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

[BraveNote]

I like the analogy Glen. It fits perfectly. Stalls in an open market.... Yeah...Like a produce market. A vegetable market with lots of potato heads shopping for fresh, organic fruits veggies. Then at the end of the day, maintenance workers come and toss the rotten apples and weakly looking produce to make room for the next day's fresh shipment..etc..etc...and the cycle continues.....Eventually, quality will win out over quantity but, we must begin the pricing a little lower than the competition and deliver the superior product. And here, it seems that's just what we've been doing. It's not because you have an inferior product, the potato heads think they can get the tomatoes for free. As long as the farmers keep giving stuff away, why should the potato heads want to pay for their produce? You can have the carrots but I have to charge you for the broccoli?

[hummingbird]

I think this is all a moot point. The union will be for film composers who live in LA, not those who write & pitch songs to artists, or those who pitch music to film/tv. It can't include songwriters and non-film scoring composers, because most of us make little or no money when music is signed, we make it when it is performed/broadcast/published. If we were members of a union, we could pay dues for 3 or 4 years without making any revenue. Hardly a motivation to join. A union might work to make it harder for songwriters/composers to get into the industry. "You can only sign with us if you are in the union"...."you can only be in the union if you have signed deals". A guild, I could see - if there's a criteria for membership, and if it works in Washington and Ottawa and London, etc., as an advocate for music writers. But, as I said in a previous post, that's what SOCAN (Canadian PRO) and SAC (Songwriters Association of Canada) are for.

[BraveNote]

"The reason we know so little about our screeners is because of loose cannon types that took returns WAY too personally."I'm not buying this anymore. That said, I've received nothing but respect and good vibes from my screeners in how they've determined my music not forward-able.As far as your "airy utopian ways" are concerned Mazz, I wouldn't change a thing. Especially if they've been working for you.

[hummingbird]

Nov 22, 2009, 10:42am, mazz wrote:The reason we know so little about our screeners is because of loose cannon types that took returns WAY too personally. But we've been down that road before as well.Well, I still believe, in my airy fairy Utopian way, that you attract more bees with honey. If a client has a choice to start a new relationship with 2 equally great composers, one who is a nice guy and the other is a grumpy, jaded, rude person, and they could only choose one, who would you think they would choose to work with? And why does "business" have to be impersonal and cold and only about money? Business is about connecting with people and creating networks so more money can be made, but the money follows the people and the networks. A positive relationship opens a lot of doors beyond just the primary one. An excellent referral is a fantastic opportunity. I wouldn't refer someone who is a jerk just because they are a great composer, because it reflects back on me. There's plenty of great music out there, but a jerk leaves a lasting impression long after the project is over.But that's just my naive view of things.MazzI don't think this is naive at all.

[ggalen]

It's an open market these days. And price will be set by how much supply is available for the current demand.Seems the only thing to do is make sure your music is unique in some way.The surest way to go broke in this market is to sound like everyone else.Then you are the dictionary definition of a "commodity"...and then it's a race to the bottom to be "better" by having the absolute lowest price.

[mazz]

Nov 22, 2009, 11:06am, hummingbird wrote:Nov 22, 2009, 10:42am, mazz wrote:The reason we know so little about our screeners is because of loose cannon types that took returns WAY too personally. But we've been down that road before as well.Well, I still believe, in my airy fairy Utopian way, that you attract more bees with honey. If a client has a choice to start a new relationship with 2 equally great composers, one who is a nice guy and the other is a grumpy, jaded, rude person, and they could only choose one, who would you think they would choose to work with? And why does "business" have to be impersonal and cold and only about money? Business is about connecting with people and creating networks so more money can be made, but the money follows the people and the networks. A positive relationship opens a lot of doors beyond just the primary one. An excellent referral is a fantastic opportunity. I wouldn't refer someone who is a jerk just because they are a great composer, because it reflects back on me. There's plenty of great music out there, but a jerk leaves a lasting impression long after the project is over.But that's just my naive view of things.MazzI don't think this is naive at all. I forgot the little emoticon!

[mojobone]

If you think free goods are a problem for composers, try being an artist.

[BraveNote]

It's OK to use more than one Mazz.Look, See?BTW Glen, "Seems the only thing to do is make sure your music is unique in some way."I'm having problems with this Glen. I've been toasting my brains out all my live to provide something "unique". However, what are we reading in the listings? I've never read something like, "Artist must show uniqueness in approach and fresh originality through-out the execution of the piece etc..."They're asking for sound-alikes. I can't do sound-alikes. But if you try the stall next to mine, he does them!

[ggalen]

PB,I should have clarified: I mainly like to perform live when possible for a listening crowd, and sell CDs to those who want them.I am not a library-oriented composer. I enjoy more audience interaction and sharing. Unfortunately that's hard to find these days unless you do small "house concerts".I just come to this forum to talk music and talk about the changing music business.

[hummingbird]

Nov 22, 2009, 11:28am, pb wrote:It's OK to use more than one Mazz.Look, See?BTW Glen, "Seems the only thing to do is make sure your music is unique in some way."I'm having problems with this Glen. I've been toasting my brains out all my live to provide something "unique". However, what are we reading in the listings? I've never read something like, "Artist must show uniqueness in approach and fresh originality through-out the execution of the piece etc..."They're asking for sound-alikes. I can't do sound-alikes. But if you try the stall next to mine, he does them! It's my belief that you can be both unique and write for the market's needs. In other words, you can find your own 'uniqueness' while creating something that sounds similar to an artist or band or film score. There's many successful songwriters/composers on this forum doing just that. OTOH, I understand that may not be what a songwriter wants to do, that they may not feel inspired by the idea of finding a way to express themselves using a limited palette of colours. I enjoy the challenge of writing for the market now - but there was a time when I thought that writing that way was restricting. There's no less value in either approach. Nor is it black and white - I often write songs just for me, and I often write music for the market.