VI Control Professionals in Film Scoring, Is abusive behavior really an industry standard?

[JoelS]

In my experience I would not say that abusive behavior is a standard.

I should probably clarify that to me, the OP's fictitious conversation is certainly depicting infuriating and frustrating behavior, but that doesn't always equate to being abusive. Using the term 'abusive' implies ill intentions, and often it is just a result of the realities of the industry.

I'll offer an example:

Part of my income is from writing library music for sync licensing. Often, libraries put out calls for cues that have tight deadlines for delivery to their clients - sometimes measured in hours rather than days.

So, a new TV series has a music editor that tells the library 'we need a hundred cues that sound like Taylor Swift meets Weird Al, but with a deep south trap beat! And NO harmonicas. Tomorrow.' (note: I would not submit to that call. I only look like Weird Al, don't sound like him. I'd never hit the right style.)

The library, who has probably worked with this client before, sends out the call to its stable of composers, maybe including a few examples. And they tell you that you have eight hours if you're going to submit. Sometimes the deadlines are looser, rarely more than a week. It depends on the library, though.

The hopeful composer then busts out their 'trap_dixie_funk_polka' template, unloads the harmonica VI in case it might accidentally slip in, and gets to work. Several hours and two cues complete later, time to send to the library.

Eventually, they get a reply saying 'thanks but no thanks, we hope to hear from you again,' or some more polite version. Were the tracks not trap enough? Weird enough? Al enough? Who knows. Well, the library knows, but they're sifting through 300 tracks an hour to deliver their client enough music to fill up their series. They do not have time to critique anything that doesn't immediately say to them 'this will work.'

In fairness, I'll also point out that there are libraries who will work a cue through a few rounds of revisions and accept it. Or through a revision or two and ultimately turn it down, for unclear reasons. They do not have time to mess around. Something in your cue did not sit well, so despite hitting all the checkboxes, it is not suitable for their client and the library has to move on. Quickly.

It sucks for the composer, who doesn't know what was wrong or if anything was really 'wrong' and it just didn't strike the right chord for the library based on their subjective (and often undisclosed) criteria. It's frustrating, but not abusive.

 

[purple]

You may find actually that abusive behavior is just a standard of industry.

 

[JJP]

So, a new TV series has a music editor that tells the library 'we need a hundred cues that sound like Taylor Swift meets Weird Al, but with a deep south trap beat! And NO harmonicas. Tomorrow.'

That is abusive on part of the library towards its composers. The library makes money because it doesn't have to pay for all the combined work from its composers to showcase 100 options to the editor. For the composer it becomes an absolute crap shoot as to whether your music is accepted. Instead they are being asked to use their work to bankroll the library.

Don't give me the patronizing "Well, that's just how it is." It doesn't have to be that way. The same thing was said about racism, sexism, slavery, child soldiers...

 

[JoelS]

That is abusive on part of the library towards its composers. The library makes money because it doesn't have to pay for all the combined work from its composers to showcase 100 options to the editor. For the composer it becomes an absolute crap shoot as to whether your music is accepted. Instead they are being asked to use their work to bankroll the library.

Don't give me the patronizing "Well, that's just how it is." It doesn't have to be that way. The same thing was said about racism, sexism, slavery, child soldiers...

I'd like it if it wasn't that way. I don't have a clue where someone would start changing that from the composer's side of things, unless it involved unionizing and a full overhaul of the way media is produced. The way media is produced is changing, though not in ways that seem to favor the composer as much as they favor the producer.

I agree with you that such a system is very unfavorable towards the composer. I don't see it as abusive, though. I see it as the cost of doing business. The reward of being in a royalty system where tracks that do land can keep earning money for many years is enough to motivate me to submit to calls that fit my skills. I can find ways to re-purpose rejected tracks.

From my perspective, the whole industry is the crap shoot. There's no guarantee your music will be seen in royalty free markets, or that sync libraries will get you placements even if they accept your tracks, or that your new album will sell, or that anyone will visit your YouTube channel or pledge to your Patreon.

