# Composers UNION (un)official discussion



## midphase

Please refer to the following two links to get up to speed:

http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=4220

http://theamcl.org/

Last night was the first of what will probably be a series of meetings with The Association of Media Composers and Lyricists Organizing Committee and Teamsters Local 399 Organizers in Los Angeles. The panel included Alf Clausen (The Simpsons, Alf), Bruce Broughton and other industry pros. Some of the faces in the audience belonged to Christopher Young, George S. Clinton, Danny Lux, most of the board of The SCL, and several other movers and shakers of our industry.


----------



## billval3

midphase @ Tue Nov 17 said:


> ...it's now up to my generation to do something about it, or watch our craft disappear to be replaced by libraries and software.



What makes you think this won't become something that actually gives directors and studios MORE of an impetus to turn to libraries and auto-generated scores?


----------



## José Herring

Was vigorously opposed to unionization. Finding in the past the unions usually just stick to employing the insider and tries to block any outsider from getting in. But, I must admit that they are making some pretty good points about declining compensation and increasing work load. After 2 years of steady employment of being the composer, programmer, engineer, copyist and music editor I totally burned out one day and I'm now just starting to recover. If they could set some sort of composer minimum standard especially in the area of TV and lower budget film that may be a big help. But what's to stop some newbie from going non-union? I think there lies the problem.


----------



## gsilbers

josejherring @ Tue Nov 17 said:


> Was vigorously opposed to unionization. Finding in the past the unions usually just stick to employing the insider and tries to block any outsider from getting in. But, I must admit that they are making some pretty good points about declining compensation and increasing work load. After 2 years of steady employment of being the composer, programmer, engineer, copyist and music editor I totally burned out one day and I'm now just starting to recover. If they could set some sort of composer minimum standard especially in the area of TV and lower budget film that may be a big help. But what's to stop some newbie from going non-union? I think there lies the problem.



well i guess it would be like audio engineer work... you cannot get into a union film unless you are union.. :shock: 

talk about a catch 22! 

but u could say that you where the assistant of so and so which he did a union film, get a letter and get in the union.. 
after paying 2000 one time fee and 100-200 a month >8o 
which is why i havent gotten into the audio engineer union. 

also,. they dont find you work.. or anything. its jusst the previilege of working in a union film, which is good pay i have to say.. $65 minum an hour.  
good if u get lotsa union films (which are not many) but if not union (if its at the price like the audio engineer unions) then not worth it imo. 
but composer its a different beast so depends on the approach. 


from what i understand' its the composers own damn fault (harsh) cause they didnt join the union strike of some year pre 80s (not sure of the date but when they used to have a union) and thus got kicked out of any union. 
im talking they cause it was a long time ago.

with all that said id join the union just so i dont read those work for credit on a film that will be huge/shown in many festivals... yes, the latinos film festivalSSSSS counts as festivalSSSSS :roll: 
posts in craglist 
psss

which what i email.. yes ill work for credit, same as the music store &school took my credit for the thousands of $$$ mula in education and equipment :mrgreen:


----------



## synthetic

I tried to join the sound editor union at one point. It was going to be $5k to start and no help getting work of course. It was just a gateway to be able to work on TV and film projects. 

What stops the newbie is that everyone else on the set is union, so if the production hires non-union people then the writers, grips, etc. all bitch. 

My opinion is that unionization will keep new people out of the business, like it wasn't hard enough to break in already. Unionization seems to be abused in Hollywood, which is why many productions have moved to Canada. But it would bring composers to parity with the musicians, writers, editors, and most others in the production and post production crew.


----------



## gsilbers

synthetic @ Tue Nov 17 said:


> I tried to join the sound editor union at one point. It was going to be $5k to start and no help getting work of course. It was just a gateway to be able to work on TV and film projects.
> 
> What stops the newbie is that everyone else on the set is union, so if the production hires non-union people then the writers, grips, etc. all bitch.
> 
> My opinion is that unionization will keep new people out of the business, like it wasn't hard enough to break in already. Unionization seems to be abused in Hollywood, which is why many productions have moved to Canada. But it would bring composers to parity with the musicians, writers, editors, and most others in the production and post production crew.



damn!! 5K?!!! 

at the end i worked on union films and the studio got the credit or my boss. 
but if u do TV then there are many ways on getting around using union. 

there just should be alaw that says any TV or film broadcasted or distributed has to have ALL union crew and set a standard on unions but varying depending on the craft. 
and thus, a reality show hires a non union composer/ editor etc and u find out u call and they get charged... and make it federal. and even if its foreign films. if it gets broadcasted or picked by distribution they need to veryfied there was some sort of union in the other country... dream .. dream dream on..


----------



## kdm

gsilbers @ Tue Nov 17 said:


> there just should be alaw that says any TV or film broadcasted or distributed has to have ALL union crew and set a standard on unions but varying depending on the craft.



But then unions (as organizations, beyond individual membership) would, by law (rather than supply and quality advantage), completely control the production industry without competition to regulate its' own fees and restrictions on members and productions. e.g., if you want to work, you have to pay the dues, no alternative to keep dues reasonable.

I am very skeptical we would actually benefit, and think we could pay a hefty price for the "privilege" of working and still have limited improvements and opportunities to show for it. There has to be some outside competitive balance to ensure the union concept working for members and benefiting the production. I like the idea of giving composers collective bargaining power, but be careful about pushing it too far. It could become a club for the currently successful, and leave everyone else permanently out of luck.


----------



## José Herring

Without a doubt Kdm that's exactly where it could lead. Also, notice that in America the most unionized professions are the ones that show the highest unemployment rate right now. Think about the poor auto and steel workers unions. They're pushing for higher wages and more this and that while the industry is going bust.

In my experience unions are a double edge sword. On the one hand the musicians union did help me out of a really tough spot in which I wouldn't have gotten paid if there wasn't a union on the other hand, business wise I paid more to be in the union than any union work I ever got both in New York and LA. Even though the union dues for musicians is really low. 

So I can't really imagine that a composers union would really help me.


----------



## rgames

I'm totally undecided on this issue. Though I support its objectives, I don't see how a union can help. The underlying issues are economic and creating a union isn't going to change that fact. Plus, my experience with other unions (on both sides) has been unsettling - I've always felt they're sort of a mafia.

Why would a studio decide to sign up with a union if they aren't already? What does the studio gain? I see a lot that they lose but no gain. As such, I can't see how a composers' union would ever gain traction. Remember, the studios willl have to sign up for it because you'll never get a large percentage of composers involved.

rgames


----------



## gsilbers

kdm @ Tue Nov 17 said:


> gsilbers @ Tue Nov 17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> there just should be alaw that says any TV or film broadcasted or distributed has to have ALL union crew and set a standard on unions but varying depending on the craft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But then unions (as organizations, beyond individual membership) would, by law (rather than supply and quality advantage), completely control the production industry without competition to regulate its' own fees and restrictions on members and productions. e.g., if you want to work, you have to pay the dues, no alternative to keep dues reasonable.
> 
> I am very skeptical we would actually benefit, and think we could pay a hefty price for the "privilege" of working and still have limited improvements and opportunities to show for it. There has to be some outside competitive balance to ensure the union concept working for members and benefiting the production. I like the idea of giving composers collective bargaining power, but be careful about pushing it too far. It could become a club for the currently successful, and leave everyone else permanently out of luck.
Click to expand...


true.. but i am saying more of a "mininum wage" and "labor standards" for 
composers. if directors want 20k changes in one week etc..pay overtime. things like that. cause in the context you say itll be for the top guys, which is 10% of the composers who do 90% of the work. for them union is not very important. 
i am saying more like 90% who do 10% of the work out there and such a supply of workers yield a very low/free payment. thus, if there is a watchdog looking out that everything is union then if u get hired to compose for a lifetime reality tv show drama that plays at 2 am , they have to pay you accordingly to how much that show will make or in a similar matter. not like we decide that union rate is so and so... 
which sounds correct for features cause those make big bucks in the theatre and after market, but for the rest of the entertainment shows there is low, very low, meduim, etc. 
my point is still under the supply and demand structure of prices but that there always should be pay and pay according to a minumun.. if a production company doesnt want to spend to much in music then there is a minimun and then if they want a better composer theyll pay more. cause there will be a structure of prices where people are kinda in the same page.... right now its all over the place. hanz and john get a mil for every movie and in craiglist there is tons of no pay just credit films. 
not many other services have that, i think.. 
you go to a chiropractor its kinda standard price for the hour. psycologists... who just sut there and listen :roll: and charge a lot for it.. 
even if you are going to hire iligal immigrants in home depot , they have a payment scheme.. and contractors know around how much they charge. 

but i also think yout point is valid and it is so in the sound editor world where its a given minumun is 60 bucks an hour and a minimun of hours u can hire. if its a feature the time is 3 weeks or so to do the work... so even if u cut backgorunds and did it in 3 days u just look busy the rest of the 2 weeks and get fat. great for you but not for the producers and project all together.


----------



## billval3

midphase @ Wed Nov 18 said:


> "My opinion is that unionization will keep new people out of the business, like it wasn't hard enough to break in already."
> 
> If you ask me, this is not a bad thing. Without sounding like a snooty LA asshole, there are just too many damn wannabes that are creating all of these problems. If unions make the entry fee steeper and limit the amount of composers (or people who think they're composers) in the market, I think this would be a positive outcome and not a negative.



No offense to you personally, but I guess I'm getting a little tired of hearing this kind of complaint. If the "wannabes" are so bad, then what's to be afraid of? If you or I are professional, creative, hard-working composers then won't it show in the end?

I know I just replaced some music on a project and they said they wished they had me from the start. The director made excuses for the other guy, but I think it was just a matter of seeing what a competent craftsmen could do for them. Presumably, she will use me from the start on the next project.

If it's just a matter of them charging a higher fee, then I guess I would just have to bite the bullet. But if they make it a matter of having the right credits to get in (like in the WGA or SAG), then that creates a situation that is difficult for people to break in. For example, I have a family to fee and a mortgage to pay. I can't go work as an assistant to somebody for pennies and hope that someday he/she will throw me a bone so I can get into the union.


----------



## kdm

billval3 @ Wed Nov 18 said:


> If the "wannabes" are so bad, then what's to be afraid of? If you or I are professional, creative, hard-working composers then won't it show in the end?



Very true, except that marketing is 9/10 of the job nowadays, not necessarily talent. 
But I don't think a union can or will fix that.



> For example, I have a family to fee and a mortgage to pay. I can't go work as an assistant to somebody for pennies and hope that someday he/she will throw me a bone so I can get into the union.



Same here. This is my business, not an audition.

Getting credits is already an uphill battle. If there is a stiff entry requirement of already having profile credits, but no way to work on those union gigs outside of assisting a credited composer, then it's a catch-22. That seems too obvious to slip through the cracks, but maybe not. 

Perhaps there could be a more realistic requirement system - such as either referral, recommendation, or experience (even perhaps proof of full time work for a certain period, even with a non-film credit list). There are composers who never work on a Hollywood feature that work full time and make a living, and need representation and bargaining power. 

The union seems like a good idea, as long as it realistically supports the non-LA markets along with the established LA composers and production companies by setting industry-wide minimums for fees, schedules and royalty requirements as well.

I'm not an expert on this - just offering my opinion here.


----------



## midphase

New article on LA Times about this:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-c ... 3641.story

Please read as it addresses some of the questions that have been raised here.


----------



## midphase

"I have a family to fee and a mortgage to pay. I can't go work as an assistant to somebody for pennies and hope that someday he/she will throw me a bone so I can get into the union."


But did you have a family to support when you first started out? I'm sorry to sound harsh, but if one gets married and has kids straight out of school, that person is making a choice...and his choice might limit his career opportunities. That's just the fact of life!

I think unfortunately, one of the things that has also gone away is the time-honored tradition of apprenticeship and that's a shame. Most kids who come out of school nowadays never get a chance to train with a more seasoned professional, but IMHO this is a key component that is critical to one's formation as a composer.


----------



## midphase

"No offense to you personally, but I guess I'm getting a little tired of hearing this kind of complaint. If the "wannabes" are so bad, then what's to be afraid of?"

Lots! Just like in every other line of work or even commercial products, overcrowding and individuals who offer lower quality work murk up the pool. They lower standards, confuse the marketplace, and ultimately hurt themselves in the long run. I've seen too many poorly scored films that have been done by said individuals. Those are films where a producer or director might have been convinced by a more experienced composer to raise a bit more money and hire the better guy, and instead ended up getting sidetracked by a guy with a laptop and stolen sample libraries who had no qualms doing the job (poorly) for less than a third of the price. Was the director at fault for going with the cheap guy...yes. However the bottom line is that the better composer lost a job, the movie got a lame score, and the producer convinced himself (after saving some money) that it's just fine. I honestly think everyone loses in this scenario, and it happens all the time.


----------



## Brian Ralston

kdm @ Wed Nov 18 said:


> Perhaps there could be a more realistic requirement system - such as either referral, recommendation, or experience (even perhaps proof of full time work for a certain period, even with a non-film credit list). There are composers who never work on a Hollywood feature that work full time and make a living, and need representation and bargaining power.
> 
> The union seems like a good idea, as long as it realistically supports the non-LA markets along with the established LA composers and production companies by setting industry-wide minimums for fees, schedules and royalty requirements as well.
> 
> I'm not an expert on this - just offering my opinion here.



