OP
OP
NoOneKnowsAnything
Active Member
Don’t project onto others who you are. You are not paying me to be your therapist. You’re only embarrassing yourself.Now you’re just acting like a petulant child
[SPINOFF) Rate discussion from "Wanted - Music Composer for Nintendoish RPG that teaches Japanese" thread
- Thread starter NoOneKnowsAnything
- Start date
Rory
Amateur Auteur
OP
OP
NoOneKnowsAnything
Active Member
classified_the_x
Member
I had 2 startups, one of them is active... Paying coders and programmers wasn't easy for me, I had to push them a lot to make ends meet, and yes, they got what they could from me. So the guy is making a game and said he has a limited budget. He's paying a really decent sum that many composing houses won't pay... You said you get 30k for a movie and told the director to forget you, 30k is about what a A-list composer would get in my country for a A movie...
you might be successful but you're not living the young striving musician challenges... Yes, we need more rights for composers, the best idea IMO would be to restrict or limit the usage of songs. Probably there's a good argument against that, but if songs couldn't be used ad infinitum more opportunities would exist for us all. Libraries got saturated and supply outpaced demand. And the same stuff keeps getting used.
In light of the new rules I posted last week, you're literally taunting me with that statement. So ...
JoelS
Active Member
I'm pretty firmly of the opinion that if composers all started setting a $500/min floor regardless of context, and recommend that those who can't afford that fee go use RF libraries, you're just training people to not bother working with an actual composer again. Companies like Epidemic and Artlist are aggressively marketing to content creators these days. If you want young content creators to ponder 'I can pay $500 for a custom minute of music or $19/month for unlimited music and SFX from a huge library,' this seems like a question they will not ponder long. And I don't think they will look back, either.
I'll also say that the project for which I have received the best paychecks of my career came about because I helped an indie game developer out with my 'discount' rate ($100/track). He wanted five tracks for an idea he had. It took me a couple days to compose them. A year later he came back to me and told me he grew that idea into a full game, and hired me for a much larger score, at a similar rate. That game got on the Nintendo Switch, and did really well for him. A year after that, he came back to me again with plans for a sequel, and due to the success of the first game, a vastly larger budget which he has been very generous with. It's been creatively fulfilling and very financially rewarding for me. It enabled me to hire a few soloists to play on various tracks, which he covered in his budget instead of taking money from mine.
I don't feel I was exploited, or subsequently disrespected, for charging him a low rate years ago when he had no money and was just starting out. It's resulted in a strong relationship that is likely to continue on to additional games in the future. It enabled me to hire live human musicians to play on tracks. If I had initially told him to go source his music from RF tracks, none of that would have happened.
The case may be that this was a million-to-one rarity, a lottery win, and I would not suggest anyone count on an indie developer who has no budget hitting it big, but it does happen. Good relationships can arise and even if it doesn't result in a bolt from the blue; there aren't a whole lot of bad things that come out of having good relationships with creative people whose work you admire.
While I definitely think people should value their work and time, I also think there is plenty of room to weigh the context of the situation before imposing some blanket floor on what you charge. If I am going to accept a low fee per track (I charge per track, not per minute, generally) it is because I either like the project, like the developer, or see some other merit in working with that person.
My path to becoming a professional composer did not go through any of the usual channels that I most often see other professional composers talk about. I was very much an outsider to anything involving the music industry, and still am. I like helping other outsiders find a way to make their creative aspirations come true. This leads me to be very flexible with my rates for individuals who want my music but don't yet have the means to pay 'professional' rates.
I think context matters a lot, and situations can be navigated on a case by case basis regarding what you should charge a particular client.
I'll also say that the project for which I have received the best paychecks of my career came about because I helped an indie game developer out with my 'discount' rate ($100/track). He wanted five tracks for an idea he had. It took me a couple days to compose them. A year later he came back to me and told me he grew that idea into a full game, and hired me for a much larger score, at a similar rate. That game got on the Nintendo Switch, and did really well for him. A year after that, he came back to me again with plans for a sequel, and due to the success of the first game, a vastly larger budget which he has been very generous with. It's been creatively fulfilling and very financially rewarding for me. It enabled me to hire a few soloists to play on various tracks, which he covered in his budget instead of taking money from mine.
I don't feel I was exploited, or subsequently disrespected, for charging him a low rate years ago when he had no money and was just starting out. It's resulted in a strong relationship that is likely to continue on to additional games in the future. It enabled me to hire live human musicians to play on tracks. If I had initially told him to go source his music from RF tracks, none of that would have happened.
The case may be that this was a million-to-one rarity, a lottery win, and I would not suggest anyone count on an indie developer who has no budget hitting it big, but it does happen. Good relationships can arise and even if it doesn't result in a bolt from the blue; there aren't a whole lot of bad things that come out of having good relationships with creative people whose work you admire.
