[Fmpro] Unions

[Michael John Mollo]

Bravo,

you put that into words much more eloquently than I could have.  I am right
there with you

Michael John Mollo
USC post-graudate film music student composer

On 10/2/06, MVPROD at aol.com <MVPROD at aol.com> wrote:
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
www.michaeljohnmollo.com - a fresh voice in new music...