(Inspired by the "how fast do you write" thread)
Most of the stuff I get involved in, have their schedules so that the composer start up the music creation from a script, cue list, a 50% finished cutting, video-ed storyboard or animatic and such. Things like cues and timings WILL change, and the music will also have to change to a certain degree to match those changes.
They figure that the music is the single most lengthy one part of the making process. Deciding on at least 98% of the cues, and then basically having the project "on hold" while the composer does his stuff, before being able to move on with the project is simply too lengthy - and thereby too costly, or in any other way not practically motivated. I can understand that argument and I partially agree - in silent protest .
To me, getting to work with a 100% set thing, where the cues will not change is a dream, but has only happened twice for me. So, I accept starting up my thing before the cues are decided 100% and I keep that in mind when writing, so that things are created in an as adaptable way as I can without sacrificing too much quality. However, this also inflicts on the level of quality I think, since adaptable and fluid is not the same thing at all.
I would like to hear how you guys think of these situations? What are you being asked to do, and what have you experienced? what requirements do you ask for (or demand) in these situations? Since these conflicts of interest seems to be very common.