# Our vanishing stages by dennis sands



## Cinesamples (Dec 16, 2012)

Great article by our friend and collaborator:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/bring-mo ... 9920632624

Discuss...


----------



## RiffWraith (Dec 16, 2012)

It's a shame really. For several reasons.

1) Some of the best musicians on the planet are not working as much as they should be.

2) Some of the best engineers and asst engineers (et al) are not working as much as they should be.

3) It's not that difficult a fix.

4) If we lose these stages - we don't get them back. That is a scary thought. It's not like, the stage closes for a couple of years, and then reopens. No. Once it's gone, it's gone forever. And something that good, with that much history, should not be allowed to disappear permanently.


----------



## IFM (Dec 17, 2012)

Wow I didn't know these all had closed...even TODD AO! Sad really.


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 17, 2012)

Dragonwind @ Mon Dec 17 said:


> Wow I didn't know these all had closed...even TODD AO! Sad really.



Another result of the "cheap, cheaper, cheapest madness." "Cheap" will destroy everything! Oh what a great system where we are living.... . :-(


----------



## Daryl (Dec 17, 2012)

germancomponist @ Mon Dec 17 said:


> Dragonwind @ Mon Dec 17 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow I didn't know these all had closed...even TODD AO! Sad really.
> ...


There is greed on both sides of this equation, and I don't see that changing.

D


----------



## KEnK (Dec 17, 2012)

I'm going to mention the 900 pound gorilla that's sitting beside me here.

Don't you think that all this wonderful orchestral sampling technology has a big part in all of this?

It seems to me that television is largely done in the box now.
Probably a large percentage of cable shows are as well.

Certainly it's cheaper to record in Prague or wherever they do it these days,
but I think that recent trends in scoring, and the place a score holds in a film
are also guilty of helping the live orchestral score become more obsolete.

Do you need an entire orchestra for a simple overplayed arpeggio
that's going to be drowned out by thumping and whooshing anyway?

k


----------



## MichaelL (Dec 17, 2012)

Daryl @ Mon Dec 17 said:


> germancomponist @ Mon Dec 17 said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonwind @ Mon Dec 17 said:
> ...



This is the new normal. The sad thing is that a generation down the line, or sooner, this will be the measure of the new generation's quality (like a McDonald's burger) because it is all they know.


----------



## Tatu (Dec 17, 2012)

Dragonwind @ Mon Dec 17 said:


> Wow I didn't know these all had closed...even TODD AO! Sad really.



Yeah.. James Horner spoke very highly off it when they decided to tear it down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDO5MsQYTgE


----------



## RiffWraith (Dec 17, 2012)

KEnK @ Mon Dec 17 said:


> Don't you think that all this wonderful orchestral sampling technology has a big part in all of this?



Depends what you mean by "this".

Orchestral sampling technology has in fact caused a reduction in the amount of live scoring. A perfect example - as you mentioned - is TV. 

But it's not orchestral sampling technology that has driven work from LA to other parts of the world.

Cheers.


----------



## David Story (Dec 17, 2012)

Yes, Hollywood is better at remaking history then preserving our own history 

Simple fixes: 
1. Put a tariff on recordings made outside the country where it's played.
OR
2. Composers stand together and say "We only record in our homeland". Guest artists excepted.
OR
3. Have Sony and Fox declared National Historic Landmarks.
OR
4. Composers worldwide set a minimum rate of 100k to score a film.
OR
5. Turn the stages into high-priced concert venues.
OR
6. Educate producers to appreciate music and composers.

Lots of other ways too. But they all require people to work together. And producers know that musicians/composers are disorganized and desperate, at least so far.

Dennis's article is heartfelt and well written, thank you sir.


----------



## jamwerks (Dec 17, 2012)

Thanks to Dennis for his thoughts, but why doesn't he advance any solutions?

No doubt that samples are replacing live players. That's a trend that won't stop.

There's still a lot of orchestral recording going on, it's just moved away from L.A. to places where it's a lot cheaper (eastern Europe, etc.).

Maybe a strong price reduction in L.A. would be a strategy (or maybe not)?

It also has to do with the films themselves. Hollywood produces a lot a crap action-stuff that doesn't require orchestras nor even real composers for that matter.

Lot's of European film score involve live orchestras, but L.A. is too far, too expensive, and probably impossible for even legal reasons (just speculating...).


----------



## passenger57 (Dec 17, 2012)

> It also has to do with the films themselves. Hollywood produces a lot a crap action-stuff that doesn't require orchestras nor even real composers for that matter.


One day I hope that if I work real hard, I'll be a real composer. Maybe after my 100th film score


----------



## KEnK (Dec 17, 2012)

RiffWraith @ Mon Dec 17 said:


> ...Orchestral sampling technology has in fact caused a reduction in the amount of live scoring. A perfect example - as you mentioned - is TV.
> 
> But it's not orchestral sampling technology that has driven work from LA to other parts of the world.


Look at what you just said.

If there was more live scoring for tv, (as in the not so distant past)
it would be done in LA.

k


----------



## David Story (Dec 17, 2012)

KEnK @ Mon Dec 17 said:


> RiffWraith @ Mon Dec 17 said:
> 
> 
> > ...Orchestral sampling technology has in fact caused a reduction in the amount of live scoring. A perfect example - as you mentioned - is TV.
> ...



Exactly.
BTW, I just offered 6 solutions, and no one even read them.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 17, 2012)

I read them David. I like 1 and 4. 

And if anybody doesn't think that sampling is having a sever negative impact on live recordings they are whistling past the grave yard.

Technology has always reduced the importance of human endeavor. That's not going to change and not limited to music. But, I think it is incumbent on us the music creators to not be so greedy and if you have money to hire real people, then by all means do so. The last thing this industry needs is another Mike Post.


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 17, 2012)

MichaelL @ Mon Dec 17 said:


> This is the new normal. The sad thing is that a generation down the line, or sooner, this will be the measure of the new generation's quality (like a McDonald's burger) because it is all they know.



I hate this "all must be cheaper" thing. Where will we be with this in 10 years? 

Cheap kills jobs, cheap kills quality, cheap kills culture, cheap kills all!

In the past I did many jobs as a ghost and got payed at first very good, then good, then not so good and now they want to pay even less and less. Next year it seems that I have to bring the money to get the jobs? ...


----------



## bryla (Dec 17, 2012)

Just so you know:

There is also a film industry in Europe, that uses live orchestra. That Hollywood decides to use those studies is not their fault. They're just cheaper to suit the market they are in.

You're saying that Eastern Europe ruins Hollywood, well they support Europe. Hollywood jst bailed on Hollywood somewhere down the line.


----------



## midphase (Dec 17, 2012)

Daryl @ Mon Dec 17 said:


> There is greed on both sides of this equation, and I don't see that changing.
> 
> D



Care to elaborate? You must be talking about those greedy Oboe players, they are such wealth hogs!


----------



## José Herring (Dec 17, 2012)

bryla @ Mon Dec 17 said:


> Just so you know:
> 
> There is also a film industry in Europe, that uses live orchestra. That Hollywood decides to use those studies is not their fault. They're just cheaper to suit the market they are in.
> 
> You're saying that Eastern Europe ruins Hollywood, well they support Europe. Hollywood jst bailed on Hollywood somewhere down the line.



I'm all for it. Eastern European babies need shoes and need to eat too. Same with Chinese or any other area of the world. If that area offers a good product at a reasonable cost they should not only offer it but profit from it. It's the American way.  

What I do protest this there are many instances in LA where recording outside LA would be impossible due to practicality. But, people are recording here less and less because it's become all too easy to just bring out the samples and cash the check.

