hey guys,
i was wondering how big the chances are to make a living out of movie scoring (not getting rich). is it like becoming Micheal Jackson (one in a million no matter how good you are) or more like, if you got the skills you get the job.
i might have the chance to get the money for the full library next year but buying it without a job just for the hobby would be crazy in my opinion so maybe you guys can clear things up.
-
getting a job
-
Bill is right, and there are people over there who can give very good advice for the low and middle of the range side of the business, should they feel so inclined. In fact, only the other week I was having a similar discussion with a university professor in music composition, albeit not specifically for film, but instrumental music in general. I was putting to him my position that people should be very generally and very strongly discouraged from studying composition at university, and I was talking about people who could already matriculate (i.e. they would already have the musical prerequisites to study music on a tertiary level), let alone the ones that are starting to think about learning how to write their names on the staff.
There are many reasons for which I believe this, but I'll limit the discussion to a few points. Talent aside, kids of 18-20 or thereabouts who plan to follow this path, mainly a) have no idea about the complexity of the art and the difficulty and years of dedication to acquire the necessary skills for it (school doesn't really prepare one for this, as it does say for science or business - I have taught college, I know...), and most importantly b) Professors don't explain the infinitesimal amount of probability of those kids actually becoming working professionals in the field at the end, as graduates (let alone as amateurs/hobbyists). How many people do you know that go to university to study medicine, science, law, business, computers, etc. for four years or more, with the a priori knowledge that their sole practically achievable potential will be becoming teachers (probably high-school, as appointment at college level is almost as difficult to get as a Hollywood contract)? Professors of course won't publicize this as it might lead to departments closing down due to scarcity of students (it's happening already anyway).
Now I know the question was about film composition, and continuously plummeting standards as well as technological prosthetics make people think that "traditional" musical skills are perhaps not mandatory anymore, if not a thing of the past already. Consider:
a) If that is the case and - as I heard Mike Verta say in a video (sarcastically) - all you need in order to be a film composer is a laptop and a pulse, think how exponentially the demographic of your competition has just grown... What are the odds of making it if you're just like the rest?... (spiccato after spiccato, taiko after taiko, same handful of libraries offering the same orchestrated chunks and effects for everyone, and same handful of software of same harmonizations and rhythmic arrangements for everyone, etc....),
b) Most successful (and I also mean 2nd and 3rd-tier) working composers in TV/film have either studied the art of music at college level, or have done equivalent private/autodidactic study and have accumulated experience at the same level - i.e. years of analyzing 20th century scores, harmonies, counterpoint, composing, performing, conducting, etc., OR if not, they somehow have managed to rise and work in films where the budget can afford them assistants that have done the above, to cover for their own massive deficiencies. Can you secure this level of contract?...
c) Most beginners (including some not so beginners), think that they are the only ones who have thought of offering their services for free to directors, reasoning that in time they would amass enough credits and respect that will eventually lead to professional contracts.
I would say about point 'a', think about what it is that you are personally offering that is that different to what the other tens or hundreds of thousands Lord of the Rings-like hordes of hopefuls who also own a laptop, a pulse, and the complete VSL, EW, etc. are offering. Don't think of the tools so much. Imagine that the London Symphony Orchestra is yours to do with as you wish. So what? What would you give them to play? The LSO can do Star Wars, and it can do Hot Air on G String. It's not the available tools, it's the material that counts. So what makes you more audible than the screaming, pounding, yearning masses that will land you the job (if your answer is "I'll do it for free", see 'c').
Point 'b': Think about spending some of your thousands of valuable dollars, not on gear, but on studies. Yes, it is incomparably harder than mouse-clicking the arpeggiator, but if it's hard for you, it's hard for everyone else as well. Studying may take you away from at least full-time hunting for that fantastic (literally) contract, but it will give you the invaluable skills of rising quite a few floors in the Babel skyscraper of hopeful composers, not only bringing that contract closer to the real world (as your competition thins out with every floor you climb), but more importantly, providing you with professional skills that will allow you to look for assistant jobs to working composers, getting your foot in the professional door that way (and climb even more Babel floors towards the top in the process!)
