Some of you know, I have made it to the point in my career where I am at the free or paid crossroads. We each get here at different points. Some start here - others like me build up a resume and then get here - in my case 8 IMDB credits (after the two shorts I just scored finally get entered :) ). Below is what I just posted to FB. It is NOT directed at any film in particular so if you know me as a crew member, this is not about your film. I post here since (1) it has always been a controversial topic and (2) all us composers have this issue at one time or another. A great post below "A Must Watch!" with the video does provide some different 'perspective'. I post here purely for educational purposes (and not a 'complaining session'). There may be some nuggets here for you if you have not yet made it to your crossroad or you are currently there like me. ===================================================================================== This post is not concerning anyone in particular so don't 'read anything into this that I don't say'. I have been scoring for films now for over 5 years and yet to earn a penny (though I did graciously accept a gift certificate last night from a filmmaker whose short I scored - very considerate and thoughtful). So I have decided it is time to pass that crossroad and move on in my career. Music like any other intellectual or product/service commodity has value and those who create it need to be compensated. I understand that many filmmakers have little to no money and can only offer credits. But honestly, imho, that is not my issue. Now I have been scoring shorts for free since it is practice for all involved and we use it to demo our abilities and products. Shorts generally end up at competitions or festivals and don't generate any revenue. But that is where I draw the line. When it comes to features or documentaries, I will not work for free. I may, depending on whether I have an existing relationship, be willing to defer my payments. However, I WILL NOT have an agreement/contract that says I get paid IF the film generates money. That is not my issue/problem. Once the film leaves the free US-based festival arena, I want to get paid (or soon thereafter). The beginning of this has been rough going. I have been hired for a feature but after 3 months I am still waiting for a contract. I will not deliver music to any feature without a contract. Then in the last two weeks I have been contacted twice for features. The first wanted me to work for free until the film generated revenue - no thank you. The other told me they need music - film has been done for a while. They have no budget. I am waiting to hear back after I said I will not work for free. Writing music for shorts typically requires 3 to 7 minutes of music. Features require typically 30 to 60 minutes of music (sometimes more). A whole different 'ball of wax'. Let's see where this road will take me.
Register / Log In
1 person likes this
My question is why is it a controversial subject? If you work, you get paid. It's not your fault or problem if a filmmaker is irresponsible or is ignorant to real budgets. I believe if you can't afford to make a film, then don't. If you raise funds but don't include music in that funding, then you're green. If you budget for crew and run out of money for the composer/sound then you're awful at being a line producer. It's not the composer's problem. My tone may seem harsh but it's not, it's just factual. The practices used to try and obtain free music are sleazy. "I'm not making anything on this either..." you often hear. Well, that's too bad. "We'll get you on the next one". How about you pay the composer the full rate on THIS one and then maybe said composer will give YOU a break on the next one? Music is already devalued enough and if everyone keeps giving in to the "free" "promotional" model, then it's an even faster race to the bottom. How many free things has anyone here done that have blown up and moved their careers into full time mode? I can promise you that number is next to zero. Filmmakers who skimp make bad films. Best to stay away entirely. The only exception would be student films to work on. At least they've had some guidance in filmmaking. There is TOO much out there. It is more competitive than ever. Find excellence and be excellent. Forget these zero budget disasters unless you're doing it for fun or you REALLY believe in the project and the filmmaker is close to you... Even then...
