[Fmpro] SCL/AFM from Member

[Mark Northam]

For what it's worth, I was appalled by the lack of support by the SCL for
the series of events the AACO held in the late 90s where foreign PROs SGAE
(Spain), PRS (UK), SACEM(France) and GEMA (Germany) were invited and did
first-time-ever presentations to writers in the US about how our foreign
royalties were beiing collected and paid.  The SCL was very speific in their
non-support for these events, likely at the behest of their patrons at ASCAP
who reportedly were incensed that these foreign societies would dare come to
the US and educate writers. 

Once, a couple of SCL board members showed up at one of these events and
accosted the GEMA people for "stripping" -  the practice by some foreign
production companies of replacing original music in TV series with music
from local composers. Problem is, GEMA has nothing to do with this, it's the
production companies. It was a cheap shot at a society that spent tens of
thousands of dollars to come educate US composers. The meetings yielded a
wealth of information that caused more than a few changes in the way writers
approach foreign royalties. 

In my opinion, the SCL's dependence on money from ASCAP, BMI and SESAC is
the single fatal flaw that prevents that organization from doing any
significant work on behalf of composer advocacy. They simply cannot bite the
hand that feeds. That, plus the interesting fact that there's never been an
SCL President who wasn't an ASCAP member. The SCL is run like a country
club, where if they "like you" you get to serve for free on various
committees, but if you look beneath the veneer, there's little other than
social issues there. No advocacy, no fighting for composer rights, just nice
tea parties and screenings. Now, those social events are fine if that's your
"cup of tea" and it's been true for a long time that social climbing is part
of the game in LA. But if the SCL is going to say it's an advocacy
organization for composers, it's got a long, long way to go. The lyricists
present a built-in stopgap to any composer reform in terms of royalties at
ASCAP, and the significant PRO sponsorship means they have absolutely no
standing to objectively lobby these organizations for composer reform. 

I'll never forget the last "State of the Art" conference they held at the
Directors Guild in the late 1990s before that series was abandoned. I was
sitting behind a guy who raised his hand to ask a question of the panel. One
of the SCL minders, a high-ranking SCL official, leaned over to the guy - an
unknown - and before the microphone was handed to him, asked him "What is
the question you're going to ask?". That kind of censorship is disgusting,
but typical in a setting where everything that is said is tightly
controlled. In fact, Film Music Magazine feature editor Rudy Koppl who was
hired just recently by the SCL to interview composers at their screenings
says he was told by SCL officials "that you may not mention, in any way,
anything having to do with Mark Northam, including Film Music Magazine or
anything else." This, many years after I resigned from the SCL in disgust at
their lack of willingness to consider any real composer reform issues. 

When I was elected to the SCL Board, much to the chagrin of the powers that
be there who quickly changed the rules after I resigned to prevent anything
like "that" from ever happening again, I decided I was going to champion one
issue to see if I could get that passed... having the SCL take a stand on
cue sheet fraud the same way they take a stand that lyricists should always
get 50% of the credit and royalties for joint works. You have no idea how
much resistance and dirty tricks I encountered with that single issue - an
issue I thought would be a slam-dunk for a composer organization to support!
After a year of trying, and when it was clear that my support for this issue
was going to result in the board resorting to any number of dirty tricks and
rules thrown out the window to get rid of me, I had enough and resigned, and
then-SCL President Mark Watters resigned 2 days later. In my opinion, Mark
was the best President the SCL ever had, by far. He is an honorable man that
was put in a very difficult position and still remained honorable and did
his best in very trying times, despite being warned by Board members that
"the President serves at the pleasure of the Board" more than once when
trying to defend his principles.

And the Ethics Committee I formed that was working on draft language against
cue sheet fraud? Disbanded and never reformed - the project was dropped the
minute I resigned.  That tells you exactly where the SCL stands on cue sheet
fraud, afraid to take a stand -  we can only wonder why and whose interests
are being protected by not doing so. 

It's for reasons like this that I believe the SCL is best considered a
social organization for screenings and parties, which only highlights the
need for a truly independent composer advocacy organization that is beholden
or controlled by no outside interest and who puts the interests of score
composers first and foremost. Frankly, if the SCL had been doing what it
should have been all along and encouraged an open dialogue on all issues -
especially composer advocacy and royalties - , there likely never would have
needed to be a Film Music Network or a Film Music Magazine... or a FMPRO
list! 

Best,

Mark Northam