Supporting non-LA markets and even indie productions will never happen guys. Here is why. The ONLY people the union will really represent the way it is being proposed is guys who are doing studio level or network broadcast level film / TV shows. So...unless you make your living scoring a network TV show or a FOX or Paramount movie...the union will have no power. Why you ask?

The Teamsters only negotiate with the AMPTP. Their jurisdiction is ONLY Los Angeles or NY. They can get their New York teamsters to have a NY chapter of composers as well. But those folks would only cover NY productions on that side. So what about films shot in Arizona...or new Mexico. or Canada. Or the UK....or..etc...

The Teamster representative was very clear and said at the info meeting that they will not and do not have any plans to represent composers who score video games....composers who write for music libraries...composers who score commercials, etc....ONLY broadcast TV shows and studio level films where the production companies are represented by the AMPTP. Again...because the studios is ONLY who the AMPTP represents and that is where their power reaches. With them. Outside of that, the power of the teamsters is nothing. 

They have a HUGE problem to solve in all of this and I hope they do because there are issues that need to be addressed. They said they need the grass roots "entry level" guy to be angry. They need an upswell of guys in the trenches to want this. They need the recent USC film scoring graduates, the mass of indie guys to want this for their future in order to make this work. They need a critical mass of 75% of the guys in the business to sign on to have strength. 

BUT...

The ONLY people the Teamsters will be negotiating with (if successful in getting composers recognized as a union) is the studios and networks through the AMPTP. 

*There is NOTHING to make an independent production company doing an indie film or TV spec pilot or webisode to sign the agreement and become a signatory to the Teamster agreement.*

So...the contract this union will ultimately have will only apply to that top 10% of the guys who are doing 90% of the studio level work. (And many of them are already making above what a union minimum would be in terms of fees). That will not change. I don't see how it can because the AMPTP does not represent anything other than the level those top level folks are working on. And the mass of "young composer" guys they need will see very little to no benefit from this *on the level of projects they are working on.* That is the important distinction. Sure...if you get on a future studio gig...you will then see a benefit. but until then, all of your indie films will not be under a union agreement and yet you will have to be paying dues and get little to no benefit on your own projects. And in fact, you may even create an image as a union guy where the indie guys are even afraid to work with you even though you CAN do non-union work. Perhaps the indie composer guys can point to what the union guys make and say to their producers, "well...you are offering me a couple thousand and you know the going rate if this were union is $50,000. Just so you know." And the response you will get is most likely, "do you want it or not...I have a list of 100 other guys that will like the credit if you don't want it." 

I truly think a lot of composer guys think if they are in the union they will all of a sudden have to get paid more and have benefits. Not true AT ALL. Only if your production decides to abide by the agreement. Unless they are in the AMPTP and have no choice...why would they sign on to any agreement that means they have to pay significantly more money? They won't. If they are an indie there is nothing to make them and they will just shoot their film non-union. Heck...many films will do the production union cause there are no other alternatives and will do all of Post-production NON-Union. There is nothing to stop that either. There are alternatives in music. A lot. You could go with a music library and just license music. They can go find a non-union composer...and there will be a lot around...especially if they go find some guy who scores games and is disgruntled because he found out the union will not help his projects. So...he stayed non-union and yet has all the equipment and ability to score a film if offered. 

Let me just qualify everything I have said (which sounds very negative)...by saying that I honestly have not made up my mind and I WILL reserve judgement for a time far down the road. This is only the beginning and it will take a long time. Casting directors took 4 1/2 years to organize under the Teamsters. I bring up these points because I truly hope that these issues will be addressed some how. Yes I am skeptical. But I am also hopeful that this will ultimately affect change. If they can address these issues, they will have my support. If not...then it will be business as usual and I feel I will not be the only one who takes that approach. There will be a lot of fallout from this, especially if successful. Composers need to know that and not be afraid. 

A top hollywood producer (who shall remain nameless here, but know he has done top hollywood films you all have seen) said to me in a string of emails on the subject...



> The movie business is dying. These people are living in 1980 when this might have made sense. Entry level jobs will continue to be on smaller non-union films if you are a union member as a composer you won't be hired for those. Even on IATSE movies, most of post is done non-union. ...
> 
> This is akin to the IATSE still photographers thinking that because still cameras can now shoot video that the still photpgraphers will be hired to shoot EPK without realizing that video cameras can ALSO now shoot stills - so what is to stop videographers from shooting stills.
> 
> It is not thinking ahead at ramificaitons.
> 
> I see no upside for anyone in this action, personally.
> 
> It will just force producers to look elsewhere for music - and "license" it from a music library rather than to hire a specific composer. This is done all the time to avoid dealing with Unions.
> ....
> There are so few jobs, why make it harder for non-Williams and non-Horners to get them?
> 
> The only one who will benifit will be the teamsters Pension Health and Welfare funds.
> 
> It's just not 1980 in the movie business anymore!
> ...
> 
> at some point in your career you will have a perceived value as a composer - but because there is a union agreement in place - THAT IS WHAT YOU WILL BE PAID, when in all likely hood you could earn more. There are simply, like directors, too many composers out there for you to negotiate a higher-than-scale deal - even though your work in the future under the current system may allow you to negotiate more.
> 
> It's just not 1980 in a time BEFORE computers when there were many movies and few composers. Now there are few movies and many composers.
> 
> really misguided in my humble opinion, the more I write about it.
> ....
> 
> IF I COULD MAKE THIS FLASH I WOULD... The composers are BLIND to what just has happened to SAG and WGA where the studios have "taken away their performance royalties (residuals) and even proper credit for their work" and to allow actors without their permission to appear to endorse and advertise products for sale, without additional compensation. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED IN THE LAST CONTRACT. This has happened to SAG and WGA and the studios are not even honoring the negotiated WGA deal for new media. This happened in spades to SAG.
> 
> Are the composers blind? Have they been listening to music too loud to know what is going on?
> 
> As a producer, I can tell you that I look on composers as a dime a dozen. Sorry. Like directors (and an awful lot of guys who call themselves director but when push comes to shove do not have the ability to deliver what a multi-million dollar film requires) there are simply too many people out there wanting to do what you do.
> 
> As a producer I know that.
> 
> There are very, very few people out there wanting to be casting directors or grips or teamster drivers. There is no advantage for James Horner or John Williams to be in a union, just like no advantage for Tom Cruise or George Lucas. Many of the big powerful movie stars sided with the studios during the SAG strike, effectively castrating the union. All it will take is a handful to defect.
> 
> ...
> 
> The ship has sailed, the horse is dying on the ground and the composers are so out of touch they are kicking a dying animal trying to make it get up when it is near death.
> 
> Study the ass-beating that the MPAA gave to WGA and SAG - and IATSE - whose members ARE SPECIFICALLY NOT COVERED on studio producitons made for the internet!
> ...
> 
> THIS IS DEAD ON: I think the status we have now actually gives composers a great amount of power to conduct their business and make their deals the way they want. They need to build their own demand like any other competitive business.



Just saying! >8o :!: :!: :!:


----------



## billval3

midphase @ Wed Nov 18 said:


> "I have a family to fee and a mortgage to pay. I can't go work as an assistant to somebody for pennies and hope that someday he/she will throw me a bone so I can get into the union."
> 
> 
> But did you have a family to support when you first started out? I'm sorry to sound harsh, but if one gets married and has kids straight out of school, that person is making a choice...and his choice might limit his career opportunities. That's just the fact of life!
> 
> I think unfortunately, one of the things that has also gone away is the time-honored tradition of apprenticeship and that's a shame. Most kids who come out of school nowadays never get a chance to train with a more seasoned professional, but IMHO this is a key component that is critical to one's formation as a composer.



I am basically just starting out now, so yes...at the age of 37 I'm trying to make a transition from full time teaching to composing. And yes, my choices have definitely limited my opportunities in some ways, but I don't know that they should be limited in THIS way. :wink: 

While I agree that apprenticeshihp can be a great way to learn a craft like film composing, I don't think everyone should have to follow the same career path. If I am able to develop the same skills on my own, why should I be excluded just because I don't fit into a union's system?

I just don't think we want the union to be something that simply keeps the insiders in and keeps the outsiders out.


----------



## Brian Ralston

Also I want to point out that BY US LAW...if composers are in a union...they are employees and not independent contractors. What does that mean you ask? Well..first of all...EVERYTHING you do will be owned by the production company automatically as a work for hire. So...no more performance royalties for you. *UNLESS* they are re-negotiated in the union contract as a residual. But by law...your employer will now be listed as the creator and will collect the writer and publisher share of all performance royalties if there are any...again UNLESS that is specifically negotiated to revert back to the composer in the union collective bargaining agreement. So...the PRO is not automatically yours any more BY LAW. It is the employers because you are simply an employee. Bruce Broughton even said in the info meeting that the PROs do not know what ramifications this will have. They simply don't know. Well...they do...they just don't want to go there. they would still be collecting...they will just be issuing checks to the studios and not composers in the future.

Another thing to think about. Because now...it is inherently yours until you sign it away. 

While I am sure that this will be a major point to negotiate in any union contract...it also worries me that it is a point of negotiation that could be lost when push comes to shove. 

There are a lot of issues to address for the "critical mass" of composers to get excited and behind this. I will do what I can to speak to folks to hopefully get that done...but there is a lot to do.


----------



## midphase

"I am basically just starting out now, so yes...at the age of 37 I'm trying to make a transition from full time teaching to composing. "

William, please don't take this the wrong way, but I really think you should reconsider your career transition, I know that if I was in your position I would. Regardless of unionization attempts, this is a horrible time to be a composer, especially one just starting out. I don't know if you live in L.A. or even California (it doesn't appear that you do) but that is going to make it even harder on you to establish yourself. There is a possibility that you might carve our a niche doing corporate work (talk about something that's been overtaken by music libraries) or local/regional advertisement (another field heavily attacked by library use), but IMHO film work is a losing proposition right now. I'm not speaking from the point of view of trying to limit the competition, but I can't tell you how many times I wish I could turn back the clock and choose another field with fewer headaches and heartaches. 

(sorry for the sidetrack)


----------



## kdm

Brian Ralston @ Wed Nov 18 said:


> Supporting non-LA markets and even indie productions will never happen guys. Here is why. The ONLY people the union will really represent the way it is being proposed is guys who are doing studio level or network broadcast level film / TV shows.



Then what's the point? Support the few that already have their own clout to bargain with? Further the perception that composing doesn't and can't exist outside of LA?

I'm sure the LA guys will disagree, but eventually this *only LA* mindset (not just union, but entertainment in general) will undermine the LA market, esp. if producers look to avoid the costs associated with unions, or just look to new venues for fresh ideas and environments; much the same way Detroit is dying, and the same way the textile market lost the battle to cheaper overseas labor. Much the way the pop music industry seems to be decentralizing due to the iTunes/Youtube generation. 

All I can tell you from my outside perspective is that I really believe the next generation of directors and producers that have yet to enter the Hollywood scene are learning outside the "old Hollywood" model when it comes to music and artistic value. 

The only way to save it is to re-establish value to composing (and other artforms), and maybe a union is not the way to do that - maybe it's exactly the opposite of what needs to be done - I don't know - just something to think about. Maybe it's time to think outside the box guys. Maybe it's time for those of us outside LA to organize ourselves.

For what little an "outsider's" opinion is worth.....


----------



## midphase

Regarding what Brian said:

Work for hire is a reality that we all live right now...no change there. It's a well known fact that some production companies and studios have been making attempts to dip into PRO royalties, I don't see those attempts ending any time soon, quite the contrary...they're going to come on stronger (anyone here remember PAX?) Further, PRO's are on slippery ground and it's getting worse for them too. With the above mentioned streaming, and recent legal losses, I think PRO's days as we know it are numbered (I'm waiting for the big ASCAP v. Google lawsuit, I think we all know who's going to win that one).

I also feel that while a union will not necessarily directly protect composers working in smaller markets and in fields such as videogames and advertising, it will undoubtedly have substantial effects for those composers. Think of it as gay marriage (sorry...weird), even though only a handful of states have made progress towards legalizing gay marriage, it has had repercussions in all 50 states (and some would argue internationally as well). I think it's unavoidable that if TV and Studio composers unionize, videogames, advertising and other fields will only be a few years behind.


----------



## midphase

" Maybe it's time to think outside the box guys. Maybe it's time for those of us outside LA to organize ourselves"


Go for it, I think it's a great idea and I honestly wish you the best. Take it from someone who operated outside of Hollywood for over a decade before coming to terms with reality (talk about stubbornness huh?) While Detroit labor might have gone to Asia, the senior staff is still in Detroit including designers and promotions staff. Further, a good argument can be made that the car companies deciding to manufacture overseas had little to do with unions (although they would like you to think so) and more about other factors such as ridiculously cheap labor, tax writeoffs, and foreign incentives. Inexpensive composers abound outside of LA, but this has not pushed the studios to go seek them. I seriously doubt that just because composers have a union that will all of a sudden send Hollywood to India or Sweden (although that might happen because it's "trendy")


----------



## David Story

Unions work by standing firm together. If big and small composers stand together, the union will make gains in wages, insurance and working conditions.

SAG and WGA did not get enough members and allies together prior to negotiations. They had no real chance last year.

To succeed, a composer's union will need to offer something to more people than they did at the recent meeting. Like including game composers, or composers who work on indie films.

And give something to producers. By carrot or stick, the producers have to sign up.