HI Joel! Good to hear from you about your experiences and your thoughts on breaking in (to composing, not burglary). It's an interesting topic, one to which I don't know if there is a right answer. It seems to me that it's like any industry really - you need experience to get the real work, but to get that experience you already need experience, it's tough enough to even get an intern gig if you don't have something already to back it up. What!? How the heck does someone deal with that information!? You'll get people wanting to break into the industry doing LOTS of work for free. It's no longer good enough to have a pretty looking/sounding reel and a few shorts as credits, if you want anything with a budget to take you seriously then you'd better have some serious clout. Aspiring composers (substitute that for basically any role in film) will do jobs they know realistically should be paid just to get that credit list expanding, they'll do things for a fraction of what it's worth in the hope of getting into the bigger leagues. And can you blame them? No, not at all. It's all good practice and honing skills as a screen composer. But like Timothy has said above, the zero budgets lead to zero budgets. It's not going to help your career. I think RB posted something (although I may have read it elsewhere, apologies if wrong) talking about working on freebies and how to know a 'bad client'. They're not bad people or bad filmmakers, but if you've set a precedent of working for free or cheap, even if they get a budget you're still going to be taking home peanuts. I think a big differentiator for the free/paid argument is whether or not someone wants to take it pro. If you're doing it for the love of it and it's not your day job, by all means take the free gigs, but (and this is my opinion) the more we as musicians set a precedent for scoring for free, the more we're hurting ourselves long run. Budgets are slashed because technology has made it possible for anyone with a laptop and some samples to make a reasonable sounding score, filmmakers don't NEED to drop hundreds of thousands on getting a John Williams symphony behind their picture. It's wonderful and amazing how accessible all aspects of filmmaking have become, don't get me wrong, but musicians are sidelined more than ever. Even as a gigging musician, how often do you get asked to do things for "exposure"? Yeah. Too often. Seen that viral thing about a musician responding to a restauranteur's request for free music, saying that the chef can come around and cook for all of the musician's friends & family for free (and exposure of course too!)? There's a general shift to devaluing music and musicians in all walks of life, probably something to do with the semantic associations of "playing" music (it's not hard work, you forget the decades of training and practice and education), and this is something that pro musicians need to be wary of when making their decision regarding work being free or paid. Either way, the issue is complicated and can only be figured in a case-by-case basis. You have to take all the evidence of your specific project, see the wider context, and make a personal decision based on that. Best of luck with everything Joel (and anyone else who bothered to read to the end of this ramble!) T
Tom - great perspective. Couple of observations based on them. 1. I know you didn't intend any offense, but I am not aspiring - haven't been so since perhaps 2003. In fact, that word itself has always bothered me and I tell others to stop using it. It conjures a 'perspective' in the listener that I/you/we are not yet there, not yet 'whole'. 2. Been a musician and have been paid, but I don't look for work as a musician. Did back in HS and college - was in a local rock band as an organist in the late 60s through 1970. In the last 10 years I have played keyboards in big bands - but I much prefer writing original music which is above my own abilities and get a better musician to play it. 3. In LA and NY you will see and get to know all types of filmmakers, each on different journeys. Some expect free and some pay. The scene changes dramatically and varies by city once you leave those. Some have more pay filmmakers, perhaps like nearby Austin. Others, like here in Houston have mostly filmmakers that expect their crew will work for free. The free professional composers here in Houston, don't have many pickings for paid films and most of those come externally. That is a ongoing challenge for the Houston film community. Some local filmmakers with roots in Houston make their marks (like "Boyhood"), but they often will use studio connected/LA composers. The composers here who treat composing as day jobs, earn their bread by working corporate and commercial gigs. I have chosen not to go that route. Its by no means a hobby for me, but I also don't need it to pay my bills (thanks to my 23 year stint in Exxon in IT). So I have chosen a day job in entertainment that gives me some filmmaking perspective though I stay away from it in my film world - I am a wedding videographer. 4. There are many people certainly who get into composing with a small investment and a bedroom studio. They will find films, video games, and music videos to make their mark. There is room for us all. I still believe that as you go up the filmmaking scale/ladder - unless you are Eminem :) , you can take your beats and loops only so far. And you can make your synths sound epic or write music for a horror or zombie film with your keyboard - there is certainly demand for that here (lol) (Splatterfest, second largest filmmaking competition in Houston is in Sept.). So the question really is what is your sound and where is your niche? Many composers here are untrained and will certainly do well just as untrained musicians have over the last 100+ years. But what is the 'sound' and where will it go? It will certainly not go in the direction of Hanz Zimmer or Alan Silvestri. It will not have the sound or sophistication of arrangement as something created by Nelson Riddle, Henri Mancini, or the great Duke Ellington. The only question that remains is has the demand for well composed, arranged, and orchestrated works disappeared in favor of singer-songriters, rock / pop bands and beats/loops? I do not think so. That is why I am a 'composer' and not a 'film composer' - I still believe that live performance will have impact in the future in all mediums, not just film. I write in multiple genres - not just film or classical. I still get a thrill writing jazz charts whether they be bossas or be bop. I get much pleasure seeing my trumpet concerto performed with a live string quartet. You get the idea... Joel
