Unionization of composers? Last night's meeting...

[mojobone]

Ive heard it said that a successful local musician is a guy with two jobs, meaning that on a local level, music alone won't pay the bills. Part of the problem is that the internet has made us all local musicians, so suddenly, Alf Clausen has to compete with the likes of you and I. There's also the advent of the DAW and the digitization of the recording industry, and the rise of virtual instruments which, while they won't replace all the musicians required for a given project, certainly reduce the numbers, given a competent producer. The cost of the tools required to produce the music has dropped as dramatically as the hourly wage of the composer, if not more so. My PC outperforms the Synclavier that cost upwards of $50k in nineteen eighty-something. At the same time that you have the increased availability of the tools of music production, you have a vast expansion in the numbers of entertainment channels, including cable, video games and the internet. Prices for traditional popular musical entertainments other than live performances are also plummeting, to the point where it may seem to some that recorded music has no value at all. On principle, I would prefer that markets determine prices, (because I'm fiscally conservative) but I suspect some form of wage protection may be required under the current extraordinary circumstances. (because I'd also prefer to continue eating)One principle of collective bargaining that always made sense to me is that the more specialized the work, the more effective a union can be, but the location specialization aspect of the former TV/film music paradigm has all but disappeared. Studios and studio musicians are already rather cheap to hire, and the studio musicians already have a union. I'd love to see a strike, even if just to see how it might play out, but I doubt there'd be any sort of work stoppage unless a whole bunch of other unions refused to cross picket lines, which seems a bit unlikely in the current economic climate. Certainly, the quality of scab underscoring would suffer, but there's enough music sitting in library catalogs that I'm not entirely certain that entertainment consumers would notice. In other words, I think the picture's pretty bleak.

[ernstinen]

Nov 19, 2009, 12:23am, mojobone wrote:There's also the advent of the DAW and the digitization of the recording industry, and the rise of virtual instruments which, while they won't replace all the musicians required for a given project, certainly reduce the numbers, given a competent producer. The cost of the tools required to produce the music has dropped as dramatically as the hourly wage of the composer, if not more so. My PC outperforms the Synclavier that cost upwards of $50k in nineteen eighty-something.Good post, Mojo. That certainly is a factor. My sampled orchestral stuff could fool most people who would think it's the real thing. Some productions require a real orchestra, but certainly not as many as B.S. (before samples ).Your mention of the Synclavier reminds me of an interview CD of Led Zeppelin that I just listened to. John Paul Jones was talking about the Mellotron. The Mellotron got the musician's union people in a big tizzy at the time, but Jones said it was a nightmare to take on the road. He said eventually that he bought a Fairlight for road work, and the rest is history. So I guess there's no stopping technology --- Still, that doesn't put the composer on the same level of a gofer getting the lighting person coffee and donuts, and it sounds like that seems to be the case now. R-E-S-P-E-C-T, that is what this means to me! Ern

[ggalen]

Ernstinen,Respectfully, I don't think it's about respect. I doubt the other LA unions get the pay they do out of respect.They get paid more because they have bargaining power. This is all about studios paying as little as possible for the production so studios can keep more of the profits. It's business, after all.Because they can get enough music today paying what they do, that's what they do.I totally agree with mojobone. My earlier post and his are in total sync. All this great technology and the tools are WONDERFUL, but there is a price.If all the film productions required superb artistry, then the tools wouldn't increase the "supply" of composers so much. But often the basic "sound" is enough, I suspect. And the new tools give lots of people that, for $399 or whatever.

[dovetail]

I don't see how a union can do anything to improve the situation. Musicians have a union and yet lots of music recorded for TV and film is played by non-union players. Music libraries supply the TV industry with a good 80 - 90% of the music used on air. Yet most refuse to sign any music played by union musicians that would have be paid residuals. So I'm not sure the libraries would look favorably upon signing composers that bring the baggage of the union with them. And neither would most producers of custom music. Over the past 10 years, with the advance of new technology, the situation has gotten way out of hand. Too many companies looking for cheap or free, too many composers willing to give it to them.