While I definitely think people should value their work and time, I also think there is plenty of room to weigh the context of the situation before imposing some blanket floor on what you charge. If I am going to accept a low fee per track (I charge per track, not per minute, generally) it is because I either like the project, like the developer, or see some other merit in working with that person.
My path to becoming a professional composer did not go through any of the usual channels that I most often see other professional composers talk about. I was very much an outsider to anything involving the music industry, and still am. I like helping other outsiders find a way to make their creative aspirations come true. This leads me to be very flexible with my rates for individuals who want my music but don't yet have the means to pay 'professional' rates.
I think context matters a lot, and situations can be navigated on a case by case basis regarding what you should charge a particular client.
gtrwll
Senior Member
This is a great post, thanks for sharing! Glad to hear the initial investment panned out good.
EgM
Game music!
Great post. I also helped like... 4 or 5 indie developers with that same mindset, even composed for nothing pending kickstarter success. I don't charge per minute either, I generally ask a table of the songs needed, the style of songs, genre (orchestrated, electronic, retro) then I evaluate per song how many hours I will need to make them. If the deadline is steep, I will most likely raise the price significantly.
Like you, I have to evaluate a lot before getting involved, I have to like the project, the team.
I haven't won the composer lottery yet though :D
jonnybutter
Senior Member
This is right. If you want to work for nothing to 'get your foot in the door', your foot will mostly likely stay right there: in the door. There was a time when producers and others would 'bring you along' as you learned, but that is not so common anymore. Now, everybody is movie or tv producer, and anything they can get for free or almost free they're going to just factor into the budget. They'll certainly pay a DP, and they'll pay the crew. But they want music for free. Don't give it to them!
Andrew Aversa
Lead Developer
Agreed with JoelS. Context matters. If you are doing it to build a relationship with someone that has a low budget it could very well be worth it. There are more forms of compensation than upfront money; in fact, even the original offer specifically talked about backend, which in the case of games can get very high indeed.
jonnybutter
Senior Member
I think we're not all talking about the things.
For first projects and the like, 'building a relationship' doesn't work very well in the movie business if it means working for free. Composers are routinely underpaid/unpaid in the US, particularly for 'indy' or festival-type movies and it gets you nowhere, as a rule. And even if you score something for nothing and the result gets a big distribution deal and everybody loves your music, you can't assume that: a.) they will pay you more because the project you did for nothing hit, even if they said they would, or b.) that they will hire you for the next, larger-budget project, or c.) that if they *do* hire you for the next project, that they won't low ball you again. That's not cynical, that's the way it is. It's a shitty situation. Sometimes it's not even the person you thought you were building a relationship with who is making those decisions.
I don't have experience in games so much, but have heard bad stories. But, YMMV. I agree with whoever said that the person who posted the original ad might be asking for too much and not realize it. But s/he should be made to realize it (preferably in a nice way!). There is no reason composers should work for nothing. If I'm going to work for nothing, I'll write to please myself.
My experience is that you work with or adjacent to the same people (not necessarily the same companies) over and over, and those few connections can be your whole career. If somebody wants to pay you nothing to start, chances are they will always want to pay you nothing. I hope it's different in Europe or other places, but that's my experience in the US. If you think about it, it makes sense psychologically. People almost never want to pay for something they used to get for free.
Last edited:
Andrew Aversa
Lead Developer
I have plenty of experience in games and, generally speaking, indie developers are far more open to things like revenue shares than in TV or film. If you are going to work for a low rate or free, then this obviously would be part of the package. Look at it this way: by working on a project under those conditions, you're essentially an investor. Like with any investment, you would weigh the benefits and risks. If it seems like a shoddy product with little chance of success, don't invest.
That said, I agree that asking for 50+ tracks is excessive simply due to the amount of work involved for any given project.
That said, I agree that asking for 50+ tracks is excessive simply due to the amount of work involved for any given project.
JoelS
Active Member
This is the crux of the matter, though, isn't it? There is a really, really vast range of 'people who need music for their productions' who might be looking to hire a composer. You could justifiably feel ripped off by a production company making a feature film that will get a theatrical release who lowballs you... but at the same time, there are YouTube creators building up a channel, or podcast creators who want music, or some guy working alone on a game idea, and they are going to have whatever budget is at their personal disposal, and that's it.
Earlier this year, I scored a short comedy film which amounted to about six-seven minutes of music for $200. I've known the filmmaker for a few years now. He found me initially in an RF library, and liked my music enough to seek me out personally for the purpose of directly licensing music non-exclusively from me. To be clear, I composed this year's score specifically for his movie. It would be useless as RF music anyway, it was very much composed to the picture. He finances his films out of his own pocket, and unless he's lying to me for the purpose of specifically ripping me off, he doesn't have a ton of money. I like him, I like his films. He submitted the film we worked on this year to Cannes. If he could have afforded more, he would have paid me more. I trust him. I like having a working relationship with him, so I don't mind respecting his budget even though my work and time are arguably worth more than that in a strictly monetary evaluation.