I try to diversify my income streams so if one market declines, I can focus on some other aspect. I recommend everyone else do the same, especially new composers.

 

[NoOneKnowsAnything]

That is abusive on part of the library towards its composers. The library makes money because it doesn't have to pay for all the combined work from its composers to showcase 100 options to the editor. For the composer it becomes an absolute crap shoot as to whether your music is accepted. Instead they are being asked to use their work to bankroll the library.

Don't give me the patronizing "Well, that's just how it is." It doesn't have to be that way. The same thing was said about racism, sexism, slavery, child soldiers...

I have no interest in ever composing for a music library.

 

[JoelS]

I have no interest in ever composing for a music library.

I'm curious why you flatly rule it out. What are your reasons?

I am not advocating for or against it, but there are a lot of different types of libraries, different working arrangements, different things they need for their market segment. I've had frustrating experiences with them, but good ones as well, and having a BMI statement show up quarterly that lists tracks I composed ten years ago still earning me money keeps me interested in participating.

I'd say on the whole, I've had worse experiences working for clients directly than I have had with libraries, but I've also found it harder to land tracks in libraries than finding individuals to work with.

 

[NoOneKnowsAnything]

I'm curious why you flatly rule it out. What are your reasons?

I am not advocating for or against it, but there are a lot of different types of libraries, different working arrangements, different things they need for their market segment. I've had frustrating experiences with them, but good ones as well, and having a BMI statement show up quarterly that lists tracks I composed ten years ago still earning me money keeps me interested in participating.

I'd say on the whole, I've had worse experiences working for clients directly than I have had with libraries, but I've also found it harder to land tracks in libraries than finding individuals to work with.

I assume the only people making a good living are the ones who own the library, that’s all. If your cue for a 2 minute trailer is picked up one can get $20,000-$100,000, so why work for a $100 a cue.

 

[JoelS]

I assume the only people making a good living are the ones who own the library, that’s all. If your cue for a 2 minute trailer is picked up one can get $20,000-$100,000, so why work for a $100 a cue.

I can only speak from my experience, but getting that trailer cue picked up is hard. Has been for me, anyway, though it's not a big focus of my work currently. That's an extremely competitive field.

There are a lot of library models. Ones that focus on sync licensing often don't pay up-front fees. You see money from royalties whenever the shows air that contain your cues, and get paid quarterly by the PRO you're in (BMI, ASCAP, others depending on your nationality). Others may do buyouts or have other pricing structures.

Maybe you're thinking of royalty free libraries? Tracks in those are often cheaply priced, but can be bought multiple times. The RF model has changed a lot in the last decade or so, imo for the worse, but if you compose in the genres that tend to sell well in that market, and have a large catalog, you can do well. You also have full creative freedom when you're putting your music in most of the 'marketplace' sites (Pond5, AJ, et al).

... but I'm dragging the thread off topic. I don't see libraries as inherently abusive.

I do think that those who have not yet participated in the music industry have misconceptions about what to expect when trying to get a foothold. I can only speak to my own perspective, which is someone who had no musical education or connections and chipped at the concrete around the industry until I made a crack big enough to slip through and (at least partially) inside. There are a lot of byzantine structures to navigate, persistent obfuscation, and gatekeeping in some areas, from what I've seen. There is also opportunity to be found, if you are diligent enough and lucky to live in a circumstance allowing you to persist.

 

[NoOneKnowsAnything]

I can only speak from my experience, but getting that trailer cue picked up is hard. Has been for me, anyway, though it's not a big focus of my work currently. That's an extremely competitive field.

There are a lot of library models. Ones that focus on sync licensing often don't pay up-front fees. You see money from royalties whenever the shows air that contain your cues, and get paid quarterly by the PRO you're in (BMI, ASCAP, others depending on your nationality). Others may do buyouts or have other pricing structures.

