In a reply written on Saturday to Richard Kraft’s query, “What is the end result that you are seeking?” (he directed this to Greg Nicolett), I said that I believed that, in general, composers under contract to film and television production companies were simply seeking fair treatment with respect to wages, work conditions, and health benefits, on a par with that received by actors, writers, and other “above-the-line” personnel. The difference, as we all know, between composers and these other categories, is that composers are not represented by a union and have no collective bargaining rights. However, I see no reason why, all other things being equal on the level of talent, the lack of a formally organized union should result in inequities in the above-mentioned areas.
Richard challenged me to list some of these inequities, and promised to offer suggestions as to how they might be remedied (assuming agreement that they exist). Before doing so, it’s only fair that I should tell you “where I’m coming from,” i.e., how I perceive the composer-producer relationship in its “ideal” form. Some of you may not agree with my premises, and that’s yet another discussion.
I believe that composers of original score for motion pictures and television are, in every practical sense, “employees of the production.” They receive explicit creative direction, attend meetings, observe a strict schedule set by the producer, are “on call” throughout their period of engagement, and not insignificantly, can be fired for failure to perform their duties as defined by the producer. The NLRB’s position notwithstanding, this is the functional reality of a composer’s life.
I also believe that scoring for the screen is a creative/authorial rather than a creative/technical occupation, more akin to what actors, screenwriters, and art directors do than what sound and visual effects supervisors do. A score is a wholly created thing, like a script or a performance. The ideal terms of engagement for a composer would free him/her to employ learned skills in composition, orchestration, and arrangement to the creation of an innovative and memorable score that serves the dramatic needs of the project. The technical execution of this score (orchestral contracting, audio engineering, mixing, etc.), while it may be under the creative direction of the composer, is an element of production no different from, for example, set construction, costume assembly, or the logistics of staging a gunfight, and involves hard costs and hired labor that should remain, in most cases, the financial and administrative responsibility of the producer.
Now I realize that many contemporary media composers have become comfortable, or at least acclimated, to the “farm it out/packaged deal/arm’s length” model of score creation. This model arose in the mid-to-late 80’s as a way of containing costs of so-called “synth scores,” and even then had its advocates in the composer community. One well-known composer was widely quoted back then as saying, “What a deal! They give me $75K and I give them sixteen tracks of D-50, a cello, and a set of panpipes. Plus I get my ASCAP!” But though performance income—for the moment—remains intact, the general contractor model has long since stopped generating windfall profits for all but the top tier of composers. On the contrary, a $5000 all-in package on a project temp-scored with Danny Elfman can be a living nightmare. Other composers have told me that they enjoy having control over negotiation for musician and technical services, but this control, too, ceases to be enjoyable when it’s day #56 on the project and your package budget has long since dried up.
Having set that out, I’ll list what I feel are the most serious inequities: (It should be kept in mind that these apply mainly to entry and mid-level composers, not to those whose status allows them to say which color of M&Ms they want in the green room)
1. By and large, despite major changes in deal structures, the work-for-hire model remains in place. The composer is expected to relinquish his ownership of the creative property without receiving in return any of the protections (wage guarantees, health insurance, disability insurance, or legal shield) that actors, writers or other employees of the production receive.
2. Below the “A-list,” composers have very little recourse if a director or producer’s creative demands or delivery requirements cause them to exceed the agreed-upon package fee.
3. In all other departments of a film, television or game project, the actual “hard costs” of delivering the work, e.g., equipment purchase and rental, overhead expense, labor cost, technical support, etc. are carefully weighed and factored into the project budget. D.P.’s are not expected, for instance, to pay for their camera rentals or feed their crews. In the case of composers, the rule tends to be “out of sight, out of mind,” or “what we don’t know we won’t pay for.” Composers are expected to provide a fully functioning production studio capability on a turn-key basis, including items such as orchestration, copying, live musicians, and recording personnel that were once paid separately by the production.
4. Without union protection, such as that enjoyed by actors and writers, composers will be adrift on very uncharted waters once the industry moves to a fully on-demand, streaming mode of distribution. At that point, the consolation provided by performance income may become no consolation at all.
5. With few exceptions, composers are still brought into projects far too late and with far too little time to deliver. There is absolutely no good reason for producers and directors not to “cast” the composer at the same time as other key post-production personnel, and allow him/her to begin writing during production. This is especially critical given the new reality that “the picture never locks.”
6. Finally (although the list could go on!), the notion of an “all-in composer package” as a single line item in the production budget is, well…fucked up. Even if the composer has agreed to an all-in deal, so long as the terms are work-for-hire and the score (like the script) is to become the property of the production, all such deals should be done on a “fee + costs” basis that guarantees that the composer will clear a minimum creative fee for the work of writing—as opposed to producing—the score. If filmmaker demands cause the composer to eat into this fee, it should be protected.
Okay. Have at me.
