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

[kevinmathie]

Nov 19, 2009, 11:36am, didger wrote: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.I think you're correct in large part. But, I have to ask the question: Does it have to be a library versus custom music paradigm? Isn't there a way in which a collective bargaining entity can aid both? After all, many composers do both -- do custom work, as well as library work.As with custom composition work, libraries also have their problems, and many libraries are also eroding the money composers can earn (a notable example: Pump Audio further reducing sync fees after being bought by Getty Images. Let's hope Getty doesn't gut their composer agreements as bad as they've gutted their photographers' royalties!).Also, sync fees are drying up, leaving composers with just the back-end. That's not necessarily a problem EXCEPT when you factor in the very spotty way in which ASCAP/BMI sample music on TV (other than network TV, of course). That needs to be addressed so that composers can depend on a more accurate payment of their music.Plus, I think the song vs. score inequity needs to be addressed. I'm not convinced that songs and underscore necessarily need to be 1 to 1, as it is in England (I think?), but it does seem to be quite a disparaging gap right now for score music to be paid 5 times less than songs.So, hopefully, a collective bargaining entity can help correct some of the inequities imposed on composers by ASCAP/BMI.Plus, maybe there are ways that a Guild, or whatever, can educate composers on what is a "good" agreement with libraries, and what sort of deals should be avoided. There's probably not much a guild or union can do to impose their wishes on a library, but a good education can go a long way to aiding our profession, I think.

[kevinmathie]

Nov 19, 2009, 12:06pm, mojobone wrote:Your work has zero market value until you begin to value yourself; why expect some outside entity to value it for you?You're exactly right, of course. It does start with yourself. But, it's what I mentioned earlier: I have a harder time convincing film producers of a particular dollar value when the pay scale is a part of the "Wild West" landscape. If I can compare my asking price to a Professional Standard of sorts, then, at least in a film producer's mind, who is accustomed to dealing with unions such as SAG and IATSI, there is a validity to the price I'm demanding. Price start to come in out of the Wild West, and into a more uniform, agreed-upon construct.My opinion, of course.

[ggalen]

Kevin,I'm not trying to be a wet blanket. I am just sharing my perception about the hard reality as I see it.The thing is, everyone in every trade would like there to be a "professional standard" rate that is higher than what they are able to get in the current market.If studios are getting good music cheaper these days, how do you tell them now they have to pay more?If you are a buyer, you go for the most value at the lowest possible price.Don't you do that when you buy a new synth? Do you happily pay the "Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price", or the 40% lower price at an online or discount retailer?This is happening everywhere with globalization. It's not just composers.

[guscave]

I have to agree with Galen. As sad as it is, a union, guild or watchdog will only be able to look out for composers in the legislative arena. Maybe helping to keep the current rates from going further down, but I don't think they'll be able to raise them.It's sort of like what happened when the labels tried to force itunes to raise their prices from 99cents. Nobody was willing to pay.

[ggalen]

So how would it work? The other unions would say, "Unless you pay the composers this rate, we won't do any work for you".Is that it?

[kurtkreimier]

I've always had mixed emotions about unions in general. I have been a member of AFM off and on over the years. When I first started working as a musician you had to be a member to play the trust fund gigs, which did not pay very well anyway. That changed in the mid 80's with the passage of right to work laws. I have to say that the AFM never really did much for me other than take my dues and let me play low paying trust fund gigs. In my regular job as a show audio and camera operator for one of the top rated animal shows in the world I work for a non-union company. One of our competitors down the street, known best for their mouse ears, pays union scale and allows for voluntary union membership. The hourly pay is a little better but they only provide 32 hours of work per week for full timers. I get a full 40 at least so I probably come out a little better. We also have a much better benefits package. Although that may change after we are purchased by a new owner next month. But we have been hearing the benefits will be as good or better after the sale. I will say that there have been times that I wished we had union representation but overall I cannot complain.In terms a union for composers I have to wonder like so many others here if they are going to be able to get things back to where they once were. I know that on the songs I have gotten signed with music libraries they were very explicit in stating no union musicians could play on the tracks. I personally miss the big studio and network orchestras and composers as I felt they really produced some outstanding music. Things are alot different now. I also wonder if many of the big time film composers who would like some union representation would be willing to hire staff, assistants, co-writers, interns, etc. who were also covered by union agreements.