Separately, we are sometimes viewed as either A list or dime-a-dozen. Collective bargaining has the Potential to increase our compensation and benefits. But it's about teamwork and long range development of allies.

Many good points made above, I hope we can think of solutions that will give us a shot at turning around the race to the bottom.

The ad hoc committee can be influenced, if you have a plan to bring more composers on board.

EDIT
Maybe we can get creative and think of ways to incentivize producers to sign. Or get the teamsters help, and also organize outside LA.


----------



## drasticmeasures

Brian Ralston @ Wed Nov 18 said:


> Also I want to point out that BY US LAW...if composers are in a union...they are employees and not independent contractors. What does that mean you ask? Well..first of all...EVERYTHING you do will be owned by the production company automatically as a work for hire. So...no more performance royalties for you. *UNLESS* they are re-negotiated in the union contract as a residual. But by law...your employer will now be listed as the creator and will collect the writer and publisher share of all performance royalties if there are any...again UNLESS that is specifically negotiated to revert back to the composer in the union collective bargaining agreement. So...the PRO is not automatically yours any more BY LAW. It is the employers because you are simply an employee. Bruce Broughton even said in the info meeting that the PROs do not know what ramifications this will have. They simply don't know. Well...they do...they just don't want to go there. they would still be collecting...they will just be issuing checks to the studios and not composers in the future.



Hi Brian, 

I can see how this is a concern, but I wouldn't treat it as unequivocal truth yet. 

I've seen SAG, AFTRA, DGA, and WGA residual checks, and they're doing much better than you or I. That aspect would take care of itself, and probably for the better.


----------



## midphase

Agreed, it's not unheard of for vocalists which I believe fall under SAG to make more money in residuals than the composers who wrote the music in the first place.


----------



## Brian Ralston

For the record...I am not planning on just sitting back and playing armchair quarterback...pointing out problems and failing to try to suggest solutions. 

I have been thinking A LOT about the very issues I have brought up and I WILL be talking with the organizing committee and possibly even Steve Dayan at the 399 to see if any of my suggestions to address those issues would be a possibility. Because again...I truly have not decided either way on any of this and I am cautiously optimistic this will open a dialogue among us all that will ultimately make the composer situation better in the end...the far end....way down the road...like...that little spec over there....yeah...that one. 

:wink:


----------



## midphase

Agreed also, I think that they need to have a series of open meeting like they did on Monday and open up the conversation to the various composers. This will also give the chance to the guys who couldn't make it on Monday to go and hear for themselves what this is all about.


----------



## midphase

New article on Unionization by Deane Ogden on Scorecast:

http://www.scorecastonline.com/2009/11/composers-union-call-to-seasoned.html (http://www.scorecastonline.com/2009/11/ ... soned.html)


Here are some juicy bits for those not wanting to read the whole thing:

Across the film music industry, the recent composer unionization effort has been at the forefront of everyone's mind for the last few weeks. Led by film composers Bruce Broughton, James DiPasquale, Alan Elliott, and Alf Clausen, the Teamsters Local 399 has offered a hand as one of the most powerful union organizations to help unionize composers — one of the last creative groups in Hollywood to still work without a collective bargaining agreement.

Since the announcement of this effort, there have been many opinions expressed, a lot of intense debate and discussion, and a load of mixed emotions on all fronts.

There is, however, a significant voice that is missing from the conversation — something that I've relied on all my life to aid me in my decision making process: The voice of leadership.

So where are they? Where are the voices of our generals that we as the "foot soldiers" of the film music army have come to rely on for everything else that we've pondered in our careers — from what plug-ins to spend our money on to what the best way is to break into the industry? Why are the "heavies" not weighing in publicly on an issue that could potentially be the most important critical argument toward the sustenance of our beloved craft to come down the pike in twenty years?


The harsh reality is that the majority of film composers have never worked within the motion picture studio system. The argument that studios are controlling less and less of the movie business as days go by is an argument that, factually, does not hold water, which is why you often hear veteran composers counseling beginners to "move to Los Angeles". True, there are independent productions that have seen great success in the last fifteen years, but the majority of work in film that can sustain the career of a working film composer still originates at the Hollywood studio level. Even with the iron-clad film music education that a first rate university can provide these days, young composers are simply not adequately prepared to deal with the needs and desires of a major Hollywood studio from a business standpoint. The art of handling the nuances of multi-million dollar studio music budgets is not something that can be easily learned in a classroom setting, nor would a studio saddle a first time composer with such an unfair expectation.


----------



## Frederick Russ

Note: I'm on the fence with this personally but I wanted to post it here in its entirety for the sake of relevance:
________________________________________

Subject: the hollywood reporter article on unionization:

Winter Film & TV Music: Fight club
Will film composers get their 'Norma Rae' moment in 2010?
By Jeff Bond
Jan 11, 2010, 07:25 PM ET

After 28 years without a union, film and television composers are attempting to unionize again, this time partnering with the Teamsters Local 399.

The new union would be designated the Association of Media Composers and Lyricists and would be the first group of its kind since the Composers and Lyricists Guild of America, which dissolved in 1982 after a punishing seven-year legal battle with the major studios. (A subsequent attempt to create a new union in 1984, with the assistance of the WGA, was derailed by the National Labor Relations Board, which denied the Society of Composers and Lyricists guild status.)

The attempt to organize is being led by record producer/composer Alan Elliott ("Cop Rock," "Celebrity Deathmatch"); Bruce Broughton, a former Society of Composers and Lyricists president; James Di Pasquale, who helped form the SCL in 1983; and Alf Clausen, the veteran composer of "The Simpsons." The timing in many ways couldn't be better because conditions for film and television composers have never been worse and fees have dropped radically from their levels a few years ago. 

"Thirty years ago, the average television all-in fee was $35,000 -- for an hour of television," Elliott says. "That would include the money that would go to the studio, the contractor, the musicians, the orchestrators, the copyists, the players. With inflation from 1979 to 2010, that should be $104,000, but most network television shows now are around $14,000 all-in, which means that the total number has fallen to about 13% of what it was." 

But not everyone in the industry supports the union plan.

"Where things could get mucked up is (by) trying to have working-condition issues that aren't really the (problem for) 95% of the people actually working," one film music agent notes. "There needs to be a greater respect for the services of composers, and you don't create that by imposing more restrictions. Composers will get better conditions when they are perceived more as creators of unique and valuable art than grinders of mass-produced musical sausages."

Elliott disagrees and notes that salaries and conditions have declined substantially during the past three decades, in contrast to those for members of other unions.

Composers now produce twice the amount of music for far less money, he says, and do work their predecessors never had to: creating detailed mockups of cues that frequently have to be redone several times and, in many cases, performing and recording elements of the score.

Technology has been a double-edged sword, giving composers more control but leading to the impression that composers should be able to do anything. 

"Most of the people running music departments in the studios are former business affairs people," Elliott says. "They believe you just press a button on a computer marked 'next cue' and that's all there is to writing music."

More ominous for composers who have paid for years of musical training, new equipment and software can allow people with no musical background to conjure up an acceptable underscore. 

"There was a show on FX a couple of years ago -- it's still on right now -- and they didn't have enough money for music," Elliott recalls. "So the editor started putting together music in this Apple program (called) Garage Band. He started doing cues in Garage Band and he is now a working composer, and the technology makes it very difficult to tell the difference between what a professional has done and an amateur."

With these challenges, along with the lack of health benefits, pensions and any collective-bargaining clout, there may be ample arguments for unionizing. But, while the political environment may have improved, the past year's economic upheaval complicates the situation. 

"Corporations use any excuse, whether it's 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina or a global economic meltdown," says composer George S. Clinton ("Austin Powers," "The Tooth Fairy"). "That's the nature of big business. And as studios have become more vertically owned, music divisions that used to be more composer-friendly have had to toe the bottom line."

While studios concentrate more furiously on the bottom line, the sheer number of young composers coming into the field means more people competing for a smaller pot. But that adds to the grounds for unionization, says composer Christopher Young ("Creation," "Drag Me to Hell"): "The time is right for a union, if for no other reason than to finally protect the multitude of greatly talented and unrepresented young composers that have been chasing their tails for years, competing to deliver complete scores for free."

Organizers say there are four clear goals a union would need to accomplish: health benefits, pensions, improved working conditions (largely related to the amount of time composers should have to produce a score) and fee minimums. 

-more-


----------



## Frederick Russ

"Health benefits, pension benefits are a no-brainer," Broughton argues. "We would have to work on working conditions before minimums because we have to address the situations that are the worst. The main thrust of the unionization idea is not to go after the studios to get as much money as we can, but to get a firm bottom, so it doesn't get any worse."

Adds Elliott: "Less than 5% of the composers have health insurance through Motion Picture Health and Welfare. It's a desert -- so if we even put up a couple cactuses, we'll be doing something."

Another prominent agent, however, is skeptical: "I'm all for composers being able to better access health insurance and pension benefits, and if unionization faciliates that it would be great," he says. "I don't think, though, given current economic realities, that unionization -- even if successful -- will create any significant upward pressure on fees as there will always be composers willing to work non-union and producers who don't know the difference."

"Package" deals, where composers are given a fee they must use to pay for musician performances, recording and other costs, as well as their own salary, are becoming increasingly common -- and one reason composers have found it difficult to escape from their designation as independent contractors. That "independent" label was the reason the NLRB denied their bid for unionization before.

Composer Carter Burwell ("A Serious Man") notes that, while packages have been common in independent film for some time, they're now becoming common in bigger productions as well. 

"It makes it very hard, particularly for new people in the industry, to do the job," he says. "I have noticed everything going down -- in terms of the amount of time people have to record and write their music, and what they're paid -- and unionization would be good, if only because it would at least establish some balance that you can't go below in terms of budget, the number of days you have to do your work and the amount musicians will be paid."

Young thinks unionization could make a difference with packages. "The sad thing about the concept of packages is you're being punished for trying to do a perfect job. I'm working on a movie right now and it's a very small package, but I wanted to work on an arty Johnny Depp movie. I go there and the director is supposed to be there on the downbeat at 10 o'clock. I go ahead and record stuff and he shows up at 11:30 and he doesn't like it, so I have to redo all of that. If a union had been around, something like that might have been avoided. With the package deal, I'm paying for it and I lost $5,000-$7,000 paying for the studio, the engineer and musicians. I paid for all that because the director was two hours late."

Elliott, Broughton and Teamsters organizer Steve Dayan call a Nov. 16 informational meeting in Burbank a success, with 400 composers in attendance and 200 taking sample union cards to indicate their interest. Their next step is to get two-thirds of working composers to agree to begin serious discussions about what a composers' union would entail and what its specific goals should be. While initial support has been there, the organizers say that there is a "stealth" aspect to some of it. 

"There are a lot of guys who will be nominated for Emmys and Oscars soon, who wanted to quietly be involved," Elliott says. "If we wanted to press the issue in the next week, we have the strength to do it. Our job right now is to make sure we get to 100%, not 60%."

But others think that high-profile support from A-list composers, who may not have as much to gain personally, will be crucial to giving the push momentum. "Until a Tommy Newman or a Hans Zimmer or Danny Elfman stands up and says, 'I am a member of this union and you have to hire me through this union,' unionization isn't going to happen," Clinton says. "You say to the studio, 'You have to hire me through this union,' they're just going to say, 'No thanks, we're going to go with this other guy.' "

Of course, with this fragile economy, the studios may be even less willing to hear about a union than before. 

"Warner Bros. cut 40% of their music department right before New Year's, including firing the president who had two years left on his contract," Elliott says. "Unlike 30 or 40 years ago, where you had studios versus unions, the music departments all over town understand that, unless this goes through, they're (going to get) heat from their bosses as to why they even need a music department."

Elliott is optimistic that momentum will pick up as the effort moves into 2010. "We believe we're about halfway to the two-thirds now. The way we're moving, by year's end we'll have a union."


----------



## midphase

I'm happy to see that the discussion is progressing, I hope that they're right and that by the end of the year they'll have something going.


----------



## JFB

> "He started doing cues in Garage Band and he is now a working composer, and the technology makes it very difficult to tell the difference between what a professional has done and an amateur."



That's a pretty damning statement regarding the quality (or distinction) of music the "professionals" were delivering. I imagine many, secure in their jobs, were phoning it in and possibly didn't sound much better than well-chosen AppleLoops.

I remember years ago when I saw the first video demo of Soundtrack Pro on the Apple website. The media was a kid doing BMX tricks, something you might see broadcast on a saturday afternoon. They were showing the whole soundtrack being composed of AppleLoops - dragging, dropping, transposing, changing tempo with ease. My reaction was not "oh, this is crap". It was - WOW - hiring a composer to custom-score this footage note-for-note would add absolutely no value whatsoever to that footage.

I can't imagine what incentive there would be for any production to become a signatory to a union composer unless the Teamsters would refuse to work on productions not hiring a union composer.

So my questions is, and I'm being serious here...what do we composers have to do to distinguish ourselves in the minds of producers from the merely competent editor using Garageband?


