-
I shouldn't need defend my position here but because there is a lack of clarity I will. First, I understand well that most people are struggling to find enough work and asking for someone to work for nothing is wrong. I would never do that.
If I thought I could offer enough money for it to be fair I would do that. But I simply can't afford the money. What I am giving to those who have already agreed to help is MORE service in exchange - in quantity - regardless of what you think of the subjective quality. It works well for those who agreed to work with me (and who know the quality of my work). I don't understand your problem with it - unless you just think I am a terrible at what I do - which is why I was insulted by the sarcasm. It implied that not only am I not special but that my work has little value to anyone.
To me and for those who agreed to help this was a good solution - it created more work for myself in the future and got me the help I needed now and secured help for them in the future. If you would never have need of my help I can see how it could be construed as insulting. The only reason one might need my help is if he or she knew they would be facing deadlines similar to mine in the future - and wanted to get that help secured for the future by giving help now. Does it make more sense now? In addition I also posted this same exact request other places where the readers might not have the skills with synhtestration as I am sure most here do.
Money is just an exchange of value. I am giving more value back than what I receive. What's wrong with that?
By the way this not a large budget film. I am not being selfish here and I couldn't possibly have gotten more money from the director who is personally financing the film.
-
not sure now if i shall be relieved to hear that film financing is not only in austria an expensive hobby in some cases ...
just yesterday i've heard a statement from blood sweat & tears that formerly more musicians got a real chance by the recording industry and IMO this is even more true with movies.
if some creative people wouldn't allow theirselves to work for little or possibly no money from time to time, a significant amount of work could never be published.
my 2c only, christian
and remember: only a CRAY can run an endless loop in just three seconds. -
Matt, no insult was intended, Humour, good or bad is still free, yes?
While i try to understand what you're doing, and i assume this is an investment in the future, i'm less inclined to see this as a barter of sorts, and that's not because of your offer of work in return, but a confirmation of the ever degrading confirmation of the professional status of orchestrators, etc.. It's not enough that work gets a little harder to find, but that those who have a lot of cash to invest in film, and make large profits, see orchestrators and other related crafts as less than worthy of a decent return, simply because they don't have to pay them as much, and don't consider them important enough.
Have you noticed the trend in Horrowood, for example? The same themes appearing like pages in a comic book in an ever decreasing pool of originality, and risk taking? Same thing happens in the concert world, with many orchestras and their administrators absolving themselves of the cultural responsibility of introducing new work alongside the standards, simply because the standards put bums on seats and put cash in the pockets of all concerned immediately.
It's a short term view, and while i'm not pointing the finger at you, the more freebies that are eagerly accepted, the more the bigger players consider themselves free of blame for the scenario they created, of lowering the professional standing of the craftsmen and women who help bring a creative effort to life. Personally, i don't think you've done yourself a favour here, because if a director can't find the finance for the composer/orchestrator on top of the other musical costs, then either you're not exactly treating this as a business, or you're supremely confident this mighty effort on your part will pay dividends. And it tells you something about the standing you're held in by the fellow, doesn't it?
Another question to ask here is, if the director is financing this himself, and one would assume he's tried to source the cash from investors first, why wouldn't they give him the cash?
Good luck.
Christian, film making has become expensive all over the planet, lol.
But i wonder if this scenario actually has an opportunity within it. As audiences get bored with the formulaic stuff, they may start to look beyond the mainstream, and in doing so, encourage investors to take a further risk or two, in the pursuit of healthy returns. Breaking the back of the cabal controlling theatres, cinemas, and corporate filmaking won't be easy, but if their profits dip far enough from audience boredom, then the structure may change.
Just my 8mm's worth!
Alex.
-
alex, reading the line
the more the bigger players consider themselves free of blame for the scenario they created
i've noticed to have left out a basic consideration which is of course true and somehow leading to an undesirable automatism.
on the other hand from my personal experience the best counterexample is The Venice Procect which never had happended if everybody had kept waiting until a full regular financing had been completed - not to support such projects would mean to miss a unique chance forever.
if someone or something has the power to convince enough people its worth the effort, it might be admissible to *break the rules*
christian
and remember: only a CRAY can run an endless loop in just three seconds. -
Okay let me put some numbers out there to make it clearer. This film's budget is just over 200k - not music budget - the entire film - I begged for $8,000 to record with orchestra - and the director literally said - well I guess I can just wait a few more years to get a new car. A typical music budget is 1-5% so 2-10k is about right.
