gets placed. And you keep half the pub. This is as standard as it gets. As you said, there's not really a backend to speak of.
And the 1.99 is just the vig to FMN for being the messenger.


----------



## Farkle (Jun 4, 2013)

MikeH @ Tue Jun 04 said:


> Well gents, it looks like there might be a happy ending to my particular story after all.
> 
> Turns out the free composers were unable to produce anything desirable and so the producers came back to me. I did a very (*very*) brief demo and (in their words) knocked it out of the park. So they're hiring me AND to top it off I was able to negotiate a much higher fee than they originally had offered. Kinda surprised, to tell you the truth. But I guess they learned their lesson in trying to get things on the cheap.
> 
> This is a great discussion, though! So please continue



That is a great ending to your story, MikeH... congratulations! Brought a smile to my face! 

Now, crush the score, and show them what a pro can do! 

Mike


----------



## reddognoyz (Jun 4, 2013)

madbulk @ Tue Jun 04 said:


> reddognoyz @ Tue Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> > What you see there is a standard composer deal. There is no issue with anything in that ad - that is exactly what it should be. The only issue is the "pay to submit your music" part. THAT is wrong.
> ...



I think there's gotta be a misunderstanding.
You get paid half the licensing if and when it gets placed. And you keep half the pub. This is as standard as it gets. As you said, there's not really a backend to speak of.
And the 1.99 is just the vig to FMN for being the messenger.[/quote]

I may have misread, I took it to mean they were only offering the royalty, not the upfront money when the piece was licensed. If that's the case then I stand corrected, and it is the square deal. my apologies, I can only say in my defense that I jaded and expect the worst from people in the business end of music. My bad.


----------



## fegender (Jun 4, 2013)

looks like this applies to the situation : http://youtu.be/O8l1M2rCCrA


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Jul 3, 2013)

Doing projects for free I feel is ok, to a point, if the project is also free in the end and the budget is pretty much nothing. NOTE: By free, I mean no revenue whatsoever. No ad revenue, no Youtube revenue etc.

I can tell you I've had one particular project that was going to be free, but ended up being paid in the end. And much more than I originally would've quoted.


----------