----------



## theheresy

midphase @ Tue Jan 12 said:


> "So my questions is, and I'm being serious here...what do we composers have to do to distinguish ourselves in the minds of producers from the merely competent editor using Garageband?"
> 
> 
> Easy....we're more affordable than a competent editor spending hours on Garageband. We can do it better, cheaper, and are not limited by the loops available. Seriously....even with a solid Garageband knowledge, it takes a number of hours to reach a satisfactory result for a TV show. A good editor worth his salt runs about $100/hour...if you add it all up a composer getting about $2k per TV episode is probably cheaper, and allows the editor to focus on what he should be focusing on in the first place...editing the damn show.



if by editor the original question asker didn't mean an actual professional editor but rather a composer 'hack' who just makes loops/beats in garage band or any other equivalent program, then this is pretty inaccurate as such a person would cost far less than a composer, would be willing to work for cheaper, faster, etc so the answer to the above question of what can an ACTUAL composer do to distinguish himself from such hacks? The answer is nothing. That's why the current state of our industry is such that it is because the producer/director simply can't hear the difference, to them a loop from a library with some horn smashes, rips, stabs etc over it is no different or in fact better than what an actual original composer can come up with so it makes no difference to them as long as they save some money.


----------



## JohnG

Actually, if you'll pardon my saying so, I think this oversimplifies.

You can't write the kind of music I write with Garageband, and experienced, informed directors can tell that. If all they want is loops 'n' hits, yes.


The biggest issue, for me, is work rules, because (absent a huge budget) with 3 days to get 40 minutes of music out, naturally the loops 'n' hits approach (or something equally expedient) is too tempting. This leads to more simplistic music and, before you know it, expectations are so low that directors start to think "a monkey could write this."

Directors in the DGA are required to get 10 weeks to edit a film. There is no minimum time designated for us to write the music. Not only that, but every time a director reads that Horner or Howard or Williams wrote a score in three weeks, he thinks that's the new standard.

One of Thomas Newman's soloists said he recorded for 14 weeks -- just him -- for Green Mile. All that tinkering led to a really unusual, interesting result, but it took months. Genuinely inventive music with unusual ideas takes a little more time than Garageband, because Garageband by definition merely serves up what's already out there.


----------



## midphase

I agree...the scores which I have worked on with the most relaxed deadlines are by far the ones which people have commented more favorably...while the other ones everyone thinks they suck (or so I'm told).


----------



## David Story

An elephant in the room here is music education. Why do producers and the public accept cheap music? Maybe because they rarely hear masterpieces of composing, just well produced songs. Arts education gives artists and the public a stronger relationship.
I love good songwriting and producing. But I ask for more, because I'm aware of other kinds of music. Producers deliver more if the public wants it.


----------



## midphase

I think (for the most parts) art schools have turned into assembly-line behemoths with outrageous tuition costs and hardly any acceptance standards...it's a shame and you can read all about it in the dozens of posts I have written about it.


----------



## midphase

Wait...actually...I guess David was referring to producers and directors actually being ignorant about music of more complexity than Lady GaGa...hmmmm...that's a good point. Most producers and directors that I know aren't really into classical music.


----------



## Guru007

JFB @ Wed Jan 13 said:


> So my questions is, and I'm being serious here...what do we composers have to do to distinguish ourselves in the minds of producers from the merely competent editor using Garageband?
Click to expand...


So how bad does a project (or the experience of making it) need to be that the producers are considering a Hack running Garageband to score their project? They probably think they've got a turd on their hands and believe music will not harm or save their film. Or they just want to be done with the whole thing as quickly and painlessly as possible. 
To me, one of the benefits of a union is it's role as a filter, weeding out some, if not a lot, of the dead weight projects that waste so much of our time. Let the noobs spin their wheels, and learning something in the process, and follow these dead ends and work on these stinkers.

guru007


----------



## theheresy

JohnG @ Wed Jan 13 said:


> Actually, if you'll pardon my saying so, I think this oversimplifies.
> 
> You can't write the kind of music I write with Garageband, and experienced, informed directors can tell that. If all they want is loops 'n' hits, yes.
> 
> 
> The biggest issue, for me, is work rules, because (absent a huge budget) with 3 days to get 40 minutes of music out, naturally the loops 'n' hits approach (or something equally expedient) is too tempting. This leads to more simplistic music and, before you know it, expectations are so low that directors start to think "a monkey could write this."
> 
> Directors in the DGA are required to get 10 weeks to edit a film. There is no minimum time designated for us to write the music. Not only that, but every time a director reads that Horner or Howard or Williams wrote a score in three weeks, he thinks that's the new standard.
> 
> One of Thomas Newman's soloists said he recorded for 14 weeks -- just him -- for Green Mile. All that tinkering led to a really unusual, interesting result, but it took months. Genuinely inventive music with unusual ideas takes a little more time than Garageband, because Garageband by definition merely serves up what's already out there.



Yup that's why so many people are happy with Zimmer's recent Sherlock Holmes score and say it's very different than his old stuff, if you read the interview at ain't it cool news with Zimmer he states he got a ridiculously long time like 7 months to do that score I believe and did a lot of improvisation and making his own instruments and sounds like tilting a piano on its side and abusing its strings with hammers, chopping a cello in half with a chainsaw, etc., all sorts of stuff. 

If directors/producers give someone 2-3 weeks then the most they can expect is the typical loops with symphobia flares/rips.


----------



## midphase

This just in fresh from the AMCL (I hope all Southern CA composers will consider attending this):

You are invited to attend an important event: an organizing meeting of the Association of Media Composers and Lyricists, hosted by Teamsters Local 399 on April 19, 2010 to be held at the Writers Guild Theater.

On November 16, 2009, an informational meeting was attended by 350 composers and lyricists, half of whom signed cards indicating they wished to be represented by Teamsters 399 in negotiating a collective bargaining agreement with production companies.

If you were there that evening, this will be an opportunity to hear about the considerable progress we've made since then, including the support we're receiving from other guilds. If you couldn't get to the November event, this will be a chance to learn firsthand about the possibilities for unionization, to ask questions, and to make your own voice heard.

We urge all composers and lyricists to attend.

Parking is available and is being paid by the Teamsters in the structure directly south of the Writers Guild Theater.

Please RSVP your attendance to [email protected]

When: Monday, April 19, 2010
Time: 7:30 pm
Where: Writers Guild Theater
135 S. Doheny Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90211


AMCL Organizing Committee
Bruce Broughton
Sean Callery
Alf Clausen
Ray Colcord
James DiPasquale
Richard Gibbs
Christopher Klatman
Vivek Maddala
Richard Marvin
Mike Post
Snuffy Walden


----------



## midphase

Reminder that tomorrow is the meeting. I would like for all local composers to please consider attending. The talks in progress have the potential of having a significant impact on your future and I think it's in everyone's best interest to attend and get information firsthand whether or not you ultimately want a union.

http://www.theamcl.org/


----------



## midphase

I was going to write a detailed report of what happened last night but Deane Ogden has already done so very well so I hope he won't mind me re-posting it here for your convenience:

Tuesday night, April 19, 2010, the Association of Media Composers and Lyricists' (AMCL) presented their second public meeting concerning the effort to unionize composers and lyricists under the umbrella of the Teamsters Local 399.

Held in Beverly Hills at the Writers Guild Theater, the official proceedings began with a welcome message from AMCL spokesman Bruce Broughton, who outlined that the new focus of the AMCL unionization effort would be to secure "benefits only" for composers and lyricists—a message quite different from November's initial meeting, where the committee announced that "wage minimums and working conditions" would also be included in the negotiations.



Speaking to SCOREcast just prior to the start of the meeting, Bruce Broughton told us, "I'm happy. This is a great turnout and we have a solid plan. I think we are ready now to really get something done. We finally know what we are doing."

A statement was presented by actor and Screen Actors Guild representative, James Cromwell, indicating SAG's commitment to support composer unionization. Writers Guild West executive director, David Young, also gave a statement from the WGA West in support of a composers union, vowing that "the WGA West will support you in every way we can".


In the lobby, a 3x4 panel was on display with the names of 250 composers, lyricists, actors, producers, and directors indicating support of the union effort. Names on the list included composers Hans Zimmer, John Ottman, Marco Beltrami, Carter Burwell, and Thomas Newman, producers Steven Bochco, Aaron Sorkin, and Dick Wolf, and director Edward Zwick.

Several letters of support were read throughout the evening, including one from director/producer Ron Howard.

The AMCL's recent move to fight for "benefits only" was indicated by many in attendance to be the tipping point for support, and the AMCL Organizing Committee stated several times that the their main focus would be to first protect "working" composers and lyricists in the film and television music industry.

From the dais, AMCL Organizing Committee member and composer Mike Post stated, "I will not be a part of a union that is lead by non-working people."

The second part of the meeting was opened up to members of the audience to ask questions and gain clarification on several key points raised by the AMCL Committee throughout the evening.

www.SCOREcastOnline.com


----------



## gsilbers

did you go? 


i missed it :( 


so the idea is to 1st get basic things like health and pension and then move to something else? 

i would of liked to ask what are we going to do with new media/internet thats taking soooo much money from us and content producers and going straight to silicon valley. 
royalties from streaming? mechanical from streaming? i dunno, something. 
now everyone in the worlld just thinks if its in the web it should be free. 
even musicians wanna give their stuff free for promotion... never ending promo?! wtf. 

seems we should get a union, and get a few lobbyists. 

we should get the union leader of DWP which made the dwp union get raises in the middle of the worst crises since the depression. DWP employees earn 30% more than the same job in other city employees. 
the dwp bill dont have to e clear.. they just get getting money, raising prices and
no one goes against them. now thats the union leader we need  
(dwp has more clout of course, we decide to strike and no one would really care, theyll hire composers from abroad.. no biggie :( )))

but 1st a union. which is hard w/o help from the big players which earn enough for their benefits. 



in another point, im starting to think this union thing is crap.. in theory yes, i like it.. 
but many movies and tv shows are always looking for non union labor. 
or get one guy in the union with a company filled with non unions for doing anything from production sound, sfx, to post and drivers.

they just get away with it easily. imo there should not be a single movie showed or tv show made unless its union. anything thats distribute by a "large" company no matter where or what, the workers should be union. this town is filled with small shops, competing for pennies while those big companies are filling their pockets. 
i thought with the advent of internet content proving would of given us more $$$ but as i said above, it goes to youtube, google etc. 
why cant i just sue the bejesus out of youtube for showing a video of someones cat using my music. its publishing my music w/o my permision. and universal for not doing anything to protect it (if they are the legal publishers )
grrr.. this shit makes me mad... just ranting away.. /\~O


----------



## Brian Ralston

gsilbers @ Tue Apr 20 said:


> so the idea is to 1st get basic things like health and pension and then move to something else?



Well...ummm.....not really. The general consensus (which is pretty accurate) is that having minimum payments, minimum fees, maximum hours worked, etc...are all non starters. It would not work. end of story. By focusing only on health and pension benefits...something that everyone in the industry but composers get, they feel it will be hard for the AMPTP to say no to that. Hard for them to say that every other group on a film deserves that but composers do not. Once they get recognized without having to get an NLRB decision, that will be a huge step. 

But as far as fees go, once you start demanding minimum fees and other things...the studios will not negotiate...will get their music elsewhere...and MANY of the composers who have now shown support will remove their support. It is a non starter for MANY people on both sides. So...while there are some (like Alf Clausen) on the baord who thing this is just a starting place. Get recognition and in future years, renegotiate for greater and greater terms...the majority of composers doing this feel that benefits are the only thing we should and will be asking for. The rest of a composers contract (conditions, hours worked, minimum fees) would all be subject to negotiation no different than they are now. 

And also know that membership would basically be Los Angeles based productions...possibly expand to New York and then other US based productions. These are the only areas where the Teamsters have jurisdiction to negotiate. Outside of that...they have little power. Inside of that...they have great power. There is also a barrier to membership that is not yet defined very well. The initiation fee is great. Over $1500. Then about $80 per month dues. You have to be a "working composer." i.e. steady work on a certain level of films. You could be doing 5 independent films a year...but if those films are not AMPTP represented companies that signed the Teamster agreement in Los Angeles, then your work would not count to make you eligible. And even if you do score a studio level film or independent film that does become a teamster signatory...just doing one or two a year would not make you eligible for benefits either. You would have to be working 300-400 or so hours per every 6 months to maintain enough hours for benefits. So...constant work, on a certain level of films or TV is all they will be doing right now. No library composers for now. No video games composers for now. No songwriters who happen to have one song that is written for a film, etc... Perhaps they will find a way to expand to those areas in future years to come...but certainly not at first. 



gsilbers @ Tue Apr 20 said:


> i would of liked to ask what are we going to do with new media/internet thats taking soooo much money from us and content producers and going straight to silicon valley.
> royalties from streaming? mechanical from streaming? i dunno, something.
> now everyone in the worlld just thinks if its in the web it should be free.
> even musicians wanna give their stuff free for promotion... never ending promo?! wtf.



This deals with intellectual property issues and is a sticky legal area for the union to get involved in. While there is some precedent with the WGA...in general...most unions are not dealing with members who create and maintain intellectual property. The royalty issues are really issues for BMI, ASCAP, SESAC lawyers (in the US)...and the other PROs around the world to hash out. They have a lot of work to do as well and that is out of the scope of this union movement at the moment.