I'm victim to it too. I'm preparing to do another score and my first thought was, "what library should I get". I had to stop myself. And, spent the time to really figure out who and what instruments I could afford to hire. Budget being what it is, I won't be hiring many. But, at least I'm hiring.


----------



## KEnK (Dec 17, 2012)

David Story @ Mon Dec 17 said:


> ...I just offered 6 solutions, and no one even read them.


I read your ideas David, 
I guess I've become to cynical to think there is any viable solution
to the myriad problems of the music industry as a whole.

My thoughts on your proposals~

1. and 3. would require an act of congress. 
2. and 4. would require a union of some sort. 
5. I don't think the studios would make enough $ for this to be a viable plan
6. is not a possibility.

Congress is completely dysfunctional now, those 2 aren't going to happen.
Personally, I'm all for unions, but that is not the over-all sentiment that I see being expressed here.
I'm sure you know that recently a valid attempt at creating a composers union didn't fly. 
This was disappointing to me, but most people do seem to prefer shooting themselves in the foot.

The sound stages will continue to disappear until there are the right amount that can be supported by market forces. 
This may be zero, but that's the world we live in.

k


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 17, 2012)

midphase @ Mon Dec 17 said:


> Daryl @ Mon Dec 17 said:
> 
> 
> > There is greed on both sides of this equation, and I don't see that changing.
> ...


----------



## RiffWraith (Dec 17, 2012)

KEnK @ Mon Dec 17 said:


> RiffWraith @ Mon Dec 17 said:
> 
> 
> > ...Orchestral sampling technology has in fact caused a reduction in the amount of live scoring. A perfect example - as you mentioned - is TV.
> ...



No, that is incorrect. If there was more live scoring for tv, it would NOT be done in LA - that was the point I was trying to make.


----------



## David Story (Dec 17, 2012)

josejherring @ Mon Dec 17 said:


> ...spent the time to really figure out who and what instruments I could afford to hire. Budget being what it is, I won't be hiring many. But, at least I'm hiring.


+1
That's a solution right there. The producers I work with are good with hiring a few live players. It's more fun. More work too


----------



## Daryl (Dec 17, 2012)

midphase @ Mon Dec 17 said:


> Daryl @ Mon Dec 17 said:
> 
> 
> > There is greed on both sides of this equation, and I don't see that changing.
> ...


I'm talking about people who are so happy earning their $1K+ a day that they couldn't care at all about whether or not any other musicians get work. Hence the Union looking after the top 1% of members and screwing the rest.

D


----------



## midphase (Dec 17, 2012)

Care to back up your statement with some factual data?


----------



## Christian F. Perucchi (Dec 17, 2012)

I would go with 3 4 and 6 , can´t beleive they closed Todd AO stage... actors should be payed less IMHO


----------



## Aquatone (Dec 17, 2012)

I am the biggest fan of all "Temples of Sound". Years ago, I talked to a company about doing a library of IRs for every famous or historical venue that could become extinct because of my concern. In time, many if not all, the existing great recording rooms and stages will be gone. Technology changes, tastes change and goals change for everyone involved in an industry. For example, AIR Lyndhurst was a church…times changed for that church and it's congregation.

"Something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it"-Jonathan Reeves
This is the harsh reality. I would add that something is worth no more than what the seller is willing to sell it for. Seems to me, the problem is a matter of value.

LA's main attraction has been the talent of the "best in the business" (no argument from me). Perhaps, that just doesn't have as much value as it did. Perhaps, the trend for more and more sound design and synths gives the work to others. Perhaps, "sectional" recording in smaller venues is becoming more desirable and versatile. Or, perhaps, some folks want a change of scenery. Bottom line is, LA's got problems. Imagine this…a musician walkout during production. The ones that get hurt will be the guys behind the glass. The collateral damage, in this case, would be the recording stage, it's employees, the repair techs, cartage and so on.

My Grandmother had this great piece of advice…
"If you are willing to dig a ditch, you will always have a job. I you are willing to be a plumber, you can name your price; because, folks won't haggle price when they need someone to clean up their sh*t." I love my Grandma! That was her lesson on maximizing value. She also said, "Talent only guarantees you twice the work."


----------



## KEnK (Dec 17, 2012)

Aquatone @ Mon Dec 17 said:


> My Grandmother had this great piece of advice…
> "If you are willing to dig a ditch, you will always have a job. I you are willing to be a plumber, you can name your price; because, folks won't haggle price when they need someone to clean up their sh*t." I love my Grandma! That was her lesson on maximizing value. She also said, "Talent only guarantees you twice the work."


Hah- That's great!

My Grandmother said this:

"If somebody hands you a plate of crap you give it right back to them and say,
'That's a plate of crap' "

k


----------



## Daryl (Dec 18, 2012)

midphase @ Tue Dec 18 said:


> Care to back up your statement with some factual data?


Yes, stages are closing down, because recording is going elsewhere. :lol: 

D


----------



## midphase (Dec 18, 2012)

Wrong...and short sighted.

Stages are closing down because there has been a considerable drop in demand overall. Go back 20 years ago and practically every single TV show used real musicians...nowadays they're an endangered species.

Same was true with movies, in the 70's 80's and 90's the vast majority (of all shapes and sizes and budgets) utilized orchestras. Now only a handful of studio pictures can afford that, and the huge amount of indie features being churned out each year typically aren't budgeted for a full orchestra (not here, not in Prague).

You seem to want to blame AFM for scoring stages closing down, keep telling that to yourself if it makes you feel better. Just know that if there was no AFM in this town, scoring stages would still be closing down!


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Dec 18, 2012)

Sorry but most of you are REALLY missing the problem here. Didn't any of you see the session w/ the Mikes last month? The problem is that the AFM have made recording in LA next to impossible with their unreasonable demands. Productions are going to Nashville, Chicago, London, Australia... NOT just Eastern Europe. While live music in TV may have decreased in popularity, game music has absolutely exploded (the game industry is bigger than the film industry, BTW) and all of the blockbusters use live music.

Now wouldn't it make sense to record these blockbusters in LA? Yes, and as many composers have said, it would be really nice to do that. But AFM demands on the backend, and their outright hostile attitude (eg. blacklisting Sony) makes it just impossible. Fix the AFM first and that will bring a LOT of gigs back. There is no shortage of work, it's just that producers/developers do not want to deal with the AFM in LA.


----------



## rgames (Dec 18, 2012)

midphase @ Tue Dec 18 said:


> Now only a handful of studio pictures can afford that


I'm no so sure - I think there are many that can afford it but choose not to.

The simple fact is that there aren't enough people who care about the music enough to make a difference to the bottom lines of the studios. People don't come out of the theater saying "Would have been a great movie - too bad about the music."

At some point about 20 - 30 years ago, productions started experimenting with quality and number of musicians. They made the hypothesis that they don't need a large group of top-tier musical talent in order to make money. They were right.

People vote with their dollars. Unfortunately they seem to be voting against music with live orchestras or even moderate-sized groups of live musicians. We need to remember that we are the exception - the mass market will always drive the studios. You can fight the studios, AFM, whoever, but if you have a market that has no interest in your product then you'll always lose. It will always have its niche, as evidenced by the AFM's stance: they don't care about the black dates and foreign studios. They have their niche and they're sticking with it.

There is historical precedent for the direction we appear to be headed - large ensembles of musicians are, in fact, a recent phenomenon. The same is true in the concert music world - the orchestra as an artistic tool might be on its way out. We're simply heading back from whence we came.

rgames


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 18, 2012)

rgames @ 18/12/2012 said:


> We're simply heading back from whence we came.



Sounds good, then:







Screw the market, btw. I can't stand the logic of the bean counters. I wish they would just leave the biz altogether.