[dovetail]

Here's a very interesting post from another forum on the subject:I wanted to copy my reply from another forum to a question here because it is relevant to the discussion. In discussing how qualifications for a union would work, this person saidQuote:Perhaps there could be a more realistic requirement system - such as either referral, recommendation, or experience (even perhaps proof of full time work for a certain period, even with a non-film credit list). There are composers who never work on a Hollywood feature that work full time and make a living, and need representation and bargaining power. The union seems like a good idea, as long as it realistically supports the non-LA markets along with the established LA composers and production companies by setting industry-wide minimums for fees, schedules and royalty requirements as well.I'm not an expert on this - just offering my opinion here.My reply was...Supporting non-LA markets and even indie productions will never happen guys. Here is why. The ONLY people the union will really represent the way it is being proposed is guys who are doing studio level or network broadcast level film / TV shows. So...unless you make your living scoring a network TV show or a FOX or Paramount movie...the union will have no power. Why you ask?The Teamsters only negotiate with the AMPTP. Their jurisdiction is ONLY Los Angeles or NY. They can get their New York teamsters to have a NY chapter of composers as well. But those folks would only cover NY productions on that side. So what about films shot in Arizona...or new Mexico. or Canada. Or the UK....or..etc...The Teamster representative was very clear and said at the info meeting that they will not and do not have any plans to represent composers who score video games....composers who write for music libraries...composers who score commercials, etc....ONLY broadcast TV shows and studio level films where the production companies are represented by the AMPTP. Again...because the studios is ONLY who the AMPTP represents and that is where their power reaches. With them. Outside of that, the power of the teamsters is nothing. They have a HUGE problem to solve in all of this and I hope they do because there are issues that need to be addressed. They said they need the grass roots "entry level" guy to be angry. They need an upswell of guys in the trenches to want this. They need the recent USC film scoring graduates, the mass of indie guys to want this for their future in order to make this work. They need a critical mass of 75% of the guys in the business to sign on to have strength. BUT...The ONLY people the Teamsters will be negotiating with (if successful in getting composers recognized as a union) is the studios and networks through the AMPTP. There is NOTHING to make an independent production company doing an indie film or TV spec pilot or webisode to sign the agreement and become a signatory to the Teamster agreement.So...the contract this union will ultimately have will only apply to that top 10% of the guys who are doing 90% of the studio level work. (And many of them are already making above what a union minimum would be in terms of fees). That will not change. I don't see how it can because the AMPTP does not represent anything other than the level those top level folks are working on. And the mass of "young composer" guys they need will see very little to no benefit from this on the level of projects they are working on. That is the important distinction. Sure...if you get on a future studio gig...you will then see a benefit. but until then, all of your indie films will not be under a union agreement and yet you will have to be paying dues and get little to no benefit on your own projects. And in fact, you may even create an image as a union guy where the indie guys are even afraid to work with you even though you CAN do non-union work. Perhaps the indie composer guys can point to what the union guys make and say to their producers, "well...you are offering me a couple thousand and you know the going rate if this were union is $50,000. Just so you know." And the response you will get is most likely, "do you want it or not...I have a list of 100 other guys that will like the credit if you don't want it." I truly think a lot of composer guys think if they are in the union they will all of a sudden have to get paid more and have benefits. Not true AT ALL. Only if your production decides to abide by the agreement. Unless they are in the AMPTP and have no choice...why would they sign on to any agreement that means they have to pay significantly more money? They won't. If they are an indie there is nothing to make them and they will just shoot their film non-union. Heck...many films will do the production union cause there are no other alternatives and will do all of Post-production NON-Union. There is nothing to stop that either. There are alternatives in music. A lot. You could