----------



## gsilbers

Brian Ralston @ Tue Apr 20 said:


> gsilbers @ Tue Apr 20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the idea is to 1st get basic things like health and pension and then move to something else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well...ummm.....not really. The general consensus (which is pretty accurate) is that having minimum payments, minimum fees, maximum hours worked, etc...are all non starters. It would not work. end of story. By focusing only on health and pension benefits...something that everyone in the industry but composers get, they feel it will be hard for the AMPTP to say no to that. Hard for them to say that every other group on a film deserves that but composers do not. Once they get recognized without having to get an NLRB decision, that will be a huge step.
> 
> But as far as fees go, once you start demanding minimum fees and other things...the studios will not negotiate...will get their music elsewhere...and MANY of the composers who have now shown support will remove their support. It is a non starter for MANY people on both sides. So...while there are some (like Alf Clausen) on the baord who thing this is just a starting place. Get recognition and in future years, renegotiate for greater and greater terms...the majority of composers doing this feel that benefits are the only thing we should and will be asking for. The rest of a composers contract (conditions, hours worked, minimum fees) would all be subject to negotiation no different than they are now.
> 
> And also know that membership would basically be Los Angeles based productions...possibly expand to New York and then other US based productions. These are the only areas where the Teamsters have jurisdiction to negotiate. Outside of that...they have little power. Inside of that...they have great power. There is also a barrier to membership that is not yet defined very well. The initiation fee is great. Over $1500. Then about $80 per month dues. You have to be a "working composer." i.e. steady work on a certain level of films. You could be doing 5 independent films a year...but if those films are not AMPTP represented companies that signed the Teamster agreement in Los Angeles, then your work would not count to make you eligible. And even if you do score a studio level film or independent film that does become a teamster signatory...just doing one or two a year would not make you eligible for benefits either. You would have to be working 300-400 or so hours per every 6 months to maintain enough hours for benefits. So...constant work, on a certain level of films or TV is all they will be doing right now. No library composers for now. No video games composers for now. No songwriters who happen to have one song that is written for a film, etc... Perhaps they will find a way to expand to those areas in future years to come...but certainly not at first.
> 
> 
> 
> gsilbers @ Tue Apr 20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i would of liked to ask what are we going to do with new media/internet thats taking soooo much money from us and content producers and going straight to silicon valley.
> royalties from streaming? mechanical from streaming? i dunno, something.
> now everyone in the worlld just thinks if its in the web it should be free.
> even musicians wanna give their stuff free for promotion... never ending promo?! wtf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This deals with intellectual property issues and is a sticky legal area for the union to get involved in. While there is some precedent with the WGA...in general...most unions are not dealing with members who create and maintain intellectual property. The royalty issues are really issues for BMI, ASCAP, SESAC lawyers (in the US)...and the other PROs around the world to hash out. They have a lot of work to do as well and that is out of the scope of this union movement at the moment.
Click to expand...



wierd.. thats exactly what i said. get basic necessitates like health and pension. i never said anything about fees. and true, hard to say no on health benefits.. although with obamas plan, things would change dramaticallyt compared to a few years ago (and now) that there was no helpo from govmnt. )

but cool you went and know more about it. 

and the other topic. about the internet royalites, i know its up to lawyers and bigger groups and private companies but if we dont get together and push for it, they wont care.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard

I know for a fact most of the songwriters that get music placed in mainstream pop won't go for this. The problem I see is there will be minimum rates, but they will end up being the ONLY rates we get. No real negotiation will happen. That being said, I'm not based in LA so my opinion is not as valid at some people on this board. But I can see song writers and music producers saying hell no to this, because it may prevent the "lucky break" that some end up getting.

But like most said, this is a double edged sword.

Pro's:

Longer deadlines to actually deliver a good product
Minimum hours worked to avoid those slaving moments

Con's

Minimum wage may become the ONLY wage.
Most work, if not all would be work for hire unless otherwise negotiated
Studios will avoid it, therefore going to outside sources (which in this case would help me probably lol)

I don't make a living as a composer now, and never have. I've put myself out there (net) for 2 years. I realize I need to get to LA to do this, but I'm questioning that now and thinking more games. Anyway, union or not, some companies are unpaying because they can.

My understand through a contact (worked at Nightbird) that just moved FROM LA because he couldn't stand it anymore, is that you are only paid what they think you are worth (or by rep). I felt this during a particular project I worked on down there. So the question is, would a union fix this and not cause a new problem? It's hard to say from my point.



> i would of liked to ask what are we going to do with new media/internet thats taking soooo much money from us and content producers and going straight to silicon valley.



New media is usually no budget and often doesn't pay much. I compose for a variety of internet "shows" and it's small change compared to what you guys make in LA. I don't see them coming to the valley at all. New media composers aren't stealing much from you.

Also per your Youtube comment. Youtube allows people to report videos they find so they are removed. But yes...they still reap the advertising profit, which legally would be hard to deal with since it's not embedded into the film itself or your work.


----------



## gsilbers

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Tue Apr 20 said:


> I know for a fact most of the songwriters that get music placed in mainstream pop won't go for this. The problem I see is there will be minimum rates, but they will end up being the ONLY rates we get. No real negotiation will happen. That being said, I'm not based in LA so my opinion is not as valid at some people on this board. But I can see song writers and music producers saying hell no to this, because it may prevent the "lucky break" that some end up getting.
> 
> But like most said, this is a double edged sword.
> 
> Pro's:
> 
> Longer deadlines to actually deliver a good product
> Minimum hours worked to avoid those slaving moments
> 
> Con's
> 
> Minimum wage may become the ONLY wage.
> Most work, if not all would be work for hire unless otherwise negotiated
> Studios will avoid it, therefore going to outside sources (which in this case would help me probably lol)
> 
> I don't make a living as a composer now, and never have. I've put myself out there (net) for 2 years. I realize I need to get to LA to do this, but I'm questioning that now and thinking more games. Anyway, union or not, some companies are unpaying because they can.
> 
> My understand through a contact (worked at Nightbird) that just moved FROM LA because he couldn't stand it anymore, is that you are only paid what they think you are worth (or by rep). I felt this during a particular project I worked on down there. So the question is, would a union fix this and not cause a new problem? It's hard to say from my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i would of liked to ask what are we going to do with new media/internet thats taking soooo much money from us and content producers and going straight to silicon valley.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New media is usually no budget and often doesn't pay much. I compose for a variety of internet "shows" and it's small change compared to what you guys make in LA. I don't see them coming to the valley at all. New media composers aren't stealing much from you.
> 
> Also per your Youtube comment. Youtube allows people to report videos they find so they are removed. But yes...they still reap the advertising profit, which legally would be hard to deal with since it's not embedded into the film itself or your work.
Click to expand...



oh my bad.. i wasnt clear.. 

i used the term new media wrong. im talking about the new platform consumers are using to be entertained. be it via youtube videos, hulu, iphone apps that can download or stream content etc. 

for example, the webpages like youtube and hulu and content specific like comedy central. etc. 
everytime you refresh a youtube video a little add next to the video appears. they get some money for that and get more if u click on it. now, why are we getting a part of that? 

there has been a big discussion that two big tectonic plates are crashing into each other, one being old media like TV/radio etc and new media which is internet/mobil web etc. 
as consumers move to the new media and want ever more content, tech companies figured out already how to make money off of that. while we sit on the sidelines.

turns out from a producer that works for disney.. that disney loves to have the content up there, but they dont because they have to pay sag rights and other royalties. and from what i understand, music is not paying royalties or nothing if its on the web. please correct me if m wrong. 

sorry for the side track. although as a union, things like this could be more cohesive and composers wuld have a bigger say rather than the publishers/companies that 
are, at the same time owners of the same media platforms we are trying to get money from.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard

> i used the term new media wrong. im talking about the new platform consumers are using to be entertained. be it via youtube videos, hulu, iphone apps that can download or stream content etc.
> 
> for example, the webpages like youtube and hulu and content specific like comedy central. etc.
> everytime you refresh a youtube video a little add next to the video appears. they get some money for that and get more if u click on it. now, why are we getting a part of that?



Yeah, ASCAP and BMI don't track those yet that I know of. And the ad revenue is one of those legal things.


----------



## midphase

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Tue Apr 20 said:


> I know for a fact most of the songwriters that get music placed in mainstream pop won't go for this. The problem I see is there will be minimum rates, but they will end up being the ONLY rates we get. No real negotiation will happen. That being said, I'm not based in LA so my opinion is not as valid at some people on this board. But I can see song writers and music producers saying hell no to this, because it may prevent the "lucky break" that some end up getting.



I'm not sure I understand. First of all, the union will not establish any rates or miimums...all they're trying to get is basic health insurance and pension funds for their members...that is all.

Secondly, songwriters who mainly do song placements in TV and film are not really who this is for. They're not really invited to the party unless they happen to write a song specifically for a movie, like a Disney film for example.

Regardless, I don't see how anyone could possibly oppose this new direction of the union, I mean everybody else who works on a film has the option for health and pension benefits...why shouldn't composers have the same access like 99% of the other positions on a film?

The added cost on a film to use a union composer will probably be around $1500/movie. It's inconsequential to the production and I find it hard to believe that it would cause runaway productions.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard

> I'm not sure I understand. First of all, the union will not establish any rates or miimums...all they're trying to get is basic health insurance and pension funds for their members...that is all.



Yes, but I believe that's a starting point.


----------



## midphase

Sure, but everything else is speculative at this point. I think it's most important for everyone to get behind the idea of composers having a union first and foremost. We can figure out the details later on, but for right now we have to focus on the here and now.

Assuming that the MPAA and the USDL approve of the union by the end of this year (a bit optimistically), and assuming that the first agreement with the studio is a 3-year agreement, we're almost 4 years away from someone even attempting to bring to the table some of the other issues such as minimums, deadlines, and residuals. 

My guess is that the first order of business after establishing the union will be to bring advertising composers and videogame composers to the table. That will probably take another couple of years right there. 

Either way, the choice is simple...with a union we have a chance that things might get better, without a union we don't.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard

I found this to be interesting:

"The Writers Guild of America (WGA) Executive Committee has unanimously approved a series of actions endorsing the fledgling AMCL composers union and designed to address working conditions for composers in the area of free/spec music requested by producers as part of a “spec-off” or “bake-off” competition among finalists for a scoring job."

Source: http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=5346


----------



## Mike Greene

midphase @ Tue Apr 20 said:


> Either way, the choice is simple...with a union we have a chance that things might get better, without a union we don't.


I think that's the bottom line right there.

Whether I wind up being eligible or not (I'm not sure my credits would qualify,) I hope this works out because unions usually wind up being good even for non-members. As an example, non-union singers in Nashville (a non-union town) make a about a third of what non-union singers in Los Angeles make, because SAG and AFTRA create a general "Here's what singers should be paid" sort of environment.

Yes, unions can be exclusionary, but by doing so, they manage to keep wages for the "professionals" high, which still winds up being good for the perpetual outsiders.

Regarding "Work for Hire," our contracts already say that. Then they insert an extra clause saying we still get our PRO money. The guys handling this aren't stupid, especially since many names on that list have vocally fought for keeping PROs strong, so I don't think any of that will change.


----------



## gsilbers

Mike Greene @ Wed Apr 21 said:


> midphase @ Tue Apr 20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either way, the choice is simple...with a union we have a chance that things might get better, without a union we don't.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's the bottom line right there.
> 
> Whether I wind up being eligible or not (I'm not sure my credits would qualify,) I hope this works out because unions usually wind up being good even for non-members. As an example, non-union singers in Nashville (a non-union town) make a about a third of what non-union singers in Los Angeles make, because SAG and AFTRA create a general "Here's what singers should be paid" sort of environment.
> 
> Yes, unions can be exclusionary, but by doing so, they manage to keep wages for the "professionals" high, which still winds up being good for the perpetual outsiders.
> 
> Regarding "Work for Hire," our contracts already say that. Then they insert an extra clause saying we still get our PRO money. The guys handling this aren't stupid, especially since many names on that list have vocally fought for keeping PROs strong, so I don't think any of that will change.
Click to expand...



its something i mentioned earlier. here in LA there seems to be very easy not to do union or bend the rules by hiring one guy that is union and his company is not. 
yes , the big movies are union but low , meduim budget as well as tv get away with it, which should what we are aiming for right? if u are a composer for a big budget film, u dont need a union u need a money manager  

but thats a general union thing. for all unions related to movies/tv. 
still, having a composers union will help. at least in establishing it a lot could get done.


----------



## midphase

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Wed Apr 21 said:


> I found this to be interesting:
> 
> "The Writers Guild of America (WGA) Executive Committee has unanimously approved a series of actions endorsing the fledgling AMCL composers union and designed to address working conditions for composers in the area of free/spec music requested by producers as part of a “spec-off” or “bake-off” competition among finalists for a scoring job."
> 
> Source: http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=5346



Nathan,

Thank you for bringing this up. It was explained at the meeting on Monday that that particular letter was a "draft" written several months ago which should have never gone out and is now outdated and inconsequential to the current focus. In short, there are no plans for the composers union to address the free/spec music demo issue at this time. The single and only plan which was repeated over and over on Monday was health and pension, that's it for the foreseeable future.


----------



## careyford

I have really mixed feelings about unionization. Living in Texas, a "Right to Work" state and being a film producer as well as a composer I've just had a deluxe introduction to how Unions work. Our film which is low budget was flipped. In Texas, we're allowed to be non-Union but the Unions still have the right to organize. IATSE, which covers everything from camera to art department to editorial, is now targeting every film in every Right to Work state that has a budget of over $1M and some below that. 

The Union contract in our case has added almost $200,000 in expenses to the project. Some of that has gone directly to the employees but the majority of it goes into a Pension & Health fund. One of the areas impacted by a dramatic increase in the cost of principle photography is, you guessed it, in the music budget. The music budget has dropped. 