[One thing about studying: I would very strongly recommend that you do this at college level - either at college, or privately, but on THAT level! Looking at YouTube videos or buying/attending 'magical' 5-week video/interactive courses on the Internet is basically wasting your time. Yes, compared to doing nothing, everything one can teach you in a few hourly videos is valuable, but it is nothing, and I mean NOTHING, compared to a structured and comprehensive course, itself the result of fermentation of hundreds of years of teaching music in the western world. If you think you can be a musician by looking at videos and two orchestral scores, don't forget to apply for a job at MacDonalds that same week]
Point 'c': Not only almost every hopeful is offering their services as a composer for free these days - and for free means you are actually forking out your own money for whatever expences, but the current trend in TV/film circles is for the composers to bid, to pay a fee, the highest fee to the director in order to score something, thus outbidding other composers also interested in the contract!!!! Did you say something??....
Always charge or ask for something. No matter how little, you actually have more chances of landing the job since you will get more professional respect, than otherwise. It also gives you something to build upon, as well as boosting your professional self worth.
Finally, all of the above takes care of only the musical considerations of "How to make a living writing music for films". Believe me, if buying the libraries was the prerequisite, not only have I owned the best samplers for my entire life (both virtual and palpable), but I am additonally conservatoire and university trained in music. Am I scoring TV and films distributed worldwide? No. Are people doing it who haven't owned the best samplers for their entire lives and have 1/100th the music knowledge that I have? Plenty. Are all of them more inspired than I am? I wouldn't say so... So am I contradicting myself?
No. Locale and personal relationships are so much more important than musical matters. It has always been so, but these days so much more so. Forget the libraries, or at least don't think of libraries as a top priority. Study, and network; network and study. Networking is the single most important factor in becoming a working composer (i.e. you pay your bills from writing music), and I so wish somebody had told me so in my youth, when I thought quality of composition would suffice.
You can attempt to climb the aforementioned tower of Babel floor by floor in all decency, visibly, from the outside, consummately, with your ever accruing skills and perfection of the art, leaving the lazy, giftless, and tasteless ones behind. Just remember, there is always an elevator inside for those with access... Regardless of musicality... Lamentably...
-
I agree with all of this, although I don't think that university should necessarily be seen as job training. I studied Music at university, knowing perfectly well that the likelihood of entering the profession as something other than a teacher was very slim, but musical training was much more important in itself than career prospects. I think that was also the attitude of my classmates. However, the thing that mght give hope to aspiring musicians is that those people who were extraordinarily gifted managed to find careers as musicians.
There were a few who networked their way to a career, but they were the ones who were merely excellent, finding a way to distinguish themselves from others who were also merely excellent. Come to think of it, I know one composer who is utterly talentless, but he was good with computers when not many were using them for music.
So, if you are simply better than the competition (and obviously so), then it is worth considering a career in music. You'll also need to network, or get yourself known somehow. Musical talent is not a rarity, so there's a lot of competition, but extraordinary talent will increase the chances of a successful career. If you're lucky, being extremely good might be enough, but you need to be very lucky indeed.
-
I found out that i made rhis post long ago but never did answer to the ones who put so much energy ik answering my question. So here i am from the other side of the world with my iphone haha. But i want to take the chance and thank the persons who took the time to inform me!
-
Fantastic reply by Errikos.
Most people fail to realize that music composition is a very intellectual and academic subject, requiring a lot of study and learning along with hearing and practice. No one would dream of becoming a civil or electrical engineer without taking a 4 year college after 12 years of school education. So that is 16-20 years of study ! But it is easy to think that music is somoehow intuitive and should come naturally. While this is totally fine if one enjoys that, it takes something else to do produce a meaningful contribution to music that can be considered worthwhile by others. The learning of the craft is crucial and non trivial, while also may not guarantee that one will make money out of composition.
But the paradox is, how can someone like Taylor Swift make millions with little or no musical ability? Well, she is a performer and not a composer and thats a different game altogether.
I think this interview of John williams is somewhat appropriate:
-
Yes indeed! Allot of popular musicians are great entertainers which has more to do with the person then what they know. As a composer for classical orchestration i also think you have to know allot about the subject. But hey, your not playing one instrument. You're playing more then hundred! I do think and this counts for allot of coarses and educations that the classical system is highly overrated and that it so much more comes to discipline to learn it in depth. Allot of times after a course i thought. I could have learned this myself for a tenth of the price by just studying some good books. The classical system is just more to keep you on track if you ask me. To keep you motivated.