go with a music library and just license music. They can go find a non-union composer...and there will be a lot around...especially if they go find some guy who scores games and is disgruntled because he found out the union will not help his projects. So...he stayed non-union and yet has all the equipment and ability to score a film if offered. Let me just qualify everything I have said (which sounds very negative)...by saying that I honestly have not made up my mind and I WILL reserve judgement for a time far down the road. This is only the beginning and it will take a long time. Casting directors took 4 1/2 years to organize under the Teamsters. I bring up these points because I truly hope that these issues will be addressed somehow. Yes I am skeptical. But I am also hopeful that this will ultimately affect change. If they can address these issues, they will have my support. If not...then it will be business as usual and I feel I will not be the only one who takes that approach. There will be a lot of fallout from this, especially if successful. Composers need to know that and not be afraid. A top hollywood producer (who shall remain nameless here, but know he has done top hollywood films you all have seen) said to me in a string of emails on the subject...Quote:The movie business is dying. These people are living in 1980 when this might have made sense. Entry level jobs will continue to be on smaller non-union films if you are a union member as a composer you won't be hired for those. Even on IATSE movies, most of post is done non-union. ...This is akin to the IATSE still photographers thinking that because still cameras can now shoot video that the still photpgraphers will be hired to shoot EPK without realizing that video cameras can ALSO now shoot stills - so what is to stop videographers from shooting stills. It is not thinking ahead at ramificaitons. I see no upside for anyone in this action, personally. It will just force producers to look elsewhere for music - and "license" it from a music library rather than to hire a specific composer. This is done all the time to avoid dealing with Unions. ....There are so few jobs, why make it harder for non-Williams and non-Horners to get them?The only one who will benifit will be the teamsters Pension Health and Welfare funds. It's just not 1980 in the movie business anymore!...at some point in your career you will have a perceived value as a composer - but because there is a union agreement in place - THAT IS WHAT YOU WILL BE PAID, when in all likely hood you could earn more. There are simply, like directors, too many composers out there for you to negotiate a higher-than-scale deal - even though your work in the future under the current system may allow you to negotiate more. It's just not 1980 in a time BEFORE computers when there were many movies and few composers. Now there are few movies and many composers.really misguided in my humble opinion, the more I write about it.....IF I COULD MAKE THIS FLASH I WOULD... The composers are BLIND to what just has happened to SAG and WGA where the studios have "taken away their performance royalties (residuals) and even proper credit for their work" and to allow actors without their permission to appear to endorse and advertise products for sale, without additional compensation. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED IN THE LAST CONTRACT. This has happened to SAG and WGA and the studios are not even honoring the negotiated WGA deal for new media. This happened in spades to SAG.Are the composers blind? Have they been listening to music too loud to know what is going on?As a producer, I can tell you that I look on composers as a dime a dozen. Sorry. Like directors (and an awful lot of guys who call themselves director but when push comes to shove do not have the ability to deliver what a multi-million dollar film requires) there are simply too many people out there wanting to do what you do. As a producer I know that. There are very, very few people out there wanting to be casting directors or grips or teamster drivers. There is no advantage for James Horner or John Williams to be in a union, just like no advantage for Tom Cruise or George Lucas. Many of the big powerful movie stars sided with the studios during the SAG strike, effectively castrating the union. All it will take is a handful to defect. ...The ship has sailed, the horse is dying on the ground and the composers are so out of touch they are kicking a dying animal trying to make it get up when it is near death. Study the -beating that the MPAA gave to WGA and SAG - and IATSE - whose members ARE SPECIFICALLY NOT COVERED on studio producitons made for the internet! ...THIS IS DEAD ON: I think the status we have now actually gives composers a great amount of power to conduct their business and make their deals the way they want. They need to build their own demand like any other competitive business.