Many of the employees who are now suddenly union were very inexperienced when they started and brought on to gain experience. They're now union members but will be very low on the totem pole and will be expensive for their skill level. The next film that looks at them will have much more experienced crew to choose from on the Union list. 

Union crews offer a lot of benefits. Savvy producers won't just go non-union to save money because it is really a false economy. While composers don't impact the bottom-line in quite the same way as a slow, inexperienced make-up artist, good producers and directors that know when something has been done well versus shoddy work will hold their nose and pay more if there is a minimum established. 

All that being said, there are barriers to entry with Unions but I see them rethinking these some just as the PROs did in the 90's. 

Last, the Unions negotiate for their members. I spent 10+ hours over a night negotiating with 3 reps who clearly had training and experience. Maybe it's not as good as a really good agent but it is something for the rank and file. 

We've been shooting overnights for the last couple days so I hope this made sense. 

Richard


----------



## careyford

A few final thoughts, if the Teamsters negotiate with the studios, it will impact productions in other states. I'm on a Teamster contract in Texas. If you don't think Indie films have reason to sign the Teamster agreement you haven't gotten "The Call." 

Having said that, IATSE might be a better fit for composers outside of LA and NYC. My film has 4 Teamsters on and 47 IATSE members. 

Richard


----------



## Mr. Anxiety

New meeting coming up soon, see the website for info.

AMCL


----------



## Andrew Aversa

So what is the status of this union anyway? Has the AMCL... done anything yet? Can people join, and if so, is there a membership fee (yet)? What about video game / library composers?


----------



## midphase

Just to give a quick update on last night's AMCL's meeting last night:

Things are moving forward, more people have come to publicly support the AMCL's mission such as Ron Howard which will undoubtedly help when the time comes to raise the industry's awareness.

The main focus still remains Health and Retirement benefits, the point was hammered in several times, and despite everyone's demands for more comprehensive benefits, the AMCL feels strongly that the current path is the best one for now.

The AMCL showed a short video of interviews with Casting Directors who not too long ago were in our exact same shoes. They reminded everyone that the process is difficult and took them the better part of 5 years with challenges every step of the way...but also reminded everyone with the importance of obtaining good health care and secure some form of retirement.

Mike Post, Bruce Broughton, Danny Lux and others spoke up in favor of the current plans and are committed to supporting the effort.

Really cool Teamsters pens were given out!!!


All in all this might seem like a boring update, but steps are being taken to advance the cause and there is a good feeling that in a couple of years the AMCL will be recognized as a real union.


There is still a lot of groundwork to be done, primarily among composers. For the AMCL to have a fair fighting chance, there must be a consensus among the majority of Los Angeles composers to walk out of their jobs and go on strike if necessary in order to be recognized. While everyone stressed that that would be the absolute worst case scenario...it is important that everyone be on board with the possibility since otherwise it would be an empty threat and the studios would call the bluff.


I think that's it for now...next meeting will be in March, but anyone interested please keep checking back at the web site:

http://theamcl-399.org/


and please befriend the FB official group:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Assoc ... 6254127207



Now on a personal note:


There is still a lot of suspicion, skepticism, and lack of support. Brian Ralston and myself were the only two from this forum who live in LA to attend. I find this to be depressing since I know that many LA composers who frequent this forum stand to benefit from gaining more information about what is happening. I see a lot of indifference towards the AMCL coming from both young and old. 

I think our short sightedness and isolationism is what has brought us to this place, and believe me, it's not a good place. There is a very real opportunity to impact things for the better for our industry, and despite the limited goals (right now) for this to begin a change for the betterment of our working conditions regardless of our personal niches (studio work, indie, video games, TV, adverts, etc). Once the first steps are taken, it will become considerably easier for the rest to point to the AMCL and ask for the same. 

Please consider putting in the effort to spread the word, talk to your directors and producers, and simply raise awareness that this ball is indeed in motion....this is no time for apathy and indifference!


----------



## David Story

I was there, and will treat you both to coffee so we can meet! PM me, I'll be wearing my new pin.

The take-home lesson for me was building trust amongst composers. The doc on casting directors related a long period of building a sense of community in a previously loner field. Then they had the guts to stand up to the studios, and win the benefits other entertainment pros have enjoyed for decades.

I feel composers could have fun meeting in more casual settings. What say you?


----------



## midphase

HA! It would have been so much easier to spot you had you been wearing your VI-Control t-shirt like the rest of us!


----------



## midphase

In case anyone missed the news today:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118040305?refCatId=16


----------



## lux

its not surprising. Attitude to unionization is not what i expect from composers.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

midphase @ Fri Jul 22 said:


> In case anyone missed the news today:
> 
> http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118040305?refCatId=16



Sad but not surprising. people very rarely agree to pay more for what they are used to paying less for.


----------



## rgames

Interesting - if nothing else I think the coordinated stand shows that composers mean business, so hopefully it will start to shift some attitudes.

However, I still feel like nothing significant will change as long as there are so many folks willing to work for peanuts.

rgames


----------



## mverta

People aren't going to pay for something they don't value.

_Mike


----------



## David Story

Promote our values. Like what Mike Verta, John Williams, Eric Whitacre, Tommy Tallarico are doing, to name a few. 

Friends don't let friends work for peanuts.

Agree 5% of the budget goes to music.


----------



## midphase

Exclusive Audio Interview: Bruce Broughton of the AMCL Talks About What Happened With the Teamsters and the Future of Composer Unionization


Film Music Magazine presents an exclusive audio interview featuring composer Bruce Broughton, chairperson of the Association of Media Composers and Lyricists, talking with Film Music Magazine publisher Mark Northam about what happened with composer unionization and the Teamsters, why the current unionization effort with the Teamsters was abandoned, and much more.

The interview is presented in 3 parts, each approximately 30 minutes in length, and explores a wide range of current industry issues including:

Unionization with the Teamsters – what happened, and whose actions actually ended the current unionization drive

the involvement of agents in the composer unionization process and what agents were and were not pushing for

the issue of including library and game composers in the AMCL

whether the AMCL could have a role in fighting for better composer royalties from ASCAP and BMI

whether ASCAP and BMI royalties could become negotiable under a union contract for composing
the possibility of composers affiliating with the AFM musicians union

composers hiring non-union musicians if they were affiliated with a union

unionization issues about composers hiring other composers, including ghostwriting

and much more

http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=8353


----------



## charlieclouser

rgames @ Sat Jul 23 said:


> Interesting - if nothing else I think the coordinated stand shows that composers mean business, so hopefully it will start to shift some attitudes.
> 
> However, I still feel like nothing significant will change as long as there are so many folks willing to work for peanuts.
> 
> rgames



One thing about music and composers is that it's nearly impossible to equate X results with Y hours spent - it's not like set builders or makeup artists or something, where you can easily say, "It will take a crew of ten people five days to build this set" or "we'll need six makeup artists to spend two hours to prep the cast for shooting". That makes our position that much harder to negotiate, as there's always going to be the nagging suspicion on the part of the execs that there's someone out there who can get results in less time with less gear and less expense.


----------



## Guy Bacos

+1


----------



## David Story

charlieclouser @ Wed Aug 17 said:


> there's always going to be the nagging suspicion on the part of the execs that there's someone out there who can get results in less time with less gear and less expense.



True. Writers, directors and editors face the same. Yet they have guilds...somehow.


----------



## charlieclouser

David Story @ Thu Aug 18 said:


> charlieclouser @ Wed Aug 17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> there's always going to be the nagging suspicion on the part of the execs that there's someone out there who can get results in less time with less gear and less expense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. Writers, directors and editors face the same. Yet they have guilds...somehow.
Click to expand...


Good point. It's probably been discussed already, but does the fact that composers are split about equally between BMI and ASCAP an issue? Like, if BMI and ASCAP suddenly merged into one entity, would that provide the leverage needed? Like, "sorry, when we're on strike you'll only be able to get non-BMIASCAP composers, which equals nobody, since if you're not BMIASCAP you can't get paid, and what composer would be outside that loop?"

Not that they would or could merge, but is that weird dichotomy unique to composers and does it contribute to the problem?


----------



## David Story

charlieclouser @ Fri Aug 19 said:


> David Story @ Thu Aug 18 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charlieclouser @ Wed Aug 17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> there's always going to be the nagging suspicion on the part of the execs that there's someone out there who can get results in less time with less gear and less expense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. Writers, directors and editors face the same. Yet they have guilds...somehow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good point. It's probably been discussed already, but does the fact that composers are split about equally between BMI and ASCAP an issue? Like, if BMI and ASCAP suddenly merged into one entity, would that provide the leverage needed? Like, "sorry, when we're on strike you'll only be able to get non-BMIASCAP composers, which equals nobody, since if you're not BMIASCAP you can't get paid, and what composer would be outside that loop?"
> 
> Not that they would or could merge, but is that weird dichotomy unique to composers and does it contribute to the problem?
Click to expand...


That's a good point, it kinda reminds me of SAG/AFTRA. That hasn't helped the actor's cause and they're working on a merger now.

I really think it's composers who can't see helping rivals. To have a guild, you must respect your colleagues even if you disagree. That's why there is ASCAP/BMI. Those composers/songwriters joined together to demand fair payment and won. The big songwriters joined early. And we have the same spirit of cooperation today - I wish.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

A friend of mine thinks *everyone* should be in the composers' union - meaning amateurs and everyone else.

That would solve the problem.


----------



## rgames

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Aug 19 said:


> A friend of mine thinks *everyone* should be in the composers' union - meaning amateurs and everyone else.
> 
> That would solve the problem.



Seems like it wouldn't matter, though. I'm not sure about the enteratinment industry but in a lot of other industries if you work in a union shop, everyone gets the union-negotiated benefits, right?

So the fact that there is a union with *some* members is all that matters. The company/production then chooses whether or not they want to be a union shop.

I think I like the ASCAP/BMI approach - hadn't thought about it before but it seems like a good idea. Has that ever been floated around the industry?

Honestly, though, I still think the focus needs to be on the composers. Also, my impression is that the percentage of "composers" doing music for film/TV is ever-decreasing. Most opportunities that I see are pop-driven, so productions are relying on bands who see them as a source of publicity for album sales, not revenue.

rgames


----------



## midphase

You guys should really listen to the audio interview, it's quite full of good info.

ASCAP/BMI don't impact the union efforts at all. What impacts unionization most is that generally composers are a bunch of wimps who will bend to the will of their employers or even agents without ever risking the chance to ask for fair treatment. Unfortunately even the big names seem to be extremely scared of rocking the boat too much....honestly I don't understand why, but I can't pretend to understand what goes through the mind of a multi-millionaire.

I think the Teamsters sensed this reluctance to play hardball and bowed out of the dealings....can't say I really blame them, they must look at us as a bunch of morons.

It also doesn't help that many states are taking very strong anti-union actions recently, and the tea party nutzos aren't helping either.

If writers have a union, then composers should too. Writers work exactly in the same manner as composers (in isolation, on their own schedule, sometimes fast, sometimes slow).

I disagree with Richard on many things, but he's totally right when he says that it ultimately comes down to us individually. It's not enough for a professional composer to walk away from a badly paying job, it also requires that the next guy, and the guy after him will also pass on the gig. Unfortunately, for every composer who tells the producers "no" there's always some poor schmuck who thinks that slave labor is all part of "paying the dues" and that somehow this will help them get their foot in the door. What he doesn't realize is that by the time he's ready to ask for more money, another newbee will come right after him and work for next to nothing all over.


I'll refer back to Mike Verta's very pointed and excellent podcast on how things really function in this business and how to self value:

http://www.mikeverta.com/Posts/Getting_Paid.mp3


----------



## rgames

midphase @ Fri Aug 19 said:


> ASCAP/BMI don't impact the union efforts at all.


But the PRO's could effectively become a type of union - as Charlie was saying, if you want to hire an ASCAP/BMI composer then you'll have to agree to some type of minimum compensation.

If the production wants to hire someone else, they get locked out of the ASCAP/BMI venues. Of course that won't have an impact on theatrical releases but it will sure cover a lot of other work.

In fact, now that I think about it, that's more powerful than a traditional union: all a union can do is force you to hire someone else; an ASCAP/BMI coalition would lock the production out of a lot of revenue-generating streams.

I'm thinking off the top of my head here but I think there might be something there...

rgames


----------



## midphase

ASCAP/BMI have no intention whatsoever of doing such a thing. They view themselves as an independent entity responsible for collection and distribution of performance royalties and nothing more. They have no interest whatsoever in becoming any sort of composer/songwriter advocate.

ASCAP/BMI are so unwilling to step into the arena of rectifying composer rights that they even refuse to withdraw Writer's Share payments from known non-writers (and of course will pay out Publisher's share to known non-publishers).

Also keep in mind that ASCAP/BMI's primary source of revenue is from public venues such as restaurants and bars, and that is mainly focused on radio songs and not film compositions.

If for some reason ASCAP/BMI refused to grand studios the rights to their composers, all that it would accomplish is keep the studios from collecting their publisher's share of royalties...not a huge deal in the face of massive box office sales and DVD/Blu Ray sales (both of which have no impact on PRO's).

In a few words, ASCAP/BMI/Sesac have no leverage, nothing to really bargain with. In addition, they risk completely disappearing in a few years if they can't win some landmark cases -- as traditional ways of broadcasting are going the way of the dodo, look for the new "broadcasters" to challenge the PRO's hold on royalty collection.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Watermarks and micropayments every time IP is transmitted over the internet, funded by a tax on internet service.

