[Fmpro] Unions

Mon Oct 2 16:46:32 GMT 2006

I know this thread might be about finished but I wanted to add my 2c and 
perhaps clarify a couple of the issues.

1. The Canadian issue is a misuse of the rules. That scale was created for 
Canadian composers writing for Canadian projects only. The fact that it is 
misused is the fault of greedy producers, composers, musicians and the ineptness or 
intentional oversight of the AFM national.

2. The fact that the AFM is threatening its musicians is how it should be. 
That is how unions work. A group of people agree to not work below a minimum 
standard. That is unionism. Of course any composer or producer has the right to 
use non union musicians (if they themselves are not an AFM member or hold an 
agreement with the AFM) whenever the wish. The threat should have happened 10 or 
15 years ago but once again it is the union to the rescue way to late. 
Seattle is established and will stay in business using non union but qualified 
musicians. Score one for Seattle.

3. Buyouts simply do not  protect musicians. Producers want it both ways they 
want to buy out the product for less than it is worth and then not share 
profits. The buyout would have to include substantial money to make it fair to the 
quality of musicians they are hiring and producers simply don't want to pay a 
fair price. The idea of special payments is to give the producer a lower wage 
to get going in case the picture does not do well in trade for a very small 
share of the profit. 

In the words of Gary Mule Dear  "If you will work for a little less every 
year you can stay in the entertainment field the rest of your life"

Unfortunately the AFM has no control over musicians in London or anywhere 
else in the world because it is the American Federation of Musicians which 
includes Canada. It has jurisdiction no where else and does not reciprocate with any 
other protection union for musicians around the world.

Low Budget films pay $180 per a 3 hour call. That is $60 per hour. It does 
not limit the money a composer can charge and does not include music production. 
As anyone knows that has lived in LA for any amount of time the non union 
rate 15 years ago was $75 per hour. The union (foolishly) started to compete with 
the union musicians doing non union work and actually lowered the amount of 
money on a non union session. I understand the frustration of fledging 
composers however many production companies and composers that are making a whole lot 
of money on projects use these scales more than you would think and still 
charge very high fees. So it is a double edged sword.

Consider. Getting up early in the morning driving 2 hours in rush hour 
traffic to do a 3 hour session for $60 per hour, less taxes and cost of goods, and 
being prepared on your instrument (oh and driving back). Compare that to 
sitting in your living room for $60 an hour teaching (hopefully not in ones 
pajamas). Also consider that if a musician does a $180 session 5 days a week that 
comes to a yearly salary of $46,800 (again less the cost of goods, taxes, etc.). 
Not exactly a power house living for a highly trained professional. So I hope 
that puts it in a little perspective.

The large studios have plenty of money and when they use it on musicians it 
is never wasted. I wonder if those $70 million actors would seem as good 
without the expert music. Needless to say there is a lot of other waste in making a 
picture and it is never the musicians.  Big budgets mean big results many 
times.

Just as composers do musicians spend their whole life preparing for their 
profession. The don't just graduate from school and stop practicing or investing 
in their instruments and craft.

Composers should appreciate musicians and musicians should appreciate 
composers. Alas it is not a perfect world.  There are selfish interests.

As far as the union. The Federation, the locals, and yes even the RMA have 
made big mistakes. Getting them to see the future and not myopically is almost 
impossible. But I have to believe we are better of with them that without them. 

I see the frustration on this list many times about the representation of 
Composers by any type of protective agency. Musicians are simply dealing with the 
frustration of a slow moving non understanding union that has been around for 
a very long time.

OK that's the end of my little 2c and I hope it clarifies a few things 
without making anyone upset.

FYI, my qualifications are. Musician, music contractor, producer, owner of a 
production company, artist manager for Grammy award winning composer Victor A. 
Vanacore, and 25 years ago a musicians union officer (should I admit that). I 
have seen the business from many aspects and am sensitive to the problems and 
frustrations that each entity encounters.

I have enjoyed this list and trust that you will take my comments in the 
spirit given. Which is to enlighten from my perspective.

Thanks for the forum.