----------



## RiffWraith (Dec 18, 2012)

midphase @ Wed Dec 19 said:


> Wrong...and short sighted.
> 
> Stages are closing down because there has been a considerable drop in demand overall. Go back 20 years ago and practically every single TV show used real musicians...nowadays they're an endangered species.
> 
> ...



Kays - your last sentence is probably correct. But as for the rest of what you say - not so sure. Is overall demand really heavily down? As for all the tv shows that don't use live musicians as in the past - very true. But haven't video game scoring demands taken up a lot of that lost work? I am sure not all, but a good portion? And there are more movies being made today. Certainly that helps provide a balance - to some degree - for the films that use sample libs (like most of the sci-fi movies)? I am not saying that the increase in movies and the video games make up for _everything_ lost to sample libs - but a good portion, no?


----------



## David Story (Dec 18, 2012)

Recording is going where it's subsidized. 

Cities with symphonic players who already have a steady gig add film sessions. They have benefits like health and retirement through a national or local plan. LA cats don't have that, they live off back-end. They'd need a lot more sessions to make up for losing that. So they fight.

If European players had the US system, they wouldn't do nearly as many buyouts. 

On the justice level, artists fought for centuries to get copyright control over their work. Buyouts give away those rights. For an industrial, or a psa, it maybe makes sense. On projects with millions in sales, it's exploitation of a desperate artist.

Games deserve special attention. It's VG folks who are roundly exploited by their publishers that expect everyone else to accept buyouts too. Those folks have no job security or backend, except the top execs. Game devs know they have a primitive business model, but can't organize to actually exercise their rights. Familiar, right?

The larger issue is that there's less live recording even though the total number of projects is up.

That falls at the feet of the mock-up artists who started using electronics to replace people in the 80s. I've spoken to these guys, and they mostly regret it. They said it was fun and paid well at first, then became a race to the bottom. Cheap, cheaper, now pay the prod to work.

Samples can be new colors, or a cheap imitation. The folks who blend the new and classic have lasting careers and employ others. 

There's less live recording because a majority of songwriters and composers flood the market with cheap music that is functional. Computers making it easy to do stuff that sounds pretty good. And nobody really cares anyway, right?

WHAT'S NEXT?

Federal action happens every day, and that's where abuses like outsourcing of recording and buyout deals need to be addressed. It isn't easy but better than undercutting your colleagues. And easier than getting copyright legislation in the first place, that took centuries.

It's actually part of our national self interest and heritage to protect our music.

To save the great Sound Stages we need to:
1. Organize for one of the national/global options to stop unfair practices.
2. Hire live players.

But you don't have to if you don't care.


----------



## Mike Greene (Dec 18, 2012)

David Story @ Tue Dec 18 said:


> Recording is going where it's subsidized.
> 
> Cities with symphonic players who already have a steady gig add film sessions. They have benefits like health and retirement through a national or local plan. LA cats don't have that, they live off back-end. They'd need a lot more sessions to make up for losing that. So they fight.
> 
> ...


Excellent post, David.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Dec 18, 2012)

Respectfully, no amount of federal action is going to change the overall economic climate of the world. No country, least of all *every* country, is going to write a law saying session musicians (eg orchestral players) are entitled to backend for studio recordings. IMO that's insane and a surefire way to kill live recorded scores once and for all, even if it were to somehow pass (it never would). As people have been saying... plenty of composers want to work with LA musicians, but as it is, they have to take the work elsewhere. Doubling down is not going to bring the work back, period.

I work with live players all the time, at every opportunity - for personal projects, for game scores, and for sample library projects. Whether I'm the head of the project / lead composer or not I always make sure they are compensated well for their time, incidental expenses, etc. Nobody I have ever worked with would ever say they're being "exploited" because they're getting paid very well for the time they put in. Their job is anywhere from a few hours (or days) of work, and they're done. They play what's on the paper and they do a wonderful job. But my job extends very far in either direction, from composing the music, arranging + orchestrating, to producing, mixing and editing afterwards. 

I agree that issues like health care and benefits are a problem, but trying to somehow write backend provisions (etc) into law is a really backwards way of solving that problem, because AFM is already uncompetitive in many markets (namely games, and as the Mikes have testified, sample libraries). That would make them MORE uncompetitive and reduce their # of gigs even more. I'm a freelancer (with a pre-existing condition, no less) so I know how rough the health care problem is, but it should be addressed through national legislation like Obamacare and beyond. Strike at the heart of the problem.

The thing is, I'm skeptical the AFM is really representing what its members want. I would think they want more work, even if that means accepting a (fairly standard) buyout agreement. For example, one of my friends recently moved to LA. He's a brilliant composer and violinist. After a conversation with an AFM rep he decided he has no plans to join. Their positions are too extreme and he'd actually get paid *less* than what he gets paid now, and right now he gets a lot of high-end video game work that would probably dry up if he were union.


----------



## dpasdernick (Dec 18, 2012)

David Story @ Tue Dec 18 said:


> Recording is going where it's subsidized.
> 
> Cities with symphonic players who already have a steady gig add film sessions. They have benefits like health and retirement through a national or local plan. LA cats don't have that, they live off back-end. They'd need a lot more sessions to make up for losing that. So they fight.
> 
> ...



Shouldn't there be more on the list?

3. Everyone turn down a job offer that doen't have enough budget to use real players.

4. Everyone stop using samples and only use real players.

I think the real problem is supply and demand. For every project that requires music there's thousands of composers that can do the job. Some are so hungry they will do it for free with samples and some producers don't hear the difference. This trickles down from major films all the way down to a video guy just using needle drop because "no one knows the difference".

Way back in the old days I used to do CG logos for a small video firm in Vancouver. I was wicked cheap compared to post houses but even at 1-2k per logo flip (the post houses were more like 5k, this was back in 1991) the video guy said "You know what? I just spent $1500 on your logo and the client doesn't even "see it". I could just fade up a still logo and pocket the $1500.00) Now you can't make any money doing just this service.

I feel the same thing is happening with music. There is so much saturation, so many hungry guys that will work for free and so many producers and directors that don't hear quality. For many bands the clubs ask them to only play for a perecentage of the door and insist that they bring along 25 friends to feed the bar sales. I think all of this stems form the idea that you "play" music not "work" music. (or so they think)

Perhaps years form now when everything is samples and generated by algorithims some one will do an experiment with 80 live musicians and people will go "Wow! What the heck is that cool sound?!" 

I honestly don't know how you guys make a living composing. I salute you for beating the bushes looking for the gigs that still pay.

My humble 2 cents...


----------



## Mike Greene (Dec 18, 2012)

zircon_st @ Tue Dec 18 said:


> The thing is, I'm skeptical the AFM is really representing what its members want. I would think they want more work, even if that means accepting a (fairly standard) buyout agreement.


I don't think so. Sure, any musician always wants more work, but you belong to a union because you want *good* work where you're not being taken advantage of.

A buyout may be commonplace, but it's still exploitive of the musician. If a guy plays on the score for a film, and then the film is a big enough hit that a soundtrack album is released, isn't it only fair that the musician should get an extra cut? Or if Sony licenses a cue to Microsoft to use in a commercial for Windows 10, shouldn't the musician's be entitled to a taste there as well?

Any union member with much experience has gotten checks for things just like that. Often years later. I gotta say, it's pretty cool. And no, I feel no guilt whatsoever about getting paid a couple hundred bucks reuse fee so Pepsi can use a track from some album I played on years ago. Given that the ad buy will likely be literally in the millions, why should I feel bad?

I can't imagine any union musician wanting to give that up. Sure, it might result in a few more gigs if the union gave all that up, but that brings us back to that race to the bottom thing. I personally have no interest in that.