... and I'd surely rather have him come to me than go to a subscription site online to score his films.
It pains me when I see awesome filmmakers on YT like Peter McKinnon and Josh Yohe shilling Epidemic and Artlist. I don't want to trash those companies or composers who work for them, but when grade-A talent like those filmmakers I mentioned are not only using subscription sites to score their videos, but also using their considerable reach and influence to teach new young filmmakers following them that the way to go is to just subscribe to an 'unlimited music buffet' site, that is not good for composers!
These highly individualistic, distinctive, cutting-edge, popular filmmakers are using subscription music sites instead of human composers that could make them custom music. Hundreds of thousands of their followers are being told 'just go to a sub site and you'll get all the music you need!' rather than 'find a creative composer who's an artist like you to work with you and enhance your creative vision.'
To me, that is a big problem, and there are a lot of angles to look at it from including that some composers are making money from such sites, and I can't dismiss their strategy for making a living either.
That's why I like to build relationships with people who value the creative skills I can bring to their production, and sometimes choose to work with them at rates that they can afford.
It would be a different story if I was working for a production that I knew had a large budget, and was simply deciding they would allocate very little of it to music.
jonnybutter
Senior Member
Why, though? If it's because doing his short film for $200 was fun for you, then that's a good reason. I think it enforces a bad precedent, but it's not really the end of the world. But if you did it because you think post-scored film is better than film scored with library music, why is it your responsibility to uphold that? Of course it's usually better! But why is that our (composers') problem? If film makers can't even see what the difference is, I (for one) am skeptical about working for them anyway - they aren't going to appreciate what you do, and they obviously don't know much about their own frigging art form.
If there's a project that I LOVE, and the odds of it making money for anyone are slim, I will work on it just for love. $0. But for some wannabe making trash who pays the grip and shooter but not the composer? Forget it.
JoelS
Active Member
Because it was a fun challenge for me musically, and I like the filmmaker and his sensibility. And he does recognize the benefit of a custom score over stock music, and appreciated my work.
There are a lot of very creative people out there in the world who do not have much money at their disposal. For me, that does not invalidate them as someone worth my time and effort.
I would not have a career in music if I'd set a hard and fast minimum rate anywhere near $500/min, especially early on. It also would have kept me from forming my best professional relationships.
On a personal level, I will also never forget the struggles I have gone through to establish a career based on my creative work. It hasn't come easily. When I meet game developers or filmmakers who are similarly struggling to find success, if I believe in their vision, I'm glad to help them realize it... even at a discount rate.
I often wonder if these staunch advocates of big composer fees regardless of the project (seems like self funded Indies are viewed as exactly the same as Hollywood studio tentpoles for some reason) are actually working on any projects at all. I can't imagine many jobs meeting their high expectations these days
jonnybutter
Senior Member
I'm not as rigid as the guy who has to have $500 per finished minute, but there has to be a limit somewhere. I don't write what other people want me to write just for fun (unless it really *is* fun). Why should I?
davidanthony
Active Member
I don't think anyone's advocating for you doing things for free or for fun as a policy, but instead suggesting that working for "free" in terms of not receiving any up-front monetary compensation does not automatically mean it's a zero value transaction, so it's a good idea to assess each opportunity on a case-by-case basis to see if there's any value lurking beyond the hard cash (with relationship & portfolio development being the primary non-monetary value adds).
In my opinion, setting a rate / a walkaway $ number for creative work before even evaluating a project doesn't make much sense. First, because it generally discourages development and refinement of an important component of business acumen (the ability to identify and assign value to opportunities). Second, it can result in premature abandonment of projects that could actually turn out to be quite lucrative down the line.
To be clear, I'm definitely not encouraging the opposite (find a way to do any project at any price!) I'm just agreeing it's important to keep an open mind. In my experience most people who adopt rigid compensation policies are doing so less as a result of shrewd financial calculations and more because they're clinging to legacy or trying to eliminate potentially uncomfortable situations like a tough negotiation or the feeling of realizing you've speculated incorrectly when something doesn't pan out. I'd argue that this has turned into completely the wrong business/industry for anyone who is worried about those things.
And this is going to be a less popular opinion, but... I would also argue that if someone has a long history of working for reduced rates and things generally not panning out, then there's a decent chance the issue lies with them (either the quality of the work is not competitive, the work is competitive but there's no market for it, or they're really bad at identifying quality partners/opportunities). Adopting a fixed $/minute rate won't really change any of those things.
classified_the_x
Member
One thing my coders / programmers wouldn't do is work before pay was done. The situation with programming is the exact opposite of music though, there are more nowadays, but a general shortage exists.
The fact that ppl do 100s of music to get $1000 or $2000 from royalty free websites in 2 years, when lucky, is something we can not ignore. It's a freelance job, doesn't mean it has to be free, but doesn't mean 1. we have to take it 2. we have to complain about it