Mike Vaccaro

Hi Michael -
> 
> 
> As you are clearly a strong AFM (American Federation of Musicians)
> supporter, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the following:
> 
> -----
> 
> 1. Do you think it's right that the AFM, through it's Canadian division,
> offers a low-budget buyout agreement for low-budget indie films in Canada
> but refuses to offer a similar agreement in America? According to the
> Canadian union folks, this agreement virtually wiped out 90% of the
> "recording work leaving town" problem for low budget films and allowed them
> to be recorded under Union contracts in Canada.
> 
> 2. Do you think it's right that the AFM is threatening its member composers,
> musicians, and other AFM members for having anything to do with scores
> recorded in Seattle (yes, they're threatening AFM member composers as well!)
> with $50,000 fines beginning today, but has excluded from its threats those
> members working on films in London, Eastern Europe and elsewhere?
> 
> For more on this, see:
> http://filmmusicworld.com/mag/index.php?todo=showstory&storyid=181
> 
> 3. The massive amount of recording work leaving Los Angeles for Seattle and
> other locations is directly attributable to the fact that filmmakers want a
> buyout on their scores and these other recording locales have chosen to make
> that option available. According to some players I've spoken with in LA,
> while the top 100 or so LA session players appear to have benefited
> handsomely from the AFM's choice not to be more competitive with other union
> recording locales including London and Seattle (both have unions) and
> elsewhere in terms of offering a buyout option, the results of these
> policies have cost LA musicians a lot of work as jobs leave town for more
> competitive work environments that offer the filmmakers what they're looking
> for - buyouts. Do you agree with this policy that seemingly protects the
> benefits of a relatively small number of players but causes a large amount
> of work to be done outside LA?
> 
> -----
> 
> Since you've offered your opinion on the list, I'll include mine - I believe
> that musicians are far better off WITH a union than without, However, some
> of the current AFM policies seem intent on preserving the benefits of a few
> high-paid musicians at the expense of many, many other AFM musicians, which
> I believe ultimately is hurting the AFM more than it is helping it.
> 
> The "hardline" approach that the AFM is taking towards low budget film
> buyouts (amazing when you see the AFM's own Canadian division offering them
> to Canadian low budget filmmakers) is driving away a lot of small and medium
> budget films to Seattle and elsewhere, creating skilled film score recording
> orchestras elsewhere - the biggest threat to the AFM. If enough AFM
> non-A-list musicians lose enough work because of this, I'll bet we'll see
> the formation of a "Financial Core Status" Orchestra in Los Angeles - union
> members who have elected this special status which allows them to work union
> and non-union jobs without fear of union retaliation.
> 
> The availability of a local non-union orchestra of talented musicians would
> likely recapture a great deal of work going to Seattle and elsewhere -
> especially on low and medium budget films - but could spell the end of the
> effectiveness of the AFM as the studios could start designating that only
> Core Status musicians may be used, just as the studios are saying now in
> some composer package agreements that "No AFM Musicians may be used".  I
> have to wonder how much lost work the AFM will tolerate to preserve the
> benefits of those musicians in town fortunate enough to be working on the
> big studio films. With every lost job, other orchestras become more talented
> and proficient at recording film scores, and as those other orchestras
> become more experienced at film scores, they represent a growing competitive
> threat to LA musicians. This simple, basic fact seems to be lost on some in
> the AFM as far a I can tell...
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Mark Northam
> 
> 
> On 10/1/06 10:05 AM, "Michael John Mollo" <mollovg at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >The
> >unions protect the players and all the other people who make their living
> >"freelancing."  And as a composer in Los Angeles, I am very thankful that 
> an
> >organization such as this exists. I always know that when I gounion, I am
> >getting the best quality performance.
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Mark Northam - Publisher
> Film Music Magazine
> The Professional Voice of Music for Film &TV
> http://www.filmmusicmag.com
> 1-800-774-3700 x702 / (310) 645-9000 x702
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> The Film Music Pro List is sponsored by Film Music Magazine -  
> http://www.filmmusicmag.com
> 
> To edit your list options or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://nxport.com/mailman/listinfo/fmpro
> 

Mike Vaccaro
www.MikeVaccaro.Com
PH  562.424.4958
FAX 562.424.2512