[kevinmathie]

Thanks, Ern, for letting me know there was an article in the LA Times about it. For those interested in reading the LA Times article, here it is:LA Times: Composers and lyricists make pitch to join TeamstersThanks for the discussion, everyone.Here's my take on this whole thing. I think that composers do need some sort of collective bargaining entity, whether that's in the form of a union or a guild. I know there are lots of problems to overcome, and lots of issues to address, and the outcome of all this is pretty hazy. BUT, we know what direction our careers (as a group) are going to go if we don't have collective bargaining power. To paraphrase psychologists: The best indicator of future direction is to look at our past direction. In other words, for 20 years, prices and conditions have steadily fallen. So, without organization, that trend will undoubtedly continue. And when will that trend end? We're just starting our careers. What hope of a real "career" do we have if the trends continue? Why are we in this business? Are we in it just for our egos or some esoteric "artistic" endeavor? Or is the point to make a full-time living at this one day? If our goal is to make a full-time living someday, then the current trend is definitely working against our goal, because if the trend continues, then writing music for TV and film will soon become an inviable future.Now, is collective bargaining the magic bullet? The savior for all our careers? That's probably over-reaching. But, at least collective bargaining can be helpful, I think. We know what the future will be without it. So, what have we got to lose if we give it a shot?Here's the other thing about a collective bargaining organization, from my perspective, anyway. It creates standards, at least in people's minds. No longer will price and conditions be the Wild West, where anything goes. With standards in place, there is at least room for discussion, AND a standard for young composers to reach for.Here's what I mean by that:I live in Utah, which is an extremely conservative, anti-union state. The AFM is almost completely useless as a bargaining entity. Yeah, it has the Symphony, and the Ballet, the Opera, and one theatre company. But, other than that, most people ignore it. I used to be a member of the union, but no longer.HOWEVER, having said that, I use Union Scale constantly in my negotiations with clients. Whether I'm contracting other musicians for a client, or whether I'm booking myself for a gig, I'll always start my negotiations around what scale is. If the client tells me he has only $50/musician to spend, I'll hem and haw, and tell him what union scale is, and how ridiculously low $50/musician is. Even though I'm not union, and often don't book union musicians, I use the Union's minimum wage scale to keep my own negotiations from dipping into the range of ridiculous. It becomes a "standard" for my clients to meet, or at least to come close to.That doesn't mean I never work for less than scale, nor does it mean that I don't book people for less than scale. On the contrary, I do both all the time. BUT, once the client knows he/she is paying less than scale, they are much more willing to either A) raise the money they're paying to something closer to scale, or B) negotiate on other aspects or conditions.Right now as a composer, however, there is no standard I can go to with film makers. I can't say to them, "Wow, I'd love to help you out with your project. But, you do know that the price you're willing to pay is XX% lower than what the Composer's Union says it ought to be, right? OK, you're stuck with that price? No problem, let's see what else we can do. How about we agree with the lower up-front fee, and you give me a percentage of the publishing?" Right now, it's hard to do that, because there is no established "standard" in anyone's mind as to what the fees "ought to be."Often, it's not so much that the collective bargaining entity has ACTUAL power to force all the independent film makers, et al., to bend to their wishes. It's that there becomes an established "professional standard." With a Professional Standard in the minds of film makers, they'll get the perception that if they want a professional composer -- not just a student, or a wannabe amateur -- they'll have to count on paying X amount. In their minds, they'll begin to view those who charge less than that as sub-professional.I remember when I was in college studying music. All I wanted to do was be a professional musician. That's what all of us in my class wanted. So, what was one of the major things we were curious about and discussed among ourselves? What to charge! Someone would call me up, and leave a voice mail saying: "Hey, I want you to play for my wedding. What do you charge?" What's the first thing I did before I called the person back? I'd call up a trusted professional musician, and say, "What's the going rate for weddings?" Once I learned what the "going rate" was, that's the price that got fixed in my head. That's the price that I would aim for in my negotiations.I think the same is true for young film composers. A collective bargaining entity will establish a perception. It will be the perception of: "Here's what I should get if I'm a professional composer. If I'm not getting that, I'm not getting what I ought to be getting."Now, lots of people will point to eroding money for live performers and recording musicians as proof that bargaining power doesn't work. But, I think the fact that there is an established minimum for AFM members causes more resistance for erosion than is currently happening for composers. AFM members will say, "You want me to work for how much less than scale?!?" At which point, they'll walk away, or take the gig grudgingly. BUT, the fact that they'll take it grudgingly is better than what our composer climate is. For us, we, as a whole, seem to be happy to work "just for credit." We're not taking those types of gigs grudgingly enough. We're not bitching enough about what awful terms we're being presented. Why? I think it's in part because there is no Professional Standard we're accustomed to shooting for, and that creates confusion, and a climate of taking whatever we're offered.I would normally charge 2 cents for the above, but I'm sick of pauper's wages. So, this is my 3 cents worth.