Hey again Joel - certainly didn't mean any offence. Most of what I was saying was in a broader, generalised sense, plus some rhetorical questions, and, to be frank, a lot of my personal experience of the gig. I have nothing but respect for people who are following a musical (or for that matter any kind of creative) path, be that writing 200-piece orchestral film scores or jamming in their friend's parents' basement. Trained or untrained doesn't matter a jot if someone has something musical to say and a way of expressing that music. When it comes to 'aspiring', I think we may be using it in different ways. I only really meant it in career-terms (i.e. someone might have the compositional might of Zimmer and the production skills to match, but if the projects one works on are smaller than they would like, one would 'aspire' to getting bigger deals [and I don't mean that solely in a financial sense]). I totally see your point about the perception of being "not yet there", although I don't think any creative should ever stop aspiring to learn and improve their skill sets. It's a difference between fixed/growth mindsets - and, personally, I don't think anyone ever "gets there", there is always room for learning. You may disagree of course, but the thirst for knowledge and experience is what I believe to be one of the defining traits of the creative mind. Your point about composers earning their bread through other means is I think a major debating point, and a lot of what I'm getting at with the whole devaluing aspect. It's come to a stage where your average musician (composer, performer, etc.) cannot realistically hope to make a living from creative work. To pay your bills, you take your jingle gigs, or you play weddings, or record V/Os in your home studio, or maybe even do something totally disconnected from the music scene like serving beers at a bar. Is that a good situation for musicians? My experience of working as a composer is that you are switched on to it twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, and actually physically working at it for a good portion of the time you're awake. Perhaps I'm a little too intense with it, but I simply do not have the time to do something else to earn money. Being a composer - it's a full-time gig, it's a lifestyle, for me it is anyway. This is a point I think people often miss (definitely people who aren't musicians, sometimes even people who are) - just because I enjoy my job doesn't mean it isn't a job. Just because I get a buzz when I hear my music to picture, or hear an orchestra tune up to start playing a concerto I've written, or even hear my friends and family bumbling their way through a novelty Christmas carol I've penned for a festive gathering, just because I get pleasure from what I do doesn't mean it isn't hard work and I don't take it just as seriously as someone rattling out spreadsheets in an office. I just want to make clear that I'm not singling myself out in this, I know a great many musicians feel just as strongly that there is a sense, a kind of unthinking zeitgeist that musicians are just having fun. Yeah, we might be, but we also put in decades of practice to get good enough to have fun with it. So what do we do with that? We could continue to accept that doing freebies is part of the musician lifestyle, we could take a stand and say "no, this is worth something", we can find a middle ground. I'm not dictating to anyone whether or not working for free is right for them as an individual. In a lot of cases, you'll have a bunch of guys and gals coming together to make a movie they all love and all they have is the passion and the drive to get it done - it's not about the money, and it's a shame that the bottom line is so important to so many. But for those people who do want to make music a career, is it fair to consistently drive down the potential for earning by setting the standard for musicians to be unpaid? Look at basically any production and you'll find that everyone from the director, to the producers, to the actors, to the lighting, the sound, the MUAs - there's a budget for them, and (thanks to the way we work as a society) that means value is attached to what they do in a way that the unpaid aspects lack. It's finding a balance between doing it for the love, and making sure that it's not taken for granted. Reading this back makes me realise it sounds a little overbearing perhaps and I just want to make clear that not a word is directed personally or meant to bellittle, degrade, or upset. It's just pontificating from behind a keyboard, thinking out loud if you will! What's your take on it? T
Tom - well said! Can't say more about that. Musicians and composers have been poor and on the brink for hundreds of years. We all we know the stories of Mozart, Beethoven and the others of that era who languished without wealthy benefactors. We know of the bands throughout the whole 20th century who were constantly on the road surviving from gig to gig - often not getting paid on time - whether it was a swing band of the 1930s or a rock band of the 1950s on. Musicians know its long hours, hard work and barely enough money to survive. They need that 'spark' to keep moving - you know what I mean. I was going to create a separate post, but will just mention this here. Regardless of the use of technology in music, there is and will not be a substitute for a live performance. I believe as a composer I get a greater 'high' listening to my works performed live over listening to scores on the screen. And there is a way to do both. One does not have to assume that creating live music for film require a full orchestra at over $30,000 an hour plus studio time. There are ways to create, compensate and audio engineer a performance which will sound almost as good as a studio performance on screen for relatively little money. Watch this link here: https://www.stage32.com/media/1215811095260833862 It was extracted from the video I shot this past Sat. The audio was created by putting two cameras on separate side of the balcony and using their onboard microphones (each has 5 for dolby 5.1 but I put them both in stereo mode for this shoot). Or here is one more. A performance of one of my works - I even played piano on this one. Was a class assignment to write a piece using just 5 notes (which was all the Chinese instrument would play). Performances at colleges can often be used in film with permission for little to no money. https://youtu.be/vK5nNpNLo_Y
My understanding is that stage32.com is a film and television/entertainment industry site focused on education and networking to help build careers so in that context, Tom's posts are right on the money. "Free professional" is an oxymoron. Professional means you do it as your profession/way to earn a living. You can behave professionally but doing it for free as the norm over an extended period of time, in Houston or any other place for that matter, isn't going to help anyone, especially the hard working composer. Exposure... you either die from it or get arrested for it.