Maybe you're thinking of royalty free libraries? Tracks in those are often cheaply priced, but can be bought multiple times. The RF model has changed a lot in the last decade or so, imo for the worse, but if you compose in the genres that tend to sell well in that market, and have a large catalog, you can do well. You also have full creative freedom when you're putting your music in most of the 'marketplace' sites (Pond5, AJ, et al).

... but I'm dragging the thread off topic. I don't see libraries as inherently abusive.

I do think that those who have not yet participated in the music industry have misconceptions about what to expect when trying to get a foothold. I can only speak to my own perspective, which is someone who had no musical education or connections and chipped at the concrete around the industry until I made a crack big enough to slip through and (at least partially) inside. There are a lot of byzantine structures to navigate, persistent obfuscation, and gatekeeping in some areas, from what I've seen. There is also opportunity to be found, if you are diligent enough and lucky to live in a circumstance allowing you to persist.

Even if you had a music degree, this is an impossible industry to succeed in. The ones who do are luckier than they know. Most everyone else makes crumbs at best. Even if you get a break many producers and studios will try to get you for nothing or less than one deserves. I never said getting trailers is easy, it’s not. Nothing is easy in this biz. Personally I’m just not interested in writing for someone else’s music library. If u tell me I’m getting $5,000 or more in royalties each airing of an episode that’s different. But that’s rare to come by. You can bet the music libraries are making money selling or licensing your music so if you are literally getting nothing for a cue you are getting completely taken advantage of.

 

[JoelS]

if you are literally getting nothing for a cue you are getting completely taken advantage of.

The royalty payment system is weird, if you're not used to it... maybe even if you are used to it. Those tracks are definitely earning me money, and if I was really diligent I could figure out exactly how much each one of them has earned over their life. Every quarter, BMI sends a statement that shows the precise amount every track placement earned, what show it was in, and where it aired.



This is a little outtake from my most recent BMI report, showing a few tracks that were placed in History Channel shows. You can see how much they earned this quarter. Every time one of those programs airs, I get a payment, until they disappear into the aether and no longer air on TV. Placements on more popular shows will of course yield more views, and more earnings.

Most of my efforts are directed towards the videogame market, but I have a catalog of royalty free tracks and sync licensing tracks.

Success can certainly come from the 'one big score,' if you land that trailer... but it's also achievable and more reliable if you build a large catalog of music for licensing in various ways. These little sums add up. It takes a while to get a catalog built up, and with sync licensing, a while after that to get the tracks to the shows, have the shows air, and royalties collected.

You can always sell your stuff directly, too, which can work if you build up an audience. Many composers have started their own boutique licensing libraries, too. For TV, the production houses have relationships with libraries so it's a pretty entrenched system. The benefit of listing tracks with a library that does sync licensing is that they have those existing relationships and you're more likely to get placements if you hit the right sound.

One way to make yourself less vulnerable to the abusive side of the industry is to have a number of different revenue streams, so you have the option to leave one part of the market if things are not working out, but continue earning money in other areas.

 

[Cathbad]

There are a lot of byzantine structures to navigate, persistent obfuscation, and gatekeeping in some areas, from what I've seen. There is also opportunity to be found, if you are diligent enough and lucky to live in a circumstance allowing you to persist.

Excellent description.

 

[JoelS]

It is very ill-suited to every aspect of health, and to having a normal family life. The majority of permanently embedded entertainment industry people have unenviable lives, no matter their money.

The system is like an entity with no conscience.

Sadly, you could take this statement and directly apply it to the videogames industry as well. It's rife with truly abusive behavior especially perpetrated by the high-end AAA game developers. Sexual abuse, extremely unhealthy work practices, financial malfeasance. There's a reckoning going on right now, as a torrent of really awful stuff has been put into the public eye lately (and previously had been exposed in a more gradual way for years). I have some small hope it will result in systemic change.

It is possible to earn a living in music, games, creative media while avoiding abusive work conditions. It's probably not possible, though, to completely avoid conversations like the OP's invention when working in music. Individuals relate to music and communicate their ideas about music in very different ways.