If a musician wants to work for Seattle wages, he can move to Seattle. It's a beautiful city, so there's no shame to it. But it's a lot harder to support a family on those wages, especially with no residuals, so we want our union to keep wages as high as is practical. Obviously it's a fine balance of how high is too high, and often the union gets it wrong. But the last thing I want is for my union to throw in the towel.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Dec 18, 2012)

> I don't think so. Sure, any musician always wants more work, but you belong to a union because you want *good* work where you're not being taken advantage of.



Again folks I know who are actually musicians in LA feel that AFM is uncompetitive and they would be better off on their own. They're getting their own gigs, through their own networks, and doing well. Maybe it's an age thing. Of all the people I know and work with NONE of them are AFM and none of them miss it.

A buyout isn't "exploitative". I don't hear any of the top-tier London musicians complaining about lack of backend... I think they are more than happy with the immense amount of high-profile film & video game work they are getting, thanks to AFM's uncompetitive stance. Assuming the upfront rate is good, there is no reason to complain, and indeed, these in-demand musicians don't. 

The thing is that the AFM has already lost the battle and its members are paying for it. They're fighting beyond the point where they've lost. They've completely alienated companies from this very forum who desperately WANT to record in LA but can't. They've alienated multi-billion dollar game developers. They have no leverage. Musicians now are better than ever, and location is decreasing in importance fast. People are already getting used to flying to London (or doing remote sessions) where the players are just as good. Many major composers - again including folks on this forum like Sam Hulick, GSA - aren't even in LA themselves and thus the convenience factor isn't relevant for them.

It's one thing to fight when you have leverage, and when there's a chance at winning. But the battle is over here and now they are bleeding gigs while turning away talented musicians with their extremist stance. They have very little leverage, and what they have is fading fast. Now is not the time to double down and support their stance but to fight for reasonable contracts that are competitive with other cities + countries.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Dec 18, 2012)

OK, I've watched the video of the recent LA meeting, I've done a bit of googling and I'm still confused. According to my understanding of this link - http://money.futureofmusic.org/orchestr ... -payments/ - the special payments fund is not tied to the success of the soundtrack upon which the musician has performed. It's a global fund paid into by record companies, who distribute to all the musicans. So do you get paid the same (out of this fund) regardless of commercial success, or is it pro rata for soundtrack sales?

So now I'm confused. I can understand a film production company not wanting to make payments in perpetuity to the musicians on its own soundtracks, and more than it would want to carry on paying the editors, accountants, gaffers and foley artists (many of whom, I should stress, perform a highly valuable creative role). However, if the money doesn't come from them but through a record company (which would be a 3rd party deal) - why do they care? I always had the understanding that the AFM agreement meant direct payment in perpetuity.


----------



## midphase (Dec 19, 2012)

If you guys really think that the videogame industry demand for real orchestras has made up the loss in demand from TV and film...you need to pull your heads out of your...

There is of course more demand for orchestral scores for games but:

1. Development cycle for each game is much longer than for a movie. In the time that one game gets to market, dozens of movies are produced and distributed.

2. Many games don't demand orchestral scores, and not all orchestral game scores use real musicians.

3. On the games which do use real orchestras,many times only the main themes and important sections actually use real players, while the bulk of the music is sample based.

4. Yes the gaming industry has huge revenues which put film studios to shame, but that doesn't automatically translate in massive music budgets. 


I'm not necessarily trying to defend the AFM, I know very little about unions since, as a composer I don't have a union...but I am getting sick and tired of hearing people blame AFM for everything from runaway orchestras to the price of gas and the quality of airline food. Let's get real, there are many factors at work here and to point the finger to a single entity seems silly (and when I say silly, I really mean...)


----------



## midphase (Dec 19, 2012)

zircon_st @ Tue Dec 18 said:


> I agree that issues like health care and benefits are a problem, but trying to somehow write backend provisions (etc) into law is a really backwards way of solving that problem



I suppose you're also opposed to PRO's and composers receiving royalties?


----------



## midphase (Dec 19, 2012)

zircon_st @ Tue Dec 18 said:


> A buyout isn't "exploitative". I don't hear any of the top-tier London musicians complaining about lack of backend...



England has a great deal of socialized services which go a long way toward allowing musicians to survive without stressing out about their future and health. I suppose you're in favor of socialized health care and beefing up social security as well?


----------



## midphase (Dec 19, 2012)

BTW, the type of mentality expressed on this thread is why I'm trying to get the hell out of composing.

We are so incredibly clueless and really have no idea just how badly we're collectively hurting our industry with our ridiculous mentality. To top it off, we have the balls to get upset when others are not as clueless as we are and blame them for the sorry state of things.

Do you think that professional screenwriters, or cinematographers, or editors, or even actors allow themselves to be manipulated so easily into fighting against the very engines of their craft? Do you think that the DGA, or WGA, or SAG/AFTRA, or ASC have these contorted mental masturbations that seem so prevalent with composers?

What a bunch of insecure paranoid fucks we all are. We deserve every single shitty thing that's happened to our industry and more!

Sorry for the language but this is frustrating on so many levels that it really makes me ashamed of being part of such a group!


----------



## Peter Alexander (Dec 19, 2012)

Historically in LA these issues really began heating up with the release of DX7s and other professional keyboards - before sample libraries. 

At one time, the FEE for composing a 1-hour TV show was $25,000. That didn't count copyist fees, studio recording time, engineer time, musicians for a small to med size orchestra (say 30 players).

This changed when a younger group of composers who were compositionally and MIDI savvy, offered the studios a package deal with a whole score recorded, mixed, and ready to go. 

Studios tried it and no one complained or seemed to notice the change aurally. And sample libraries built on the trend.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Dec 19, 2012)

Kays - I'm not based in LA, I'm just in kids TV in the UK. But believe me, every single sector you mention will claim to be the most oppressed and suffering the most.

A year or two ago I had a conversation with an actor on a show I was working on for the BBC. He is an an excellent actor, and much valued in his field. On the gig he was doing, he was working for under half what he was paid 5 years earlier. When he told me his take home, including his agent's deduction, my jaw hit the floor. It was truly shocking. But he had so little work and bills to pay - and had a relationship with the producer - he took the gig. Since then a few of them have fought incredibly hard to get the wage back up to a non-insulting level, but it will still be lower than he earned years earlier.

I'm always wary when someone says that we're worse off than everyone else. The truth is - it's a very diverse, global industry and there are good and bad deals to be made at every level in it. In broad terms, content has increased by an order of magnitude beyond what would have existed in the days of a handful of networks, and as first the hundreds of TV channels and then thousands of internet ventures began to dilute the market, budgets overall have come down. Independent film has exploded out of nowhere, and the video games industry has been born. And of course it's true that the sector that has suffered the most because of it are big network shows and studio films, because of all the increased competition from all these other areas. That, twinned with the march of technology, is your root cause, and there's no putting the genie back in the bottle.

An example from my own experience. Royalty rates for shows on the BBC have plummeted in the past few years. Worse for me, kids TV is now no longer shown at all on their two main networks, BBC1 or BBC2. It used to be a staple on the former, and the rate was terrific. BBC2 was a much lower rate, and as shows migrated there it was a big step down. Now they are not shown at all. So why am I not complaining? Because technology has enabled 2 CBBC childrens channels, which show programming 12 hours a day 365 days of the year, school time and holiday time. The amount per minute may have shrunk, but the total number of showings has gone through the roof. It sorta balances out. It's just one example, but it seems we're quick to moan about the drawbacks and slow to appreciate the advantages some times.

I support what the CS guys are doing here. Look at that presentation - LA is compared with Prague and London. London has the LSO and other world class orchestras, and as far as I know, they are not starving. The issue of benefits etc has been raised and it's fair enough - I've no doubt the LA market could charge a premium just because the cost savings of accommodation and transport would mean it makes financial sense. Again, I'm an outsider and someone may well say I don't know what I'm talking about (and be right) but it seems that the charge is not that there's a relatively small overhead which would pay for benefits, but that there is a chasm at the moment which is just unsustainable. And you can argue forever about it, and the stages will just keep closing.... or you can join the dialogue that the CS guys have begun, secure solid (but different) conditions and stay employed.