[didger]

Hi Kevin,I agree that you have to make a choice where you stand on this. If your goal is to be a top notch custom composer, then focus on that path. The union's goal would be to support those who are on that path. If your goal is to get music (particularly instrumental underscore type music) into libraries and make a living off of royalties, then pursue that, and know that you are not on the same side as the people pushing for a union. I think trying to do both is playing both sides of the game and won't serve anyone in the long run.Alf Clausen being involved with this movement is a perfect example. On any given episode of the Simpsons, they might need to spoof Bernard Hermann, Snoop Dogg and the Beatles. Clausen (and his staff and/or contractors?) write it, hire appropriate musicians and record it rather than call up a library with the request. He's part of this unionizing effort because he's on one of the last shows that still does this and wants it to continue. So either you support that or you don't.Unfortunately, I think you're also right that it is largely LA vs. the rest of the world. It's nice to think that the internet allows us to be film composers from anywhere in the world nowadays, but so far that's only working with library music and pretty low end indie films. In terms of breaking into high end film/TV for a composition job as opposed to licensing tracks, it's definitely still all about LA - just look up who's doing the work and where they live. But I do think we can work to change that and work on breaking into LA by working on the best projects we can from wherever we are. I've got one good feature lined up that might turn some heads, but it's at least a year away. Patience!As for whether we should refuse low-paying gigs, I know you've read Richard Bellis' book. Refer to page 41. Quote:... five possible reasons to take a job:1.) To make good money2.) To get a good credit3.) To foster a good relationship4.) To have a wonderful experience5.) To have a good recording of something you don't already have on your demo "reel"If you can get any three out of the five, take it. If you can get two out of five and there is no other work on the horizon, take it. But, notice carefully the italicized words.In the past 6 months since I've been back in the USA and trying to work out of SLC, I've taken a lot "two out of five" jobs alongside some threes and fours.

[mojobone]

But Kevin, I don't think the gals with major credits are low-balling each other; rather, it's new composers, young composers that work cheap. If you pay a live band in pizza and beer, you end up with pizza and beer grade musicians. (and you've just told your customers that you don't think they can tell the difference or that you don't care whether they have a good time at your establishment)Composers are like architects; the top 1% make 98% of the money; it's a specialty, and every architect is either an independent contractor or works for a firm. (if there's an architect's union, I haven't heard of it) It's the same with actors, even though they have a guild; the top 1% make the lion's share of the money. I think rates are in freefall due to market forces. The production companies know that the internet has cut our expenses for travel and postage and a thousand other things, (same goes for them) and as ever, they're grabbing for every cent of this new savings revenue that they can hang on to. (can't say I blame 'em; I do exactly the same) When I have more work on my plate than I can handle, THEN I raise my rates. The most powerful word in the music industry is NO. NO, I won't work for pizza and beer, NO I won't play your wedding for $300. Hire the pizza and beer guys and see how that works out for you.Your work has zero market value until you begin to value yourself; why expect some outside entity to value it for you?

[didger]

Nov 19, 2009, 12:06pm, mojobone wrote:But Kevin, I don't think the gals with major credits are low-balling each other; rather, it's new composers, young composers that work cheap.As for the very very top film composers, that's correct. They're in demand, don't have to lowball and are very well paid. But that's like 8 guys out of everybody trying to make it in this industry. It's not just the rates for the bottom end of the scale that are dropping, it's the middle (ie TV and everything but blockbusters). Just look again at the referenced numbers on the change in compensation for TV composers vs. writers over the past 30 years. TV and indie film now expect way more for way less.

[ggalen]

It's nothing more than supply and demand in a market.There are more composers available who can create good music.The access to the tools is what changed. There always has been a lot of talent. Most didn't have access to the business or the recording tools.

[kevinmathie]

Nov 19, 2009, 12:45pm, ggalen wrote:It's nothing more than supply and demand in a market.There are more composers available who can create good music.The access to the tools is what changed. There always has been a lot of talent. Most didn't have access to the business or the recording tools.True. I don't think anyone's denying that. The question is, what can we do to prevent the complete collapse of this profession? It won't be much longer before it'll be really hard for mid-level composers to make a decent living.Do we just say, "Well, there are forces in motion that we can't do anything about, so let's just ride this music thing until it collapses, and then go back to our day jobs (or, keep doing it as a hobby, along with every other composer now)." Or, is there something we can do to prevent the downward spiral?My contention is that, True, we can't control the technology advances. And, truth be told, why would we want to? After all, it's these advances that have allowed us to get into this field and be a player. BUT, what we can do is set up the notion of Professional Standards -- i.e., what prices ought to be, and teach those who are serious about getting into the business about the standards and the importance of trying to keep the standards at that level. It's education.And I think it starts with folks getting together and agreeing what the Professional Standards ought to be (easier said than done, I'm sure!).