[BraveNote]

This is VERY important discussion here IMO. Great posting here Kevin...Would not the end users of TAXI's forwards or, the reviewer his or herself be concerned as to weather the artist (film/TV composer) was unionized? It seems to me it would have a huge bearing on the bottom line and/or be a determining factor for forwarding. As I see it now, there's not much of a carrot for composers to get overly enthusiastic about in the listings. That said, TAXI just might have to rethink it's own paradigm model toward a future of digital realities. But right now, the system is in a state of flux and all we can do is to remain vigilant and keep writing our hearts as best we can with the hope that something triggers a more stable protocol for paying fair wages to the composing community. Just a thought.

[hummingbird]

I certainly hope that my status as non-union or union would have nothing to do with whether I am forwarded by TAXI. Unless it's for an artist deal, the music alone should be the criteria, IMO. After that, the negotiations are entirely between myself and the listing party. I can see a whole lot of difficulty with the idea that there would be a composers union. Who exactly would they define as a composer? Those who score films? Those who compose for tv? Those who sign music to music libraries? Songwriters pitching to artists? Lyricists? What would be the criteria for membership? Can anyone join, or will you have to have professional credits to qualify? Who is going to pay for this union? How much will it be per year? Will it be based in the States? Will it represent only US composers or will it be international? Teamsters union dues are 2.5 times your hourly rate, so if you make $10 an hour, your dues are $25 a month - or $300 a year. I don't know how they would calculate the dues of composers, who often don't earn money when they work now, but in the future, if & when the music is broadcast and cue sheets are filed. PS - we have Teamsters in Canada.

[sgs4u]

There is only one path I see. 1) Get really good at creating tracks that are exactly what people are looking for.2) Create WONDERFUL relationships with those people. 3) Pay close attention to your mentors. Their opinions could work for you OR you may find that they aren't adapting to today's market...you get to decide.Nov 21, 2009, 9:06pm, hummingbird wrote:I certainly hope that my status as non-union or union would have nothing to do with whether I am forwarded by TAXI. V, you're right, Taxi wouldn't need to worry about this very much, because Taxi trains it's members to create and supply exactly what Taxi's clients are looking for. It's an awesome system. Taxi wants to keep connecting composers with clients looking for music. The clients looking for music won't have any reason to adhere to union demands... unless some sort of legislation gets passed, which is very unlikely. But the Union, will to push for it's own wage structure, and that union will try to dictate to Taxi and composers what "X" minutes of music in "X" market should be worth. Maybe there could be different levels of union membership...but that whole seniority thing won't work for the music business. It's all about relationships and bottom line. Unions try convince their members to tow the party line by offering some kind of carrot, usually standard wages. There is no standard wage, and the glut of really great composers available on the internet isn't going to go away. Unions also punish their own members for doing non-union work or accepting less than standard wages. This wouldn't be something that Taxi could avoid... it's a major reason why a union is started. It's also a reason why Taxi will look end up the winner because...Taxi responds to market forces, quite quickly. Unions try to fix prices. Those are at odds. I can't see how a union could endorse Taxi. I can't see how Taxi could endorse a union. It would be great to see HOW it they could work together. There are many things I don't know and I'd be happy to learn!Quote:Unless it's for an artist deal, the music alone should be the criteria, IMO. After that, the negotiations are entirely between myself and the listing party. If someone chooses to belong to a union, they will need to give up some sort of negotiating power, in order for the union to do its job. Quote:I can see a whole lot of difficulty with the idea that there would be a composers union. Who exactly would they define as a composer? Those who score films? Those who compose for tv? Those who sign music to music libraries? Songwriters pitching to artists? Lyricists? What would be the criteria for membership? Can anyone join, or will you have to have professional credits to qualify? Who is going to pay for this union? How much will it be per year? Will it be based in the States? Will it represent only US composers or will it be international? Exactly! What would be the entry requirements? Who actually gets to decide those? This looks like a real mess to me. All excellent questions... and undoubtedly the composers who stay outside the union will become more attractive than union members. It seems to me the only hope for composers is always to create AWESOME relationships with buyers, and move up the ladder one rung at a time until you set your own prices because people know what you're worth. A union will prevent buyers from knowing your actual worth, and it also protects less than stellar members. Quote:Teamsters union dues are 2.5 times your hourly rate, so if you make $10 an hour, your dues are $25 a month - or $300 a year. I don't know how they would calculate the dues of composers, who often don't earn money when they work now, but in the future, if & when the music is broadcast and cue sheets are filed.PS - we have Teamsters in Canada. Union dues are stupid. I'd rather see Unions pay people to join them. I loved the IDEA of unions for decades. But when non-union members outnumber union members 100,000 to 1... how can a union survive when there will continually be a glut of people willing to accept NO WAGES, just to get started accumulating credits?