[Fmpro] I have a suggestion

[Christopher Alpiar]

I havent worked out my position on this fully yet, but in the very  
least I can tell you that 1:1 on music that is used the same way MUST  
become reality and soon or the people that enforce this rubbish are  
going to find a very hard time ahead for them ;P

Maybe music used in different ways should be paid differently, like a  
theme which is essential to the branding of that film, show, company,  
whatever, it took a lot more time and insight to create than  
background music...Or a broadway show tune where the music is the show  
as well as being the sensitive emotional interpretation of the  
characters, scenes etc. Tho I dont see why they couldnt be getting the  
"extra" money currently earned in those situations, earned for  
creating a better, more special, more famous, more whatever music in  
the *licenses* and then leave the royalty and just a fair 1 piece for  
1 piece kind of distribution....

Like I said i am not totally sure how I feel but without a doubt in my  
mind, even remotely, all music *used in the same way* should get paid  
exactly the same regardless of if there are lyrics or not, absolutely,  
100%! 1 min of background vocal is worth exactly the same as 1 min of  
background instrumental. And personally I see absolutely no difference  
in the value of a piece of music whether or not the musician(s)/ 
vocalist(s) that perform it are shown on screen or not... The only  
time visual vocal/instrumental should really get paid more than  
background, in my mind, is when the music is the actual center of  
attention AND it is the subject of the film/show - like in Fifth  
Element when they go to the opera house and watch the blue alien diva  
sing, then the audience of the film has become the audience at the  
opera, its like going to a concert - the subject of the film at that  
moment *is* the music.... or in Ray when they had scenes of them  
recording or rehearsing in the studio - the music is the subject of  
the film. But a quick cut of some big band on new years eve or a quick  
shot of a lounge singer getting paid more than background - thats  
ridiculous, even abusive...

Christopher Kennedy Alpiar
Cinematic Composer
937.294.0900 (Dayton Studio)
310.339.9603 (Los Angeles)
877.294.0912 (Toll Free)
www.alpiar.com








On Jun 28, 2008, at 3:39 AM, Ted Peterson wrote:

> This basically states all music is equal. That simply isn't the case.
> All this would do is restrict who gets promoted and it would hurt new
> composers coming into the market. Why? Because if you have to pay the
> same, why go with an unknown when a known composer can hire a bunch
> of "assistants" who compose or arrange tons of stuff and market it
> under  the composers name. It could lead to less opportunity.
>
> I really don't see any way a union could do anything but be another
> level of people who are making money off your work. But like I said,
> where it would make sense is in benefits but that is a risky game. It
> might mean hiring yourself to make minimum.
>
> Ted Peterson
>
> On Jun 27, 2008, at 6:18 PM, BVMedia-A d r i e l wrote:
>
>> That's why 1 to 1 makes sense. You get the 'value' (i.e. because,
>> you're
>> John Williams) of the music upfront as the composer's fee and the
>> royalties
>> are per usage regardless of your name. No favoritism, no value
>> judgment on
>> music (which can be opinion based).
>>
>> Your music gets played more, you get paid more. Simple formula.
>>
>> _AJ
>>
>>
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The Film Music Pro List is sponsored by Film Music Magazine -  http://www.filmmusicmag.com
>
> Best of FMPRO: http://www.fmproquotes.com - Quotes site  by Billy  
> Hale Music
>
> To edit your list options or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://nxport.com/mailman/listinfo/fmpro
>