At some point, you will probably work for or with someone who doesn't know how to describe what they want, but does know what they like when they hear it. What they ask for will make perfect sense to them, and you may think you've interpreted their brief correctly, but it will turn out that is not the case.

I don't mean to suggest that I am infallible or that the composer is always right. There is a lot of subjective room for interpretation in music. Well-defined briefs will usually include several examples to illustrate what is wanted. Even that can be troublesome, though, if they just want you to copy the style.

If you want to avoid all that and still carve out a career in music, there are paths to do it.

 

[Daryl]

Personally I’m just not interested in writing for someone else’s music library.

Fair enough. I agree, up to a point, which is why I started my own.

However, in the library world, I've never been abused, never had to work long hours, never had to make an impossible deadline, and it pays reasonably well, so have no reason to complain.

 

[Cathbad]

Sadly, you could take this statement and directly apply it to the videogames industry as well. It's rife with truly abusive behavior especially perpetrated by the high-end AAA game developers. Sexual abuse, extremely unhealthy work practices, financial malfeasance. There's a reckoning going on right now, as a torrent of really awful stuff has been put into the public eye lately (and previously had been exposed in a more gradual way for years). I have some small hope it will result in systemic change.

Some of the scandals have concentrated on targets being gay or female or whatever. But I'm sure that plenty of people from ALL groups have been scammed and hustled in the gaming, music and movie worlds.

I think the root cause is economic, not prejudice based on personal characteristics. There are plenty of predatory employers in all sectors, especially big companies who will screw workers in the blink of an eye over only a few hundred $$$. If they snake round their contractual obligations, or legal protections for employees, what can an exploited worker really do? A fast food or warehouse worker, or someone starting out in game dev probably can't afford to take legal action in absolute terms. But the time and effort needed to pursue redress is also a cost that's unaffordable when you gotta hit the road and find a new job.

Making public accusations and complaints on social media isn't the answer, because both sides are entitled to a fair hearing. That's why I'm in favour of unionisation for composers, and employment tribunals or other dispute resolution with easy access. Then we can sort out these issues dispassionately, within a framework of rules, with set penalties for breaches. Hopefully this will pull employers back into line with good practice, employees are happier, consumers get a better product, companies make more money. And then we'll get a virtuous cycle instead of the headlong race to the bottom we seem to have now.

 

[JoelS]

I think the root cause is economic, not prejudice based on personal characteristics. There are plenty of predatory employers in all sectors, especially big companies who will screw workers in the blink of an eye over only a few hundred $$$.

With the game industry, there's an ample supply of specifically targeted abuse based on personal characteristics, and also an equal bounty of non-specific hideousness driven by avarice. It does often punch down with greater fervor on minority groups, but overall it's an equal opportunity supplier of misery. If you're looking to have your hopes dashed, physical well-being degraded, and economic stability threatened, go work for a big game developer!

Fortunately, it's a giant market, and one doesn't have to work for the big players to make money and find some creative fulfillment at the same time. I think that applies to music, too, but it's not easy or simple to find the road to success. There is not a lot of clarity on how to get where you want to go, or security once you get there.

In my view, building up a large catalog of quality music that you can license in various ways through a variety of outlets will allow a composer to remain independent and exist outside the reach of most abusive situations.

 

[jneebz]

I have no interest in ever composing for a music library.

Sweet.

 

[construer]

I value so much these comments. I'm currently making curriculums for the next school year and this thread gives me a lot of ideas about teaching social skills and how to protect oneself from internalizing abusive behavior and spreading it around even if a person must work in an abusive environment.

I agree that having a choice is a key. Being dependent of any one job is taking chances. I constantly think about leaving my teaching job and completely commit to psychotherapy and composing, but that job does provide me an opportunity to choose what I'm doing and how much. And it did save me from being dependant of abusive psychotherapy supervisor.