PS - bump to my earlier question regarding Special Payments.


----------



## Daryl (Dec 19, 2012)

Guy, I have seen and heard everything you say, and agree. However, the "problem", if there is one, is this sense of entitlement. There is no law to say that composers or session musicians should be paid anything above minimum wage. It's just that we have become used to being paid a lot more. If you talk to the vast majority of working people, they would get very irate at hearing someone complaining that £50 per hour is not enough. They would be grateful to get half of that. So at some point a balance has to be found.

For those in this thread who think that session musicians are paid badly, I suggest you talk to musicians who play concert music. Ask them what they get paid per session. Talk to musicians who record Classical music. Ask them what they get paid per session. Once you do a comparison, you will see that even at the lowest recording rate, it is still a much higher fee to record for film or TV.

One thing I think that musicians and composers really don't understand is risk and reward. Some on this thread start talking about back-end and how they should share in the success of a project, but that only makes sense if they agree to share in the losses. Imagine this scenario:

I, as an investor, have just put $40million into a film. It has all been shot, edited the music recorded, the dub done, the release organised and the marketing is in full swing. It is about a gunman who goes into a school and kills a load of children. Suddenly because of events over the last week, my film stands no chance at the Box Office. Potentially I've lost a huge amount of money. Do the musicians share my loss? No, they've already been paid. Therefore I'm taking all the risks.

This example would be one of the reasons why many people are against back-end payments. Capitalism is based upon risk and reward, so when you take no risk, you are not entitled to share the rewards, if any.

I can speak first hand for this. My company invests about £40-50K a year in musicians. However, I have to base that against expected income. If the project is not expected to make enough money to turn a small profit within a certain amount of time, then I won't do it. Consequently, the players don't get booked. Therefore, there needs to be a balance between a tiny amount of high paid work, with no lower paid work, and a tiny amount of high paid work with some lower paid work. The top tier can easily be protected. What I want is discussion about what the bottom line is for lower paid work. In my mind it is better to have work than not, and from speaking to players, they are broadly speaking in agreement with me. The only people who aren't are the players who are already fully employed earning a lot of money, and they don't care about the fact that there is no work for their less fortunate colleagues.

D


----------



## midphase (Dec 19, 2012)

Daryl @ Wed Dec 19 said:


> One thing I think that musicians and composers really don't understand is risk and reward.
> D



Daryl,

That is such an inane piece of reasoning I don't even know where to begin to dismantle it.

I honestly don't know what your angle is, I have no idea what you do, what business you run, how you make your money, and most importantly what you're trying to bring to this conversation other than absurd speculation with no factual data to back up anything that you say. The one thing that I do think is that guys like you are part of the problem and not the solution.


----------



## Daryl (Dec 19, 2012)

midphase @ Wed Dec 19 said:


> Daryl @ Wed Dec 19 said:
> 
> 
> > One thing I think that musicians and composers really don't understand is risk and reward.
> ...


And that's one of the reasons why you can't make a decent living as a composer.

D


----------



## RiffWraith (Dec 19, 2012)

midphase @ Wed Dec 19 said:


> If you guys really think that the videogame industry demand for real orchestras has made up the loss in demand from TV and film...you need to pull your heads out of your...



Oh, well, that was nice of you - thank you!


----------



## Daryl (Dec 19, 2012)

RiffWraith @ Wed Dec 19 said:


> midphase @ Wed Dec 19 said:
> 
> 
> > If you guys really think that the videogame industry demand for real orchestras has made up the loss in demand from TV and film...you need to pull your heads out of your...
> ...


Riff, I think that the problem is that there are carrots and sticks. Some people only want to employ the stick, but I think that both are needed. However, it also seems clear that some of these issues can't be discussed for very long before insults start to fly. Unfortunately. :cry: 

D


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 19, 2012)

The belief that the top session players and composers are not entitled to "make above minimum wage" is pernicious and a big part of the problem. 

Top doctors feel entitled to "make above minimum wage" and they do.

Top lawyers feel entitled to "make above minimum wage" and they do.

Top CEOs feel entitled to "make above minimum wage" and they do.

The problem is that we live in a culture that simply does not really value what we do, even the best of us, because so many others are willing to do th work for nothing or next to nothing and nowadays "good enough" is "good enough" as long as it is cheap.


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 19, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Dec 19 said:


> The belief that the top session players and composers are not entitled to "make above minimum wage" is pernicious and a big part of the problem.
> 
> Top doctors feel entitled to "make above minimum wage" and they do.
> 
> ...



+1

And as I said elswhere: I hate that "all must be cheap" thing!


----------



## jamwerks (Dec 19, 2012)

RiffWraith @ Wed Dec 19 said:


> Oh, well, that was nice of you - thank you!



:mrgreen:


----------



## Daryl (Dec 19, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Dec 19 said:


> The belief that the top session players and composers are not entitled to "make above minimum wage" is pernicious and a big part of the problem.


Jay, I think you know as well as I do that no session player makes as little as minimum wage. Or even ten fold minimum wage. The problem is not the fees for the top end of the spectrum, it's that there is very little flexibility for the levels underneath this, and that's why there is no work for many players.

D


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 19, 2012)

Daryl @ Wed Dec 19 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Wed Dec 19 said:
> 
> 
> > The belief that the top session players and composers are not entitled to "make above minimum wage" is pernicious and a big part of the problem.
> ...



i do not believe for a nano-second that if the union came out with a lower wage scale for these studios with a low "special" reuse fee that it would make much of a difference, because we live in a time where few producers or directors understand and value what we do.

To them we are no more or less important than the gardeners who mow their lawns or the maids who mop their floors. We provide a somewhat useful service and there are a ton of people who can do it cheaply and adequately and for these people, that is just fine.

Man, I am glad that I am older and closer to the end of my career than the beginning and not a young guy starting out now!


----------



## Daryl (Dec 19, 2012)

Fair enough. I don't think I have any more to contribute to this thread, and as I'm one of the few people here who actually does hire sessions musicians for more than the odd overdub, I think that my view point is valid. Maybe the only way to reverse the trend is to ban broadcasters from broadcasting music that uses samples. That would put the cat amongst the pigeons. :lol: 

D


----------



## midphase (Dec 19, 2012)

RiffWraith @ Wed Dec 19 said:


> midphase @ Wed Dec 19 said:
> 
> 
> > If you guys really think that the videogame industry demand for real orchestras has made up the loss in demand from TV and film...you need to pull your heads out of your...
> ...



@Riff,

No offense intended, I have no beef with you...but what I said is true and most pros around here know it. Perhaps I should have said "naive"...would that have made you feel better?


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Dec 19, 2012)

> I suppose you're also opposed to PRO's and composers receiving royalties?



No, but that is very different. Composers spend far more time on their scores compared to the musicians that play them. The amount of work is totally different, and composers by default create the copyright. The musicians are NOT creating any new copyright, period. Furthermore, composers get paid less for their time when it comes to writing for TV (based on those in my network who write for TV). The upfront rates are so bad that they rely on PRO money. If you're a successful session musician your hourly rate is going to be very good. Apples to oranges. 



> England has a great deal of socialized services which go a long way toward allowing musicians to survive without stressing out about their future and health. I suppose you're in favor of socialized health care and beefing up social security as well?



Yes, I am very liberal, so I do support those things. As I said those things affect EVERYONE, not just session musicians. It makes no sense to create specialized legislation just for session musicians - that will put the nail in the coffin and drive even more people away from LA + unions. 



