OK, I just turned down some free work

[dwdonehoo]

Oddly ( ), I have received numerous emails from composers who want to know what to charge and if they should work for free. I pretty much cut and paste the same answers every time, because it is always the same. I tell them to never work for free. I say, if you work on speculation, invoice them, and defer your pay: when they get paid, you get paid. Get it in writing. Even if it is on a zero budget and you believe in their artistic vision, make sure that if they are a success, you are too and you get paid. If someone wants you to work free with no front end or back end and no promises in writing, they are just trying to take advantage of you. If you get little now, make sure you get more later if the project makes money. I am a music whore, not a music slut. I get paid for what I do.

True, there is a glut of "composers" out there, but you really do get what you pay for. I tend to get a large collection of demos from others, and I listen to them too. The vast majority are painfully average or worse, and these are from people who have studied, put in the work, bought the gear and have the passion for what they do (and many will get better). I think it would be hard (but not impossible) for someone to hire a composer for free and get the quality they imagine. Most of the time, they will get just what they pay for.

A side note about Fruityloops. I met a guy in LA that did a lot of the percussion work in one (maybe more than one) of the Matrix movies. He said he had about 60 megs of percussion loops. And he used Fruityloops only for his part of the project.

[Max Head]

A side note about Fruityloops. I met a guy in LA that did a lot of the percussion work in one (maybe more than one) of the Matrix movies. He said he had about 60 megs of percussion loops. And he used Fruityloops only for his part of the project.

Ask him again.

[robgb]

I have to respectfully disagree with your above post. You seem to be confusing the cost of technology with the skill, artistry and experience needed to make a good film.

I don't think I'm confusing them at all. As a matter of fact, I made a point to say that talent is the overriding force.

And I've got news for you, there are VERY talented people out there already doing it for very little money. Many people are becoming one or two-man bands, learning about lighting, photography, editing, writing and directing, and the very talented ones are creating very good movies.

In fact, many of the microbudget movies I've seen have more substance, are more thought-provoking, more emotionally satisfying than most Hollywood films.

And yes, they ARE few and far between, but my point is that, thanks to technology which allows those who might otherwise not have the chance to develop specialized skills (much like samplers allowing many of us to orchestrate), the few are growing and the gap is narrowing.

[midphase]

Rob,

I have to once again respectfully disagree. While there might be some up and coming talent that is willing to work on the low side or (sigh) for free....this gets old rather quickly and they rapidly start realizing that they do need to move beyond directors with your type of philosophy if they are to make a living at it. For filmmakers to use each next generation of talented crew for cheap labor time and time again is simply exploitative and ultimately unethical. The directors and producers reap far more benefits from the sucess of a film than the rest of the crew ever will. That is a fact and any filmmaker who justifies their behavior with the reasoning that if the film's potential for success is compensation enough is totally in denial.


I would also like to address the earlier post by Mike Greene about doing some low paying gigs on the premise of "potential"

Michael, the projects that you mention are TV shows. This completely changes the equation since ASCAP or BMI will compensate a composer based on TV broadcasts. This is not true for direct to video movies....or even domestic movies! So yes, I think that a low paying TV gig will always offer a much more compelling reason to take the gig. If I was offered to compose for a TV show (with distribution in place) for little or no money, I would consider taking the gig because I know that once the show hits the air there will be (in some cases) a substantial amount of money coming my way.


Ultimately what I would like to point out to everyone is that we live in a society where life is pretty expensive (this is not even including the cost of producing music). Everyone has the right to earn an income and be able to afford the things that are necessary to their basic happiness. Just because their work is tied to the creative field, this does not make their needs any less than someone who works in an office or any other business. We need to start changing people's perception of the value of our trade. We need to start educating our clients that what we do for them is work, pure and simple. Unfortunately there will never be any change if we first don't begin by changing our own personal attitutes and philosophies. We are our own worst enemies and we need to stop that!

[midphase]

In fact, many of the microbudget movies I've seen have more substance, are more thought-provoking, more emotionally satisfying than most Hollywood films.

Rob, could you give me some examples of good microbudget movies who have gone on to achieve any notable public status or earnings? Only one I can think of was Blair Witch (with which I was involved), I can assure you that the amount of money that was spent to correct the film's shortcomings puts it well above the microbudget. Not to mention the marketing dollars that had to go into it to build the type of hype that helped generate the gross that it did.

Open Water comes in at half a mil which once again takes it out of the microbudget.

You could argue that Robert Rodriguez made a microbudget film that is decent....while the merits of the movie remain very subjective, he also did pretty much everything on it himself (including the score), and once you add the marketing muscle needed to bring that movie to the attention of the masses....once again there goes the microbudget.