Are there any better ideas for saving IP - and I mean everything that can be expressed as 1s and 0s, not just music?


----------



## Brian Ralston

We discuss this on one of our next scorecast podcasts which Deane and I just recorded. Basically it came down to 2 paths to unionization. ONLY these two options are viable.

1. Voluntary recognition from the AMPTP that composers are a union. 

2. A protracted fight that goes to the National Labor Relations board
 
The AMPTP is the only group that matters here because an agreement with them is who the entertainment industry negotiates with. Which also explains why game composers and library composers were not affected. Because the AMPTP has no jurisdiction in those industries. 

The AMPTP told the Teamsters that the NLRB's 1980's legal decision that composers are independent contractors and not employees has not changed in their opinion and that they would NEVER voluntarily recognize composers as a union. Precedent has been set. 

So...the ONLY other path is #2, a fight that would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and probably 5+ years or even more going through a chain of legal entities from the local level all the way to the NLRB to get the 1980's decision reversed. The Teamsters did not see that fight ending well. And in the current political and economic environments combined with the Teamster's own internal problems and issues...no one wanted to begin that fight which has a good chance of ending badly anyway. So...the Teamsters told the AMCL they were going to stop trying. The AMCL is left with nothing to do and no where else to go at the moment. 

End of story. 

The 1980's decision will have a lasting impact on composers and is significant here. 

In my opinion...the only way to fight it is to go about it in other ways that have nothing to do with a union. 

1. Explore ways for composers to earn things like health benefits and pension/retirement from private investments outside of a union structure, which the AMCL is now exploring. Could composers form a group that gives us power to negotiate something that we all "pay into" and has nothing to do with the studios. Effectively a group rate on insurance or stake in a large investment portfolio for retirement benefits, etc...

2. Focus lobbying efforts on changing intellectual property law regarding ownership of creative material. Similar to other countries in the EU...make it illegal for a composer (or any creative individual)...to sign over ownership of their creations to an entity. If the work-for-hire agreements were not applicable for the music we write (because we are defined as independent contractors and not employees)...then all composers would have a lot more negotiating power over the music we are asked to write, because we would own the music by law and everything would have to be a license agreement, and it would in effect change how studios have to deal with composers. This would also solidify the independent contractor status they so strongly argue we possess. So...turn it around on them and take that to its end conclusion. 

Some of this in my opinion is also related to the termination rights issue in the 1976 copyright law that will soon be tested. Some court cases coming up will have some serious impact on our ownership of the music we create and our ability to claim it back after a period of time. We also discuss this in detail in our upcoming podcast.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/16/a....html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Of the top of my head...those would be the first two places to start exploring to strengthen composer's leverage in the industry and they have nothing to do with unionization.


----------



## P.T.

It's fairly difficult for a society to enforce labor standards and make unions work in a world where jobs can easily be outsourced to foreign countries.

The idea of a union shop doesn't really apply here because composers are not employees hired into a shop, they are independent contractors that only work on individual projects and then are gone.

You would need a large organization that was willing to employ thuggery in order to impose the union's will on the people that hire composers and to scare off composers who are willing to work for less or for free.

While Globalism is usually put in terms that make it sound reasonable and enlightened and presented as a net good for people, it is really about eliminating unions and workers rights, reducing the costs and raising the profits of corporations and reducing workers in the 1st world to the status of the workers in the larger 3rd world and poor countries.

That is what you are facing.

Aren't they offshoring some composing to China these days?


----------



## midphase

P.T. @ Sat Aug 20 said:


> Aren't they offshoring some composing to China these days?



No "they" are not.


----------



## David Story

I like Brian's idea of a group health and retirement plan. One that pros and pro-ams can join, like Nick mentioned.

It was Charles Ives who invented the group insurance plan. It's still a great idea!


----------



## EastWest Lurker

P.T. @ Sat Aug 20 said:


> The idea of a union shop doesn't really apply here because composers are not employees hired into a shop, they are independent contractors that only work on individual projects and then are gone.



The idea that composers are "independent contractors" is only because they decided so years ago and have successfully fought it off. There was a time when there WAS a composer's guild.

Writers, directors, musicians, camera men, etc. ALL more often than not "only work on individual projects and then are gone."

It is has and has always been nothing more than bullying paying off by and for the producers.


----------



## rgames

I wonder if it helps to draw parallels to the musician's union: I think most musicians who make their living as performers generally do better than scale, right? Plus, when I looked at it a while back, health insurance was really pricey through the union and could be had for better prices elsewhere. Plus, outside of major centers like LA and NY, a large percentage of musicians are not union members, right? So I don't think that the union is the panacea that some think it is. Better, maybe, but it might still be far from ideal.

Regarding Brian's point #2 above, I don't know that we should focus our efforts on ownership. If internet royalties continue to be non-existent but internet distribution eventually crowds out broadcast and cable then I don't see the value in ownership. If we fight for ownership but the laws say that ownership generates no royalties, then what have we really accomplished?

Honestly, I could see a future where there are no PRO's and composers set up deals where the up-front payment covers everything. In essence, everything becomes a buyout (after all, this is how most major productions work, right?). I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, so long as composers have some self-worth and don't put each other out of business by working for next-to-nothing.

rgames


----------



## Brian Ralston

rgames @ Sat Aug 20 said:


> Regarding Brian's point #2 above, I don't know that we should focus our efforts on ownership. If internet royalties continue to be non-existent but internet distribution eventually crowds out broadcast and cable then I don't see the value in ownership. If we fight for ownership but the laws say that ownership generates no royalties, then what have we really accomplished?



We don't have to fight for ownership really. We already own it. We just sign it away in work for hire agreements. According to copyright law (that will soon be tested in court no doubt)...we can reclaim those ownership rights after 35 years. 

The fight would be to make it illegal to sign it away. The creator is the creator. End of story. Ownership generates incredible royalties. Not only performance royalties that are established...but that is where mechanicals start coming into play. Then studios, production companies, record companies would have licensing everything from the content creators themselves. And those who own the content...hold all the cards in my opinion. 

Just food for thought. It is closer than some might think. It will be interesting to see how the above linked cases turn out.


----------



## P.T.

Brian Ralston @ Sat Aug 20 said:


> rgames @ Sat Aug 20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding Brian's point #2 above, I don't know that we should focus our efforts on ownership. If internet royalties continue to be non-existent but internet distribution eventually crowds out broadcast and cable then I don't see the value in ownership. If we fight for ownership but the laws say that ownership generates no royalties, then what have we really accomplished?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have to fight for ownership really. We already own it. We just sign it away in work for hire agreements. According to copyright law (that will soon be tested in court no doubt)...we can reclaim those ownership rights after 35 years.
> 
> The fight would be to make it illegal to sign it away. The creator is the creator. End of story. Ownership generates incredible royalties. Not only performance royalties that are established...but that is where mechanicals start coming into play. Then studios, production companies, record companies would have licensing everything from the content creators themselves. And those who own the content...hold all the cards in my opinion.
> 
> Just food for thought. It is closer than some might think. It will be interesting to see how the above linked cases turn out.
Click to expand...


I think this would have to be included in any contract between you and the person who hired you to write the music.

Usually, if you are working for someone you don't own your work.
If an engineer designs/invents something at IBM or GM the company owns it, not the designer/inventor.

If you write music on your own and then some wants to use it, then it belongs to you unless you sell the rights.


----------



## Brian Ralston

P.T. @ Sat Aug 20 said:


> I think this would have to be included in any contract between you and the person who hired you to write the music.
> 
> Usually, if you are working for someone you don't own your work.
> If an engineer designs/invents something at IBM or GM the company owns it, not the designer/inventor.
> 
> If you write music on your own and then some wants to use it, then it belongs to you unless you sell the rights.



Did you not read the article I linked above? There is a little known provision in the 1976 copyright law that is just now starting to rear its head. The provision will allow songwriters to terminate the copyright ownership they signed away to their record labels after a period of 35 years. And thus...reclaim ownership. We are just now approaching the first test of that 35 year period. Of course the record labels are fighting it. But so are the songwriters...from Bruce Springstein, to Elton John, to the Village People, to Bob Dylan, etc...etc...

The results of this copyright provision for creative content creators will be tested in court and WILL have implications on the content composers write and sign away as well. Especially when we pay for the production of the tracks. Which most composers do out of their all encompassing "package deals" the studios like to do now days. And songwriters do too...because the record labels give them an advance of their own royalties...and then reimburse themselves out of the writer's royalties. Thus the songwriters in this case paid for master tracks from their own money essentially.


----------



## David Story

I include myself in the following:

Composers sign work for hire contracts - bad judgement
Composers assume package deals - worse judgement
Composers brought in sampler orchestras - what were you thinking!
(Actually, I know, cause I asked the guys. It never occurred to them that cool sounding samples would be seen as a way to slash their budget.)

A history of giving away the store to make a few bucks.

Short term benefit - long term unsustainable. 

Every time our working conditions worsen, it's because we don't stand together or show long term vision.

Let's say the songwriters prevail, and rights do revert. Will we stop signing work for hire?
Will we use the extra money to hire performers?
Is the pressure to "take it or leave it" and get ahead at any cost going to go away?

Bruce is a heroic idealist to fight for our rights so long and well.

When you see composers making the case for producers, failing to show solidarity, you wonder: Why?

A few hundred k to win hundreds of millions in existing profits, and no one wants to pay. "Too risky".

The teamsters called us "spineless and selfish", but not in public. That's cause they thought we might join them, and therefore showed us respect in public.

It's true, if we all held out for higher fees the money would be there. But producers know that composers won't do that.

Until now.


----------



## rgames

Brian Ralston @ Sat Aug 20 said:


> Ownership generates incredible royalties. Not only performance royalties that are established...but that is where mechanicals start coming into play.


That's the part I'm not sure about: right now, anything delivered over the internet generates no royalties. So it doesn't matter who owns it, nobody gets paid a royalty. So even if you do own the rights, you don't get paid if the distribution is via the internet (other than shares in per-sale license fees).

So the question then becomes one of magnitude: traditional distro channels vs. the internet. In my estimation, mechanicals, broadcast, and cable distribution will mostly disappear over the next 10 years or so: it'll all happen over the internet.

So, in my mind, everything is moving towards internet distribution (TV, film, music, etc). And since internet distribution produces no royalties, why does it matter if you have the rights to the royalties?

rgames


----------



## Brian Ralston

rgames @ Sat Aug 20 said:


> Brian Ralston @ Sat Aug 20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ownership generates incredible royalties. Not only performance royalties that are established...but that is where mechanicals start coming into play.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the part I'm not sure about: right now, anything delivered over the internet generates no royalties. So it doesn't matter who owns it, nobody gets paid a royalty. So even if you do own the rights, you don't get paid if the distribution is via the internet (other than shares in per-sale license fees).
> 
> So the question then becomes one of magnitude: traditional distro channels vs. the internet. In my estimation, mechanicals, broadcast, and cable distribution will mostly disappear over the next 10 years or so: it'll all happen over the internet.
> 
> So, in my mind, everything is moving towards internet distribution (TV, film, music, etc). And since internet distribution produces no royalties, why does it matter if you have the rights to the royalties?
> rgames
Click to expand...


Richard, you are blending together and confusing performance royalties with mechanical royalties per unit sold...or distributed, etc...

One is a product of a public performance over public airwaves that ASCAP and BMI and other collect...which as you pointed out, internet distribution is for the most part not considered a public performance. It is considered a private one-to-one performance. 

And the other is a product of a licensing agreement that would have to be negotiated between the owner of the material (who has all the power here) and the distributor of the material.

And I am not talking about rights to royalties. I am talking about complete ownership of said material. Thus the right to dictate its use. Period. End of story. Which also means making all of the money in said royalites. 

This is a long time away...but the law is written in that direction now...with a 35 year grace period to reclaim rights. Time (and the courts)...will decide.


----------



## rgames

Brian Ralston @ Sat Aug 20 said:


> Richard, you are blending together and confusing performance royalties with mechanical royalties per unit sold...or distributed, etc...


I don't think I am - I fully understand the difference.

The part I'm confused on is where you said "Ownership generates huge royalties." As we move to an internet-based model, I think that statement becomes false, or at least loses its meaning. Here's why:

When you sign on for a gig, the rights granted to the client are spelled out in the contract (including the mechanical use rights), so he can't take your music and do anything other than the uses you have granted. Likewise, if it's an exclusive deal or not, that will also be spelled out in the contract, so your rights to future use are also clearly spelled out. After the fees are agreed upon (again, including mechanicals, per-download, or the equivalent) and the ink dries on the signature lines, everyone is locked in and who "owns" the music no longer matters because there are no other revenue streams to argue about (again, assuming the internet model becomes the dominant model).

Does that make sense? If so, what am I missing in that understanding? Because if that's correct, then, again, I don't see why we would care who "owns" the music after the contract is signed. It matters in the current system because there are additional revenue streams via performance royalties. But if those don't exist, and it's an exclusive deal, then I'm not sure why you care who owns the music after the contract is signed - you can't do anything with it, so what value is the ownership?

rgames


----------



## Brian Ralston

rgames @ Sun Aug 21 said:


> But if those don't exist, and it's an exclusive deal, then I'm not sure why you care who owns the music after the contract is signed - you can't do anything with it, so what value is the ownership?
> 
> rgames



You really do not understand the value in owning the copyright on intellectual property and how that has an enormous amount of value from now and through the future? 