> There is of course more demand for orchestral scores for games but:



I wasn't really making the argument that 100% of the loss in live music is made up by video games. But some people have claimed that there's simply less work and that's why the studios are closing, period. I'm saying that basically 0% of games record in LA thanks to the AFM, who literally blacklisted Sony for example, so perhaps if the environment were less hostile and SOME multi-million dollars gigs were staying in LA, less studios would be closed. Can we all agree that SOME gigs are better than none? AFM doesn't seem to agree.



> The problem is that we live in a culture that simply does not really value what we do, even the best of us, because so many others are willing to do th work for nothing or next to nothing and nowadays "good enough" is "good enough" as long as it is cheap.



This is a cynical view. Again these gigs aren't all going to Prague (and even then, those rates aren't exactly minimum wage), many of them are just going to non-union US cities OR to London. Do you really think the LSO is working for "nothing" or "next to nothing"? That they are being exploited? These are world-class musicians we're talking about! And despite the inconvenience of sending engineers, composers, conductors (etc etc) across the ocean, studios + developers would STILL rather do that than deal with the AFM... what does that tell you?


----------



## RiffWraith (Dec 19, 2012)

midphase @ Wed Dec 19 said:


> No offense intended, I have no beef with you...but what I said is true and most pros around here know it. Perhaps I should have said "naive"...would that have made you feel better?



Actually, what would make me feel better is you coming over here and giving me a hug.

I was simply asking, hence the question marks. Yes, I do feel that the game and smaller indie films have made up some of the difference, but I am sure not all. I guess the question is how much. Does anyone have access to any figures?


----------



## Guy Rowland (Dec 19, 2012)

zircon_st @ Wed Dec 19 said:


> > The problem is that we live in a culture that simply does not really value what we do, even the best of us, because so many others are willing to do th work for nothing or next to nothing and nowadays "good enough" is "good enough" as long as it is cheap.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a cynical view. Again these gigs aren't all going to Prague (and even then, those rates aren't exactly minimum wage), many of them are just going to non-union US cities OR to London. Do you really think the LSO is working for "nothing" or "next to nothing"? That they are being exploited? These are world-class musicians we're talking about! And despite the inconvenience of sending engineers, composers, conductors (etc etc) across the ocean, studios + developers would STILL rather do that than deal with the AFM... what does that tell you?



Exactly.

Meanwhile, no-one has responded to my earlier questions which would seem pertinent to most of the comments that have followed, so I'll post it again here. Can anybody explain how Special Payments work?



> OK, I've watched the video of the recent LA meeting, I've done a bit of googling and I'm still confused. According to my understanding of this link - http://money.futureofmusic.org/orchestr ... -payments/ - the special payments fund is not tied to the success of the soundtrack upon which the musician has performed. It's a global fund paid into by record companies, who distribute to all the musicians. So do you get paid the same (out of this fund) regardless of commercial success, or is it pro rata for soundtrack sales?
> 
> So now I'm confused. I can understand a film production company not wanting to make payments in perpetuity to the musicians on its own soundtracks, and more than it would want to carry on paying the editors, accountants, gaffers and foley artists (many of whom, I should stress, perform a highly valuable creative role). However, if the money doesn't come from them but through a record company (which would be a 3rd party deal) - why do they care? I always had the understanding that the AFM agreement meant direct payment in perpetuity.


----------



## Mike Greene (Dec 19, 2012)

The Special Payments Fund was an odd one. 

As we all know, the only people who get paid for radio airplay are the songwriters (and publishers.) The band doesn't get anything at all.

So the Special Payments Fund was created as a way to remedy that. Record companies pay into this fund and then it's paid out to union members based on how many tracks you played on in the previous year. Amount of airplay doesn't get taken into account, because it would be way too complicated for what in reality is a pretty small amount of money.

Well intentioned, but IMO it causes more confusion and/or resentment than it's worth. (I'm pro-union, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything they do.)


----------



## rgames (Dec 19, 2012)

I still don't understand the focus on residuals and back end payments. Sure, that was the old system, but there are other business models that work just fine. In fact, most business models don't have any back end.

Does your plumber get paid every time you flush your toilet? No - he decides what he needs to be paid to make a living and charges that up front.

Does your doctor get paid every time you walk on the leg that he mended after a break? No - again, he decides the appropriate amount to be paid to make a living and charges it up front.

Back-end is not the only way to make money. There are plenty of people making good livings in careers that have no back end.

It's a different business model. It's neither better nor worse.

rgames


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 19, 2012)

Right. The last thing we'd want is to start thinking is that we're artists or something weird like that. We're no different than a bus driver or someone behind a cash register. It's not like we have a special, rare talent. It's not like we could lose our muse at any time. It's not like some people will keep on making money from what we create for a really long time. Take a course, follow the manual, learn the ropes, and compose 'til your 65, then collect your pension.

BTW, back-end, for many of us, is the difference between doing this full-time, and composing on the weekends. Without back-end, the majority of work would be done by the only people who have a relatively stress-free lifestyle: young people still living at home (no bills, free food), and the independently-wealthy.


----------



## midphase (Dec 19, 2012)

Weird, I agree with both Ned and Richard on this. I feel that in many ways, although royalties benefit composers (including myself) immensely, they have also contributed to composers taking on lower and lower paying work in the hope that the "back-end" will make up for it.

There are some name composers who work for no fee with their only incentive being the ASCAP/BMI checks that they will receive in a year or two. Since that money is not actually paid by the production companies, this type of behavior has led many producers to feel that original music is worth nothing.


----------



## Mike Greene (Dec 19, 2012)

rgames @ Wed Dec 19 said:


> I still don't understand the focus on residuals and back end payments.


The reason for reuse payments is actually friendlier to clients than you might think. In a way, they're like a "sliding scale," where productions that are less successful pay less and productions that are more successful pay more.

For example, if a film is a flop and there's no soundtrack album and the score never gets used on commercials or anything (both of which would make the studio additional money,) then there are no additional payments. All the session players get are the original sessions fees. Which aren't all that much, by the way. It seems like a pretty fair system, to me.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 19, 2012)

Most production companies I work for, make that all of them, have a publishing arm and are very aware of how much can be made from the back end.


----------



## David Story (Dec 19, 2012)

Daryl @ Wed Dec 19 said:


> ...The problem is not the fees for the top end of the spectrum, it's that there is very little flexibility for the levels underneath this, and that's why there is no work for many players.
> 
> D



That's true. So many good observations and points, but I want to discuss how to save Three Sound Stages too.

As Jay pointed out, the big stages need to book big sessions to be viable. Even if the wages are lower and the RMA caves on royalties (RMA is the LA elite players), a lot of sessions would have to come back. Is game scores coming here enough? Many games, even AAA, are 1-2 days live and the other 80% samples.

It's going take most composers committing to using live players to get those numbers up. 

The prior stage closures came from real estate prices making it more profitable to rent office space than studio space. Maybe Sony can offer a discount to low budget projects, what are they charging these days for a single Mike?

But even that might not stem the tide of greed calling itself "good business", and the bean counters will tear down and build offices.

Government can help. Designating the studio an historic site has tax breaks. Trade protection actually puts us on the same side as the studios  Nothing wrong with asking our representatives for relief from outsourcing. But standing together is necessary. If we fight amongst ourselves, we lose. That's the first lesson of politics. (Or is it say whatever they want to hear, no... that's politicians)


----------



## Brian Ralston (Dec 19, 2012)

Fox and Sony are about $5500 for a 4 hour session (1 hour set-up..3 hours recording). Warner a bit lower...like $4500....The Bridge in Glendale would do it for $1200 and it came with the ProTools HD rig...any and all Mics...and ProTools engineer. So my last film went there. 

