- This topic has 58 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
That is a real scenario – and in that scenario the production company is also engaging in a questionable practice. Two wrongs making a right?
It’s fine if you have a one to one relationship with the production company, i.e, you are the composer and they are the publisher.
It doesn’t work when other composers want to submit their work to you, and the production company says OK, but only if you deal with them.
In that scenario, if you don’t take part of the writers share you are just an unpaid middle-man, often spending hours coaching, reviewing music, and mastering cues pro bono.
The choice then becomes opportunity or no opportunity for the second composer. Not a good situation all around. I wouldn’t do it again.
The choice then becomes opportunity or no opportunity for the second composer. Not a good situation all around. I wouldn’t do it again.
You’re saying you’d never again be the “second composer” again in this case?
You’re saying you’d never again be the “second composer” again in this case?
No….that I would no longer be the first composer. It was too much work coaching other writers, then mastering their cues, and then trying to get the shows’ editors to use the cues, etc. It took too much time, and in the end no one was happy with the arrangement.
@MichaelL: Oooohhh, I see. Gotcha.
Actually, sounds like it wasn’t a bad deal for the second composer ( in comparison)…..especially if his/her music was getting placed relatively often.
The choice then becomes opportunity or no opportunity for the second composer. Not a good situation all around. I wouldn’t do it again.
Yeah, me neither. That’s not a real “opportunity” to me. Don’t get me wrong. I get why people do it. It’s a handsome carrot going in. It’s often a “foot in the door” sort of scenario but rarely seems to lead to a place one would want to go and it perpetuates and legitimizes a shaky business structure.
Full disclosure: I signed away half the writer’s share on a few cues a while back. It was accompanied with reassurances of “It will be worth it.” and “This is your way in.” and it just didn’t turn out that way. The money was pitiful, it lead nowhere and I realized later that all I did was work hard to put money in someone else’s pocket. Not good and I won’t do it again and I’m glad to share that experience here in case someone else is sitting in that situation so at least they’ll have that to think about.
Actually, sounds like it wasn’t a bad deal for the second composer ( in comparison)…..especially if his/her music was getting placed relatively often.
In comparison… I suppose so. But, as it stands on its own. How’s it a good deal for either (assuming no one is getting paid up front)?
I’m sure that you can find a few cases of ghostwriters and the like in LA that are filling in the gaps for big names and it might be lucrative for them (even though they’re still working from an ethically challenged position). But for most writers out there, splitting the writer’s share is just another cut in an income stream that has already been severely eroded in the last few years and there’s no real upside.
When I see this sort of stuff getting justified it scares me. It seems like every year so many content creators are willing to take yet another hit without pushing back and that’s frightening to me. I’m heavily invested in my professional music career and I intend to do what I can to help preserve whatever integrity is left in the marketplace. I believe that we really are all in this together and the compromises we make have a real effect.
@Kiwi: I see what you’re saying. I’m actually on the fence about pitching to an exclusive library that is very active, gives a little bit of upfront money, but also takes 50% of the writers share.
For someone who’s just beginning this venture, I have to say that it’s very appealing. Yet, I understand what you’re saying regarding the industry and how the more of us that accept this type of the deal the more common this may become.
Last year I was offered two separate deals that involved giving up a portion of my writers’ share. One offered some upfront money, while the other only offered a guarantee that it would get placed in a new show. I respectfully turned them both down.
In the last 10 years the income stream for composers has been reduced dramatically. IMO at some point we need to take responsibility for what we are getting compensated for.
It is absolutely unacceptable to give up any part of the writer’s share in my view. No compromises for anyone or anything.
It is absolutely unacceptable to give up any part of the writer’s share in my view. No compromises for anyone or anything.
So if a TV composer comes to you and says they need help with a show, can you write 50 cues for this reality series and I’ll pay $100 for each cue and take half the writer’s share, you wouldn’t do it? I realize this isn’t a library deal, but many times this music ends up in a library (the composer getting the music back after the show has had its run).
What if he/she is hiring you to build up a catalog for the show – i.e. they don’t know how much of the music you write will actually end up on the show or just go straight in their library? This happens all the time on reality gigs.
I agree with the principle of not sharing writers on library gigs (unless you actually co-write a track!), but sometimes the distinction of what constitutes a library gets a little blurry.
Publishers are in the same boat. It’s not only composers that are asked to give up PRO shares.
Comcast, in negotiating new blanket licenses with publishers, is reportedly asking for 50% of the publishers share if publishers want their music used on Comcast networks.
Will non PMA libraries, which have no organization to represent them, have the power to fight this demand, or will they cave, just to keep business going?
The possible ramifications for composers and the industry are many.
So if a TV composer comes to you and says they need help with a show, can you write 50 cues for this reality series and I’ll pay $100 for each cue and take half the writer’s share, you wouldn’t do it? I realize this isn’t a library deal, but many times this music ends up in a library (the composer getting the music back after the show has had its run).
This is similar to one of the offers I got. The problem is that there was no reversion. It was for perpetuity and the composer was also the publisher. This is why I turned it down.
No, I absolutely wouldn’t accept that deal. I’d rather take my time writing cues for a library which gets me good results and I keep my full PRO share.
I mean, admittedly, I’m sure there are some circumstances under which I’d give up my PRO share… like if they had my family hostage and were threatening to kill them, or if I had to get my pregnant wife to hospital and it would clear the traffic on the way (though I’d only go down to 35% in this case).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.