If ownership of the copyright did not matter...the record companies and studios would not care to negotiate (or in some cases take) it from us upon its creation.

Owning it is everything. Songwriter Victor Willis makes about $30k-$40k per year due to his writer credit on Y.M.C.A and other Village People songs. That would triple or quadruple if he re-gained the rights to his compositions and recordings.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

rgames @ Sat Aug 20 said:


> 1. I wonder if it helps to draw parallels to the musician's union: I think most musicians who make their living as performers generally do better than scale, right? Plus, when I looked at it a while back, health insurance was really pricey through the union and could be had for better prices elsewhere. Plus, outside of major centers like LA and NY, a large percentage of musicians are not union members, right? So I don't think that the union is the panacea that some think it is. Better, maybe, but it might still be far from ideal.
> 
> 
> 2. Honestly, I could see a future where there are no PRO's and composers set up deals where the up-front payment covers everything. In essence, everything becomes a buyout (after all, this is how most major productions work, right?). I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, so long as composers have some self-worth and don't put each other out of business by working for next-to-nothing.
> 
> rgames



That is indeed what the Musician's Union HAS degenerated to, but it was not that way in 1972 when I moved to LA. But it is still better than nothing. And the DGA is still pretty good because producers respect directors more than composers because directors respect themselves more than composers do. and you cannot get a director out of a sample library.

2. That is already becoming the reality and the result IS a bad thing because composers DO "put each other out of business by working for next-to-nothing." And because the work is being sone by a lower percentage of "Pros" the quality has gone steadily downhill. All the non-ptros can convince themselves that as long as they buy the right libraries and learn to automate CCs that they are good, and a lot of clients will hire them because they either don't know better or don't care but at the ned of the day even wearing great lipstick, a pig is still a pig.


----------



## rgames

Brian Ralston @ Sun Aug 21 said:


> Songwriter Victor Willis makes about $30k-$40k per year due to his writer credit on Y.M.C.A and other Village People songs. That would triple or quadruple if he re-gained the rights to his compositions and recordings.



Yeah - of course I get that. But other than per-sale revenues, what would be the difference in his earnings from internet-based distribution? Zero, right?

Let's look at the potential revenues under the internet model (again, ignoring per-sale revenues that are negotiated up front):

He owns partial writer share: $0
He owns full writer share: $0
He owns full publisher share: $0
He owns full writer and full publisher share: $0
He owns nothing: $0

Again, of course the value exists under the current system. But if everything shifts to the internet, then ownership seems to lose its value (and, in fact, its meaning). I'm not debating value under the current system - I'm debating value under the future system.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I just don't understand how he's going to earn more if he keeps ownership - in fact, I don't even know what ownership means under the internet model.

Under the internet model, what does ownership mean and how does ownership increase his revenues?

rgames


----------



## wst3

caveat - I still make my living (e.g. feed my family) as an AV system designer, and occasional studio maintenance tech. I write music, and design sound effects, and play guitar for live theatre because these things are my passion, and in some cases I do work for free - these are very isolated cases, come to think of it one case - a community theatre group that I've been involved with for years now, including a two year stint on the board.

So from my perspective, as someone that has been able to make enough of a return to expand my studio, and buy the occasional treat, I look at things quite differently than many of you who depend on this as a means of support.

I don't do buyouts or works for hire - I might, but it would have to be stupidly 'generous'. And in fact I think this is one of the two primary issues that hurt composers and other artists - that willingness to sell one's creations to the high bidder. And once one composer does it the buying community expects everyone to do the same.

The other thing, and this is true across many segments of the industry, is that we've all become willing to work for nothing, or next to nothing! Studios that charge $15/hour - come on folks, you can't feed yourself, let alone your family, at that rate. It is the reason I got out of that business... I refuse to work for $15/hour! I'd rather stop... but then I have the luxury of making that choice because I have other avenues for income. BUT, and this is irony at it's finest, almost all of the idiots that charge $15/hour for studio time HAVE to work other gigs to pay the rent. 

They probably do not realize that not too long ago the going rate for studio time was more than 10 times that, nor do they realize that they've jeopardized the livelihoods of other studio owners. And they've all but eliminated the career path of studio maintenance tech - I actually had a guy tell me he would never pay more for maintenance than he charged. I thanked him for his candor, and left. I'm NOT doing studio maintenance for $15/hour either... my test equipment cost more than his entire studio, and I bought it all used!

Coming around to composers... it's been said many times already, but if we do not place an appropriate value on our work no one else will. There are two types of movie and TV producers out there, the artists and the MBAs.

The MBAs annoy me because for them there is no art, it's all commerce, but I'll stipulate that they aren't completely wrong. These guys will fight for every dollar saved - if they can't get John Williams for $X then they'll find someone who will work for that, and then they'll reduce it because you aren't JW. And someone will come in and work for peanuts... just to get their foot in the door. Everyone in a while the MBA will do the math and decide that he really needs the JW score, and that he can afford it... he'll still fight to keep every dollar he can.

The artists are better because they really do strive to be true to their artistic vision, which probably includes a pretty complex score that interacts well with the on-screen talent. Some of them have the budget to pay a reasonable fee for music, but unfortunately, they are feeling the same financial pressures. There is a director or cinematographer or recordist that will work for less just waiting for the chance.

How did we get here?

Part of it is the democratization of the recording biz - inexpensive gear that works nearly as well as the expensive stuff. Nearly, but that's another topic.

A bigger part is that the MBAs watched the process - you start out making documentaries, or working with students, or non-profits, and you don't get rich doing any of those things. But this is how a majority of folks my age got their start. And if you are good, and fortunate, someone sees your work, and you get your first commercial opportunity. And that leads to projects with larger budgets, and so it goes.

Some folks take a slightly different path - they get into advertising or industrial films. Now they make more money, but they don't get a lot of opportunities to be creative. And it takes a bit more effort to be discovered, especially for the folks working in industrial films.

Anyway, so the MBAs that run the studios saw this huge pool of folks working for nothing or very close, and they offered them an opportunity to skip the whole apprenticeship/payin' your dues steps... and people leapt at the opportunity.

I'm not sure that you can indict the composers, directors, cinematographers, et. al, for taking their shot, but I'm not sure. If I were offered an opportunity to work on a major release film would I take it, even if I knew that working for peanuts would hurt other composers? I really really wish I could say I would not do it... but since I haven't had the offer I can't predict my behavior.

A union would, in an odd sort of way, enforce some order on the whole process, and there would be a pay scale established, and mostly enforced. But as soon as you have a conventional union in place you also minimize or eliminate the opportunity to excel. I'm not sure that's such a good idea.

A guild, structured such that it helped the folks just starting out but did not get in the way of the established folks would be a far better solution. And notice that I said "helped", not "protected" - neither choice of words is limited to semantics. There are very real differences!

I'd love to see a system that rewarded everyone fairly for their efforts and talent. I'm reasonably certain that if everyone agrees to work on it then it can happen. But it only takes one or two 'defectors' to set things back. A union might seem like the shortest path here, but I'm not sure the path leads to the destination everyone wants.


----------



## midphase

David Story @ Sat Aug 20 said:


> The teamsters called us "spineless and selfish", but not in public. That's cause they thought we might join them, and therefore showed us respect in public.



Hello David,

I agree with pretty much everything you had to say.

I would like to point this out (not in defense of the composers' spinelessness, but to make an important point):

If my job was to drive trucks for a living, or carry heavy loads of gear from one place to another, or even spending countless hours with a picky director showing headshot after headshot of actors and making all sorts of phone calls and paperwork then of course I would hold steady on my compensation demands...because my job kinda sucks! In essence it's always easier to fight for compensation when the work to be performed is not something that you'd enjoy doing even for free and that you look forward to doing even in your spare time for the hell of it.

I think part of the problem is that composers enjoy composing too much...perhaps it would be a healthier and more profitable field if we would despise what we do a tiny bit more.

Of course that is not the only reason, as pointed out earlier, Actors, Writers, Directors, Cinematographers, Sound Designers all enjoy the benefits of unions and love what they get paid to do.


----------



## wst3

midphase @ Sun Aug 21 said:


> I think part of the problem is that composers enjoy composing too much...perhaps it would be a healthier and more profitable field if we would despise what we do a tiny bit more.



That is a very interesting observation!

It has been my experience that many of the crafts involved in movies, television and theatre production enjoy their crafts as well, but I'd have to agree that music composition is awfully fulfilling on many levels! Most of the drudgery associated with creating a musical work was off-loaded, to other folks in the old days, and to the computer these days...


----------



## Brian Ralston

rgames @ Sun Aug 21 said:


> Let's look at the potential revenues under the internet model (again, ignoring per-sale revenues that are negotiated up front):
> 
> He owns partial writer share: $0
> He owns full writer share: $0
> He owns full publisher share: $0
> He owns full writer and full publisher share: $0
> He owns nothing: $0
> 
> Again, of course the value exists under the current system. But if everything shifts to the internet, then ownership seems to lose its value (and, in fact, its meaning). I'm not debating value under the current system - I'm debating value under the future system.



Those are all performance royalties Richard. I am not just talking about that. If one owns the material...they can dictate the price and conditions for which it is used. If I own a recording and the intellectual property in that recording...I could use it for other things...I could make the up front fee whatever I want...and not what the record company wants. You could give it away like Radiohead did with their last album...or charge a lot. Say yes...or no. If a studio wanted to release a film with your music in it to netflix...you could say, "Ok...I want such and such per download, etc..." Or a percentage of what they get from Netflix. It is the same thing the studio's now do in making money on how they distribute the product...except in the scenario where you own it...you would get to negotiate and set the terms for all of that. And that has an enormous amount of worth.


----------



## impressions

can someone sum up in a few sentences, how exactly a union is going to stop an army of piss-ant wannabes who is willing to work for 1% of the 5% or for free?

the ever increasing number of composers makes everyone more desperate for a gig, either for experience or for credits("ooo a feature!!").
the fact they are starved won't make them less competitive with other working composers-add to that the mediocrity of the producers holding the money and you've got reality right there. not including those talented (and foolish) ones who actually are able and willing for free.


----------



## midphase

In the film world, most serious productions simply aren't interested in casting non-SAG actors. And you can certainly make the argument that there are way more desperate actors than composers.


----------



## impressions

that sounds exactly like the union serves those who doesn't need serving(the rich and famous), since they are already connected and have good salaries.

are you saying that's the purpose of that union? maintain a standard of wages and benefits for those inside that circle?

i thought unions are formed to help the masses(how 50's of me). although we both know they(non-union composers) are the one killing themselves-which is exactly why a union is needed in the first place.

or we can claim this population of composers as "third world". which is what is already happening.

and another question-aren't the production companies only allowed to pick from union? or is that what's happening, that they're not?


----------



## Daryl

impressions @ Fri Oct 05 said:


> that sounds exactly like the union serves those who doesn't need serving(the rich and famous), since they are already connected and have good salaries.
> 
> are you saying that's the purpose of that union? maintain a standard of wages and benefits for those inside that circle?
> 
> i thought unions are formed to help the masses(how 50's of me). although we both know they(non-union composers) are the one killing themselves-which is exactly why a union is needed in the first place.
> 
> or we can claim this population of composers as "third world". which is what is already happening.
> 
> and another question-aren't the production companies only allowed to pick from union? or is that what's happening, that they're not?


There has to be a reason for an employer to recognise a Union. If all the good composers were in a Union, and wouldn't work unless the employer recognised the Union, there would be no problem. However, as there are many, many composers who can do an equally bad job on a project, and few producers and directors can really tell the difference (or they feel that the public wouldn't notice) there is no incentive for any employer to recognise a Union.

The situation is slightly different in the UK, because you wouldn't be able to force all composers to join a Union anyway, nor would you be able to enforce a situation where only Union labour was employed. Unlike the US, there are more freedoms in this regard in the EU, and forcing people to join a Union was outlawed in the 80s, because it was considered to be a breach of Human Rights.

D


----------



## impressions

> There has to be a reason for an employer to recognise a Union. If all the good composers were in a Union, and wouldn't work unless the employer recognised the Union, there would be no problem. However, as there are many, many composers who can do an equally bad job on a project, and few producers and directors can really tell the difference (or they feel that the public wouldn't notice) there is no incentive for any employer to recognise a Union.
> 
> The situation is slightly different in the UK, because you wouldn't be able to force all composers to join a Union anyway, nor would you be able to enforce a situation where only Union labour was employed. Unlike the US, there are more freedoms in this regard in the EU, and forcing people to join a Union was outlawed in the 80s, because it was considered to be a breach of Human Rights.



ok, that sounds more like reality to me.

there's a somewhat different "union" thing in my country-

what we have in repertuar theaters(the big commercial ones, which deploy the classics etc) there are fixed prices for a musician, detailing everyone position/hourly wage etc.
i don't think any of the parties have to abide by law to these, but both kind of agree they are reasonable since it's the top quality stuff.
especially due to the fact it is usually live music.

in films, I'm sure any self respecting producer is aware of the power of live orchestra VS samples. at least that's what i think, and from seeing hollywood movies, they usually are using live orchestra.
you cannot cut too much on the prices of live musicians, especially comparing to the whole budget, which people have claimed it's around 5%. so the composers fee, however big, should be negligible. 

are you saying despite these facts, producers still cut on the fees?
i think this is something that happens on B-grade movies or less, but i will be glad to stand corrected.


----------