Please educate me on some $100k or below movies that are good movies with solid acting, stories, production values, sound and score and that people might have heard of.

[Mike Greene]

I would also like to address the earlier post by Mike Greene about doing some low paying gigs on the premise of "potential"

Michael, the projects that you mention are TV shows. This completely changes the equation since ASCAP or BMI will compensate a composer based on TV broadcasts. This is not true for direct to video movies....or even domestic movies! So yes, I think that a low paying TV gig will always offer a much more compelling reason to take the gig. If I was offered to compose for a TV show (with distribution in place) for little or no money, I would consider taking the gig because I know that once the show hits the air there will be (in some cases) a substantial amount of money coming my way.

And in a separate post, midphase said:
Rob, could you give me some examples of good microbudget movies who have gone on to achieve any notable public status or earnings? Only one I can think of was Blair Witch (with which I was involved), I can assure you that the amount of money that was spent to correct the film's shortcomings puts it well above the microbudget. Not to mention the marketing dollars that had to go into it to build the type of hype that helped generate the gross that it did.

Open Water comes in at half a mil which once again takes it out of the microbudget.

You could argue that Robert Rodriguez made a microbudget film that is decent....while the merits of the movie remain very subjective, he also did pretty much everything on it himself (including the score), and once you add the marketing muscle needed to bring that movie to the attention of the masses....once again there goes the microbudget.

Please educate me on some $100k or below movies that are good movies with solid acting, stories, production values, sound and score and that people might have heard of.

Excellent points. I have to admit that other than one film I did for a very good friend for free, I haven't done any others because they never seem to have that much potential.

Still, I like the sound of the one you turned down, but your points are well taken and I suspect I would have also turned it down. Especially because I can't think of any microbudget successes other than "Blair Witch" or "El Mariachi" either (the Sony Pictures logo at the end of "El Mariachi" is my music/sound design, by the way.) I hadn't really thought about how hopeless microbudget successes are! I may be doomed to the world of syndicated TV!!! You're depressing me!!!

- Mike Greene

[robgb]

Rob, could you give me some examples of good microbudget movies who have gone on to achieve any notable public status or earnings?

Is that what we're talking about? Is monetary gain the barometer for success? If so, I can name many, many multi-million dollar pictures that were utter failures. I can also name several brilliant mainstream movies that lost money.

To my mind, success is measured by the CONTENT of the work, not how much money it makes or how high on the charts it rises.

That said, I'd say the aforementioned El Mariachi, which cost $7,000 to make, was a major success, Rodriguez being the one-man band I spoke of earlier.

Although I doubt they've earned any money, I can say that, artistically, the movies, Her Summer and University Heights are successes. (EDIT: Actually, they probably HAVE made money, considering the first cost $50 and the second $300.) There are a number of others out there as well.

If you want to find out more about the microcinema scene, check the web.

But, like I said, if your idea of success is merely how much money is earned, then I'm afraid there's no point to this conversation.

How much money did Nick Drake earn? How many records did he sell in his lifetime? For that matter what about some of the classical artists of the past? How many of them died paupers? Were they successes?

[midphase]

Mike,

I really don't think you should be depressed at all, rather be happy that you have joined the ranks of composers who earn a decent living doing what they love! I have long maintained that movie work has become way over-romanticized. Unfortunately, the TV shows that I have composed for never made it into syndication, but if they did I would be loving every single one of those ASCAP statements!

[robgb]

You could argue that Robert Rodriguez made a microbudget film that is decent....while the merits of the movie remain very subjective, he also did pretty much everything on it himself (including the score), and once you add the marketing muscle needed to bring that movie to the attention of the masses....once again there goes the microbudget.

Forgot to address this. Rodriguez's movie was a success the moment he SOLD it to Columbia and used it as leverage to direct another movie. He did that by spending $7,000. What Columbia spent on it after the fact is not important. The movie was successful on its own terms.

EDIT: Also forgot to mention Open Water, which was shot on a shoestring on consumer video cameras and became a big success -- at least in terms of critical and studio attention.

[josejherring]

I may be doomed to the world of syndicated TV!!! You're depressing me!!!

- Mike Greene

Dude, you make $100,000/year in ASCAP royalties. I've done 5 or 6 not so microbudget films. These films actually had some budget and I don't make anywhere near that much.

I'm doomed to the world of cable features. Now you're depressing me!!!!

I tell you what. I'll trade you one of my features for one of your reality tv shows.

Cheers,


Jose