Guess what location is getting most of the work amongst those 4 these days?

This is all about competing on the world market. Technology has allowed us to record abroad and do it economically. 20 years ago...the LSO was the only other viable option to record a huge score that was not in the US and not on AFM contract. There was no other competition of that caliber to compare to. Today..that is not the case. And the more recording the overseas groups do...the better they get at doing it.

The economics that apply locally also apply globally any more. If recording in LA live becomes more competitive globally (not with Prague or Bratislava, but even just London which is the most comparable)...then the work will come back. But only if there are still stages for the work to come back. Hence the urgency.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Dec 19, 2012)

Mike Greene @ Wed Dec 19 said:


> The Special Payments Fund was an odd one.
> 
> As we all know, the only people who get paid for radio airplay are the songwriters (and publishers.) The band doesn't get anything at all.
> 
> ...



Thanks Mike, but my confusion continues!

Here in the UK (there must be similar schemes in the use) the PPL deals in mechanical royalties - ( http://www.ppluk.com/I-Make-Music/Why-S ... -A-Member/ ). These go to performers, and are based on airplay, commercial use etc. Special Payments sounds to me a little like a specialised version of this to deal with orchestral work, but with differences - not airplay based, only registered productions count, you get paid for 5 years after playing on an eligible product.

The thing is, I had that idea that Special Payments was a real block to producers using the LA stages / AFM, but I don't understand why - productions don't pay that money, the record companies do. Unless it means that the 3rd party deals they do for soundtrack sales get directly hit - perhaps that's the answer?

(not to you Mike, general point) Conflating the debate on this thread to the issue of royalties for composers is silly, and misses the point. Books, art, anything has the principle of the creator being the owner of the copyright, and they will receive royalties for use - that's nothing to do with this situation. What is being discussed - and it's worthy of discussion - is whether or not _musicians_ have a claim to getting royalties too, and there the plumber analogies come into play. I'm still trying to understand what the status quo is here, how special payments work, and how widespread mechanical royalties are.


----------



## dpasdernick (Dec 20, 2012)

Pulling back to 50,000 feet it may be apparent that the answers actually lie in the fact we are all conversing on a forum that is soley here for virtual instruments. IMO anyone that is ranting about starving musician's but reaches for Trillian instead of hiring a union bassist is a tad hypocritcal? If you want to save those lovely studios (and I do think it's a shame that those icons are leaving us) then we have to bring them business. Supply and demand. 

With all due respect.


----------



## David Story (Dec 20, 2012)

Going to be extra-ironic when the union gives in, and the sound stages get destroyed anyway.

It's composers that are killing the American soundstage.

Political action could save them. Historic buildings are protected, national economies are protected.

Or show backbone and say "I can do this if we budget for live". Start with two players. Every one of you. You're the next guy they'll replace if you don't.

Stand together or fall apart. Anyone ready to sign a petition? http://www.laconservancy.org/preservation/#howto

We must not blame others for our failings, we have to get our house in order and work together. It's how we won royalties in the days when the club would beat-up the guy collecting. Artistic courage. And community.


----------



## dpasdernick (Dec 20, 2012)

And we're all wrestling with (and probably contributing to) this mentality:

From the Project Sam Website:

"There's everything you need to create bombastic, expensive sounding scores for film, TV or Games making it a fantastic and affordable "way in" for aspiring Hans Zimmers"

Review for Orchestral Essentials... Just $449 + a reasonably talented composer and his time = "good enough" for a lot of music needs... no studio required.


I had a "slap upside the head" moment a few years back when I was in a regular size casino (i.e. not Vega) in southern Oklahoma. Guess who was playing there? Steely Dan. Yup, the guys that never toured back in their hayday because the royalties from their albums paid them a great income. Now, with all of the piracy and the demise of the album and CD they have to tour to really make any money. Even today's mega stars like Beyonce have their fingers in a lot of pies with Perfume deals, touring, movies, etc. It's now all about a musician's "brand" and not necessarily the notes that are played. It's a brave new world gents. Times they are a changin'


----------



## midphase (Dec 20, 2012)

Thank you DPasdernick and David Story for elucidating in even better terms what I've been trying to say all along!


----------



## RiffWraith (Dec 20, 2012)

dpasdernick @ Thu Dec 20 said:


> IMO anyone that is ranting about starving musician's but reaches for Trillian instead of hiring a union bassist is a tad hypocritcal?



You have somewhat of a valid point, but it's not anywhere near that simple. Are studios and networks paying composers what they used to? Not even close. Are the overall music budgets what they once were? Not even close. So when an up and coming composer needs to provide an orchestral score, how is he able to afford to pay union musicians _when the studios and networks won't_? He can't; he is forced to use sample libs. Ok, if we are talking about (for ex) Sean Callary or Bill Brown - or even someone lower on the totem pole - hiring a union bassist for a day at a few hundred dollars - sure that will happen. And that is what gives some validity to your point. But overall, with sinking budgets, and the netowrks and producers not willing to pay for real musicians, I don't think it's hypocritcal at all for a composer to reach for a sample lib while ranting about starving musicians.

Cheers.


----------



## dpasdernick (Dec 20, 2012)

RiffWraith @ Thu Dec 20 said:


> dpasdernick @ Thu Dec 20 said:
> 
> 
> > IMO anyone that is ranting about starving musician's but reaches for Trillian instead of hiring a union bassist is a tad hypocritcal?
> ...



But where did the money go that used to pay the real players, the union wages and big studios? Is it still there but just allocated differently? Like the studio boss's pocket? If so all everyone needs to say is "I can't do your score without real players and a real studio" If everyone did this then the money would have to come back or they wouldn't get the music. I guess I'm just wondering where the money went?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 20, 2012)

What you guys are perhaps not understanding is that the guys who hire are doing this by and large because they CAN, not because they have to.

They are making as much money, drive the same cars, take the same vacations. They do not respect or value those of us who actually know how to write music for picture and the players who make that music come alive because almost everybody with some decent sample libraries can turn out product that will sound "acceptable" for cheap and the editor will make it somewhat fit the picture.

I will comment no more because it makes me too depressed. I support David and Kay's idea of fighting the good fight by I believe it is doomed because the genie is out of the bottle.


----------



## midphase (Dec 20, 2012)

RiffWraith @ Thu Dec 20 said:


> Are studios and networks paying composers what they used to? Not even close. Are the overall music budgets what they once were? Not even close. So when an up and coming composer needs to provide an orchestral score, how is he able to afford to pay union musicians _when the studios and networks won't_? He can't; he is forced to use sample libs.



We have no one else to blame for this but ourselves. We collectively have allowed the rates to plummet at an ever increasing pace. No other department has seen such a precipitous drop, some have even seen increases.

I'm with Jay, talking about this is insanely depressing since I fear it's simply far too late to do anything about it.


----------



## RiffWraith (Dec 20, 2012)

dpasdernick @ Fri Dec 21 said:


> But where did the money go that used to pay the real players, the union wages and big studios? Is it still there but just allocated differently? Like the studio boss's pocket? If so all everyone needs to say is "I can't do your score without real players and a real studio" If everyone did this then the money would have to come back or they wouldn't get the music. I guess I'm just wondering where the money went?



I wonder the same. People's pockets? It's easy to think that way. Maybe not, but where else? 



EastWest Lurker @ Fri Dec 21 said:


> What you guys are perhaps not understanding is that the guys who hire are doing this by and large because they CAN, not because they have to.



No - I actually do understand THAT part. It's the guys who can't - those are the guys that reach for the libs.



midphase @ Fri Dec 21 said:


> We collectively have allowed the rates to plummet at an ever increasing pace. No other department has seen such a precipitous drop, some have even seen increases.



