Jim Rieder

Any producer that splurges on production and goes cheapo on the sound and score need to take some lessons. Sound is pivotal. Audiences would much rather have serviceable images and great sound than a great image and poor sound any day.

Hmmm. 2 key points come to mind.

(1.) I don't think any one would work for free if they knew they could charge a reasonable amount and still get the gig. But let's bear in mind that when someone brings an offering of 30 years of experience into a market that mostly services upcoming producers with just 3 years experience, it intentionally heightens the sense that experience is not just a valued, but an available commodity in that arena. And thus, sound editors/designers with just 3 years experience choose to try to gain more of this needed commodity by lowering their price-tag (edging the 30-year guy out). And they do this knowing that no craft or talent is made more valueless than that which goes completely unused for lack of getting any work.

I agree with Jeremy that producers shouldn't allow this. IMHO, they should always seek to prioritize and splurge on whatever engages the audience most ... script, actors, lighting, cinematography, editing, sound design and score, etc. They should pay for skill, and yes, more experience often means more skill.

On the other hand, with just 3 years experience, those producers shouldn't expect to be able to afford the most highly-skilled craftsmen (that should be considered a luxury). Producers with 30+ years experience, perhaps yes (if they've chosen to use their greater skills to generate a greater market for what they do).

(2.) Even many of the majors treat sound design, film score and songs as an afterthought, allotting "whatever's left in the budget" for people filling these rolls. So it's not just Indie producers. And supply starts at the top (i.e., the masses move to L.A. and knock on the big producers' doors first). The greater supply lowers the cost there, and even top sound designers and composers are displaced from projects (because the lower cost matches the afterthought budget better). Since they are often established in their career and have bills and investments as Jim describes, they cannot afford to compete by lowering their price-tag, so they increase their number of projects, offering their greater experience to a larger number of producers with smaller budgets and lesser experience, leading to (1) above.

However, I don't think these top producers have an excuse for de-prioritizing sound design and score as a budgetary afterthought, except for the knowledge that the general public will allow their standards to drop, and as a result the overall ROI looks better.

Someone on here once commented about the sad state of what kind of videos get the greatest number of hits on YouTube, and I think that adequately speaks to my point. So if the public demands quality, the film industry will be forced to make quality, from the top down. People will get displaced based on skill, not budget, and they will only get displaced by more highly skilled people. An oversimplification, of course, but I think one worth with noting.

Am I off-base here? What are your thoughts, guys?

Yes Jeremy, I agree completely. What I have seen in my latest experience s with recent film school graduates is very typical unfortunately. Apparently what is taught is heavy on production and light on post. Most students i have talked with aren't given much more than one days' class on budgeting above and below the line for projects. This just isn't practical or real for that matter. Everyone has to get the latest and greatest camera to shoot with, but when it comes to post audio, its what i call "polishing turds" to make it sound even acceptable. Because A. They don't full understand location recording and its importance in post. And B, if they can here it, it must be OK.

Now admittedly, I don't work on these projects because they have "0" budgets. However, I have been contacted by these junior producers on occasion to try and fix something that a student sound editor tried to make work with a MAC-book and some sort of low end Pro tools rig. Firstly I ask, do you have a budget?, "No, but i'll give you IMDb credit and a copy of the film. Plus I have future projects that will pay when ready."

When I speak of Independent film makers that i work with on a regular basis, I am speaking of films in the $300K to $1M budget range. And they are usually with producers that get it. Meaning they typically follow the 5-8% of total budget for sound editing and roughly 8-10% for a composer. These are also projects not born in the US however, so i do travel a lot to work with these companies. The US market really doesn't do a thing for my studio. Accept the occasional spot or documentary for PBS or cable.

To Paul's point #1. I run across sound editors all the time that will work for free, just to gain experience. And to a point that's fine. They need to build that reel to go out and get paid for their craft. Now then, when they finally do cross the line from student to pro, most don't know what to charge for a project and end up in a lot of cases working for nearly free to get the gig. Thus, bidding projects so low that they do indeed have to do 30 projects a year to make ends meet. That's what I had meant by cheapening the craft of what we do. And I think one of the biggest issues I run across is the issue of analog gone digital. When I started in this business as a recording engineer in LA, (and so very glad to be out of that city) it was all analog and if anyone had to record anything for a film, you went to a studio and paid the rates. These days anyone can go out and buy a MAC, Protools LE, a couple of mics, plugins and call themselves a sound editor to work on films. So right out of school (where they learned how to start cheaply in the first place) they can answer internet ads and be in the business. So I blame it partly on the digital revolution of audio production. Some would argue its better, i don't believe it is for a lot of reasons.

So these budding producers make a short film for say $20K. And $19K (got to shoot with that RED camera) goes to production and they reserve $1K for score and sound design because they were able to get it done for that before, or even less. Now, they get recognition through the festival circuit and get a couple of executive producers to kick in for a script that will budget at roughly $200K. And I have seen this happen..... They do pre-pro, production and post visual editing for $199K and leave $1K for sound design and score. They assume the bigger the budgets, the more that can go into that camera they want to use or a 5-ton grip package instead of a 1-ton. Maybe even go to film instead of video.

Anyway, I suppose I have been fortunate in this business to be able to work on projects that are thought through from above the line to below the line. All of this is mostly academic for me now because i am nearing retirement thanks to mailbox money. But just wanted to put it out there because of what i have seen happen to this industry over the years.

Thanks for the great comments guys. Hope more Pros (and students) chime in one this topic. And no Paul you're not off-base here at all.

Well, I for one am most thankful for your sharing of your experiences here, Jim. Not only to sound people, but also to directors and producers who need advice and "gentle reminders" about how to evaluate demos and think through project budgeting.

Totally agree Paul And thanks. Sometimes being the "Old Dude with great Ears" is a good thing and then again, sometimes not so good, if you know what I mean.

Hopefully if we all stick to our guns and keep the rates up, we'll make it in Cleveland as well as LA.

Listened to some of your tracks on Soundcloud. Nice work. What VI's are you liking these days?