P.S. Mozart and Beethoven actually did quite well.
I'm not into terminology and definitions very much. I disagree that professionals must be paid for all their work to be called professional. I don't need to make a living scoring or composing, that does not make me any less professional. All I know is that free has benefited me so I could practice my craft and get connected with others, especially those who are the music decision makers. Now it is time to get paid - but it seems that very few filmmakers who make features in Houston pay. So now I am holding off scoring a film for two months awaiting a contract and saying no to two different filmmakers in the last three weeks. So as we all get off our 'high horses' (in all due respect to everyone here) and I face the reality of what I am doing in Houston, I need to ask myself "who does this decision to hold off on features serve?" Since I would like to be compensated but its not a personal priority, I continue to ponder the answer.
I got nothin'...
I will do a project for free sometimes if it's not a huge time investment and it might lead to a larger deal later on. Things like the ludum dare video game festival where people put together a videogame in 48 hours. Having lots of little projects that you can knock out fast that get your name out there can help. Things like filmscoring competition, filmscoring workshops, and then just plain composition compeitions (see http://www.composerssite.com/) can get you huge opportunities and awards if you're very good/lucky. None of those things guarantee a paycheck, but getting work and forging bonds with specific directors who make it big is really the only ticket to the big time and you need a lot of luck. You can't get lucky without having a shit ton of projects going on. However, doing things for free has a limit and often I'm approached by people who are simply predatory. Just gotta tell them to fuck off and continue searching. It would help to be in a place where films are actually being made actively like Austin, but this problem isn’t geographically restricted anymore. It's not going to get any better sadly, there's even recently been a production company that was asking composers to pay it in order for the opportunity to score their film. Getting paid is just a matter of luck and timing really. Either way just keep plowing through the shit, nothing else can be done.
I disagree entirely. Re: youth - this has ALWAYS been the case in pop music but we're talking about filmscoring. Doing things for free for a competition/workshop, if it's legit, is different than doing a lot of projects for free. The problem with doing the freebies is that you become the free guy. If a director gets some traction and they get a good budget they may have who they use to score dictated to them by the production company OR it becomes "...this movie has a budget, just not for music but it will have distribution so your name will get out there...". It just doesn't work. I've seen it over and over with friends and colleagues. We devalue our own music by giving it away for free. It's a race to the bottom. Add a price tag. You might be surprised.
aha!!! :) Remember the first response to my post 3 days ago: "My question is why is it a controversial subject?" Glad to get the juices flowing on this one.
Here's a way to look at it because none of these arguments make ANY sense to me. Seriously. Go work long hours at Target as a clerk, for free, in the hope they'll recognize your good, hard work and maybe they'll give you a shot at being District Manager (also for free) until you work your way up to a big paying gig as the CEO. Isn't going to happen... Quote prices people. If they don't want to use you they're probably making a discount, cheap (awful) film anyway. Want to gain experience/build relationships? Call a film school/department, explain you're a composer, ask the professors which students are really showing promise, contact student(s) and do THAT for free. You'll be helping the student, yourself and you'll have a much better shot at working with THAT person again on a paid gig because free/low cost is considered okay to do in academia. That's the only place where you or your music will not be devalued for providing free or low cost services.
Pure curiosity Joel - what is the going rate to produce 25 minutes of music for a 40 minute natural history documentary? andrewsmithbugs@yahoo.co.uk
1 person likes this
Usually it would be a lump sum amount as is the practice elsewhere, so I would say, the top scoring people here would get perhaps $4k or $5. But that could scare filmmakers away and I don't go for the top rates quite yet even in Houston so I would offer to do it for say $125 to $150/min or about $3,500. But everything is negotiable. I have absolutely no clue what the going rates are in LA. I asked my scoring friend (who has films on regular Lifetime) what his fee was up front over the last year or so and that is how I came out with these numbers.
"This ain't Rock'n'Roll This is Genocide" - David Bowie