It is clear to me that a lot of abuse is happening. Just the other day, an actress friend asked a producer why her fee for a theater play is late, and got an answer: "Why didn't you called earlier?! Now, money is spent." And that's the final answer.

What was new for me was a structure of the abuse from my example. Usually, people will bully you into doing something they ask for but you don't want. Like working for free, doing work you didn't sign up for, providing favors or sexual pleasures... It was strange to encounter that someone is attacking someone for willingly doing what she/he was asked for.

Changing mind or ditching creative solution completely is acceptable to me. I find it normal part of creative process. Once, I was doing this long ad for a business venue. Producer asked for baroque music. I suppose he associated Bach's music with grandiose spaces. It was clear to me that it won't work, but I did what he wanted. Of course he changed his mind, several times. However, he never attacked and insulted me for making what he asked for in the first place.

Yes, my post is inspired by Spitfire/Westworld competition and how it was subsequently handled. And how most accomplished professionals were supportive of abuse. But I didn't want it to be about this particular event and about this particular people. I'm interested in underlying processes which is why my example is the underlying structure of communication that took place and not the actual conversation that happened. And I was baffled with a conclusion that it is just how media industry works. In #MeToo movement, even those whose career was made by the abuser spoke against him.

For some time, I believe that the only way to prevent abusive behaviors is by influencing broader environment. Through unions or some other organizations, or raising voice like in #MeToo movement.

In my country, however, the only available way is some kind of self protection from such environment, since even those organizations that exists and in theory serves to protect victim are corrupted. This, I believe, will be my task for this summer: creating a series of workshops about how to recognize abusive behavior, others' and own too, how to separate it from creative stress and process, how to process it and how to react.

All those comments are so valuable source of ideas. Thanks.

 

[dgburns]

Far be it from me to offer anyone advice. That said, I’ve always done my best work when everyone else on the production had lost their collective minds and had gone insane- and I mean verifiable. I have seen things that can not be put down to words, as you would not believe me. Others here have similar stories. You must master the art of navigating shark infested waters you have no idea how treacherous they are, until you get bitten — a thousand times. Each time, you come back aware of the last attack, anticipating the potholes and setbacks. Some are big ones, like legal things, things that can kill careers if you are not up to the task.

This is what happens, this is showbiz, this is not a rational industry, there is nothing sane about it, it is high risk from every angle you look at. I’d like to offer you some chocolate and a million dollars to make it all better, but I fear that this would simply make matters worse, as the chocolate is going to melt and get all over your hands, and you may not be able to deal with it. I’m kidding of course, in a kind hearted sorta way.

The world does not want or need another film or tv show. The buying public is bombarded with content, some of it with high production values. This is the environment we now live in. You should think of this when you sit down to write your Ben Hur, as the chances that you will have an impact on the industry is minimal at best. This is the kind of thing that is circling in the minds of your abusive employers, they are hoping to make an impact, and also face this challenge, and most of them fail along with your mighty underscore, the one you will complain got turned down so low you can’t hear it under the sound effects and dialog.

I was kidding about the money, you still want the chocolate?

 

[construer]

Composers do have to worry about fees on a major picture and a major tv show. One composer may be offered $800,000 to compose the score for a film while another composer is offered $75,000 for the same project. Don’t think for a second that major studios don’t try to take advantage of film and tv composers who are not at the top of the A-list with major representation, they do. I was offered $5,000 an episode for a tv show produced by a major studio, only to find out after the fact when it was too late that they could have paid me 5x that amount, but no one in the industry would help me with the negotiation nor would any other composer mentor me by telling me how much I should be paid. This business can be brutal if one is not very lucky.

Is then, having a mentor you trust a must? Could it be advisable solution to inexperienced (young) people?

 

[construer]

I try to diversify my income streams so if one market declines, I can focus on some other aspect. I recommend everyone else do the same, especially new composers.

This, I believe, is very important. Diversifying income streams makes you more safe, less dependant on anything or anyone.