One orchestrator offered to do the job for 25k - and that might be fair - on a studio film - but how am I going to afford that? This isn't even really orchestration proper - it's much easier - a good copyist could do it just as well - heck I could probably teach my mom to do it.
This isn't a film anyone is working on to make money. We are all doing it for other reasons. I am doing it to build experience, credits and my "reel" I am all of 24 years old and I've been out of school all of 2 years.
I think if you look for the negative in life you WILL find it. If you are prepared for and expect to see a lack of work you will literally notice lack and ignore opportunity. This isn't metaphysical - you have something called a reticulating activation system - that tells your brain what to notice and ignore. So, be careful what you tell yourself. If you constantly are saying work is scarce, no one values my work, there are no opportunities - you will get that. Instead feed yourself positive thoughts. It's all about attitude. It IS possible to make a GREAT living as a composer or orchestrator - but you have to be willing to have the right attitude. and no I am not implying that you have to barter with me to prove you have the right attitude.
-
...Hmm....
Well a few things are true:
1) Orchestras - if they're any good - are expensive. Real expensive.
2) A lot of projects that think they can't afford orchestras, have more than enough money for one, if they deprioritize name-brand snack-cakes at craft services. But they don't, because 1) Everybody eats a craft services and 2) Nobody ever sees you until the film is done and wrapped, and 3) Did I mention how big a deal food is on a movie set?
3) Not enough of us push back against the whole thing. You gotta stand up and make that fight, which a lot of us won't because we're afraid of losing the gig. I've made more than a few conversions over the years through Academy-Award-worthy impassioned speeches and a few brutal side-by-side examples of virtual versus real. I've seen budgets magically go from $50k for music to $250k. At a certain budget level, it's in there. Doesn't mean they'll spend it.
4) Sometimes, you just don't have enough bread to do it all right, so you're calling in the favors. Do it sparingly, because that word spreads at lightspeed, but know that it happens and don't beat yourself up about it forever.
Just be sure to go a few rounds with the director - I told one once that a virtual orchestra is like a really good blow-up doll of your girlfriend; just 'cause it looks a lot like her, doesn't mean it feels the same. He actually went for it. So you never know. If cheese like that can instantly quadruple a budget, then don't fear going for it.
_Mike
-
-
Bullshit Mike.
A virtual performance is like a blow up doll of your girlfriend huh?
What a piece of shit.
As compared to what ? Comatose live string players sawing like idiots on crap orchestrations they hate, financed by idiot producers who mistakenly paid for live in order to get a "Class" post production and brag about it, while the dork composer thinks he is Beethoven because somebody is playing his wretched music live ?
As opposed to a brilliant composition by an individual artist who prefers to use samples or maybe even an analog synth because that allows him superior control of all the elements of composition. yeah right. You really know what you are talking about... [8-)]
-
William, I think that both you and Mike can be correct under the right circumstances. There is no doubt that for most of what I do the sound is going to be far better with a live orchestra. However, if the players were not of the top quality, this certainly wouldn't be the case. I hate programming, and being a performer at heart, I would rather be working with other musicians than sitting in my studio. However you may well prefer having ultimate control over every note.
FWIW I can think of many past girlfriends who made me wish fro a blow-up doll..!
DG
-
I know I'm way late to this conversation...but let me point this out....It is WAY cheaper to produce a film this days. HD cameras,computers to edit picture with, mics to record audio.....everything involved with creating a film is way cheaper. So why are composers/orchestrators working for nothing? Someone is pocketing alot of the money musicians should be getting.
-
I'm afraid that the bottom line is this:
1) Orchestrators and Engineers get paid. If the composer does really well out of the film, it is extremely unlikely that they will pass on a bonus. Do orchestrators get a share of the Royalties? Not in my experience.
2) Just because an orchestrator has worked for a composer before, it doesn't mean that they will be asked again. I was bumped off a film earlier this year simply because the Producers were unfamiliar with the Director's choice of composer and insisted on a team that had worked on one of "their" films before. I had worked for this composer for around 4 years, earning him 2 BAFTA's in the process.
So as I said in point 1), orchestrators get paid. If you can't afford an orchestrator, then do it yourself, or use samples. Why should the film company get something they haven't paid for anyway?
DG
-
@magates said:
no one's pocketing a lot of money these films (like the one I needed help with) at best break even and often lose money as they go direct to DVD.Really?? Who ended up with the $300K. The camera man? Editor? Actors?
Forum Statistics
182,708 users have contributed to 42,254 threads and 254,893 posts.
In the past 24 hours, we have 2 new thread(s), 8 new post(s) and 43 new user(s).