Can't argue that.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Dec 20, 2012)

Maybe my world is totally, completely different to all yours - it reads like it. Not that budgets aren't tight - they are, absurdly so. But the notion in my world that all other departments and bosses are living a life of luxury is false. Everyone is squeezed, and upper managers aside, I mean everyone. Grown up telly might well be a little different, but it's not in my little zone. And, I suspect, this is true for a great many VI Control members.

And it's been so for many years, every year the budgets get cut further. The standard terms of a 2nd series are "the same, minus 3%".

I don't live in a world where the choice is between an orchestra and sample libraries. My world is a choice between library music and sample libraries.

But this thread about the top end. And though it's been said here on this thread many, many times - the LSO are doing just fine. In everyone's conversational efforts to depress themselves out of the industry, I think the core of this is getting lost... A list musicians around the world still do well. Just not in LA, it seems... or certainly won't be if all the stages close. Other cities have found a way to adapt, it looks to me like LA must do the same.

On a general point, our industry has changed beyond all recognition in the past 30 years. If people and businesses don't adapt to those changes, they will die. Here's one example - if I were a session musician or a singer, I'd fashion a room in my house to have decent acoustics, get a good fibre broadband connection, a decent mic and a stand, a computer able to run a remote recording session and get myself out there on virtual sessions. Remote recording will be a huge growth area - Cubase now has it built in with a free app at the client end. Make technology work for you, not against you.


----------



## rgames (Dec 20, 2012)

midphase @ Thu Dec 20 said:


> I fear it's simply far too late to do anything about it.


It's not too late. Rather, it's too unlikely that you'll be able to do anything about it.

As already stated, It's an issue of supply and demand. Supply of composers far outpaces the demand for their services. No amount of legislation or calls to action is going to remedy that fact. You need to either reduce the number of composers or convince people they're worth paying for. This task is made more difficult by the fact that it is increasingly easy to make music that is "good enough."

Here's an analogy: corporations used to have a lot more secretaries. 30 - 40 years ago, I'd bet there was one secretary for every 25 - 30 people. Today, it's more like 100. The reason is that it got a lot easier to keep track of your schedule, set up meetings, stay in contact, etc. So the demand for secretaries has decreased. Is the current system as good as it used to be? No - but it is "good enough."

So, you can in fact do something. In fact, there are basically two things you can do:

1. Reduce the number of composers
2. Convince people that what they're getting right now is not "good enough"

Composers need to manage their brand image the way Nike or Apple do. Nike and Apple didn't go to a government or a union to drive up prices for their products. They went to the people. Again, the market will always win, so talk to the market, not the ones serving that market.

rgames


----------



## passenger57 (Dec 20, 2012)

Ok, after reading all this I'm officially depressed now. I need to stop visiting this site 20 times a day and start spending some time with my family and remind myself what life is about. Happy Holidays mates! o-[][]-o


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 20, 2012)

rgames @ 20/12/2012 said:


> Nike and Apple didn't go to a government or a union to drive up prices for their products. They went to the people.



Right, the Chinese people that is. Making slave money that is. Now you're talking.

Let the market* decide and we'll be working for 2 bucks an hour too.

* 1%


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Dec 20, 2012)

But London isn't China and the LSO is doing quite well, as are many non-AFM freelancers. The problem is the AFM. Again.


----------



## midphase (Dec 20, 2012)

The problem is not (only) AFM, I don't know what the deal with LSO is, my guess is a case of "the grass is greener..." since none of us really know for sure.

Los Angeles also has many more musicians, I wouldn't be surprised if there are more professional musicians in Los Angeles alone than in the entire United Kingdom.

There is also the issue of globalization. If England has become the go-to for orchestral music, then they are benefitting from several countries going there to record and not just the USA. 

Last but not least, I don't know how the arts work in England, but I would venture to say that there is a great deal more appreciation for traditional recording and performance in England than in Los Angeles. There are also more government subsidies, for instance their opera does much much better than LA Opera due to a number of factors which have nothing to do with union and everything to do with the public's demands and expectations as well as considerable arts subsidies.


----------



## David Story (Dec 20, 2012)

*The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind , An American in Paris , Ben Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, Doctor Zhivago, ET, Schindler’s List, Toy Story , Forrest Gump, Pirates of the Caribbean, Spider-Man*

What more you want? 

That's just MGM/Sony off the top.That's 8 decades of world cultural history. Worth preserving, and learning from the masters. There's mighty spirits dwelling in those walls, you feel them when you're in the room.

The biggest change in the last century wasn't TV or digital. It was replacing movie people with MBAs. Those folks actually might tear it down for money.

Excuse my wanting to get back to the OP about Vanishing Stages.

Right now Sony and Fox appear safe, but it would be worse than tragic to lose our heritage. There are film lovers at all levels of society, and they will care about preserving the Dream Factory. There are parts now that just feel like a factory, but the scoring stage is special.

If we composers and performers can't agree on how to keep them working, maybe we can ask for help from preservationists to protect them.

(In answer to despair:
I think the public does tire of fakes, they do know the difference between a tv score and a Movie movie in a theater. It's just a question of time, and the top execs are short-sighted. They'll change when they have too. They figure they'll be gone before the consequences hit. How soon quality comes back is up to us. Especially the rising, hot composers that have clout. There's money, catering gets more than music sometimes. And the other departments don't get squeezed as hard, they have more clout. Because they're better organized. It won't happen overnight, but we can raise our value. Games are a great place to start, it's a growing business and we can set precedents. And so can the union. But us first. Live.)


----------



## dpasdernick (Dec 21, 2012)

David Story @ Thu Dec 20 said:


> *The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind , An American in Paris , Ben Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, Doctor Zhivago, ET, Schindler’s List, Toy Story , Forrest Gump, Pirates of the Caribbean, Spider-Man*
> 
> The biggest change in the last century wasn't TV or digital. It was replacing movie people with MBAs. Those folks actually might tear it down for money.



David, 

For me you hit the nail on the head. I heard that they wanted to tear down the Universal Studio backlot to make room for condos. Years ago you had people like Walt Disney borrowing against his own life insurance poilcy to create Disneyland and you ended up with an icon. The mentality of the bean counters is "Is Disneyland worth more to us as a parking garage than a theme park?" In this day and age I don't think Disneyland would have even been considered as a viable model. Certainly not a unique ride like the Pirates of the Caribbean. There was no movie deal or stuffed animal associated with the ried. It was just a vision of doing something extraordinary.


----------



## David Story (Dec 21, 2012)

dpasdernick @ Fri Dec 21 said:


> David Story @ Thu Dec 20 said:
> 
> 
> > *The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind , An American in Paris , Ben Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, Doctor Zhivago, ET, Schindler’s List, Toy Story , Forrest Gump, Pirates of the Caribbean, Spider-Man*
> ...



Thanks dpasdernick, Kays, Jay, everyone who is trying to solve this problem. WD is one of my heroes, a great man, not perfect, but visionary and caring for the common man. I could go on about artistic vision moving from the US to New Zealand. But on topic:

Will the politically active guys here start organizing an effort to preserve the Sony stage? It could raise your prestige. There are powerful people who will care, even if the bean-counters are uneasy.

Sure, the AFM could be better, but please remember there are players who want to preserve the stages too. You won't make friends asking for sacrifices.

We could be looking for ways to raise our value. And live music is a way. Small sessions are infinitely better than none. Bring back live one session at a time.

We also look strong in standing for values beyond money. We're protecting this cool place, or national heritage. Or new ways to make money with the stage, like expanding studio tours so people can see events there. That would be cool, and build support for our profession. 

If we start a petition to protect the stage I will help spread the word.


----------



## Audun Jemtland (Jan 1, 2013)

Sign this petition!!!
http://www.change.org/petitions/bring-more-recording-to-los-angeles


----------

