LETTER OF THE MONTH

Apr 1, 2008 12:00 PM

YOU'VE GOT SOME NERVE

While I love and look forward to reading each issue of Remix, the sentiment and practices expressed in “Small Screen” (February 2008, p. 62) is contrary to what I thought Remix stood for. It was just more of the same old tactics: Make money from the work of artists while cheating them out of any income due to them. I was floored to read how blatantly Aatish Patel advocates and facilitates the use of music without paying artists.

According to Patel, bands should allow him to use their music in exchange for the exposure from the commercial airing on the expansive “media buy.” They should want to be aligned with brands such as Ford. Can any of these fledgling bands even afford to buy a Ford? Yet Ford wants to reach the demographic that listens to these bands — and get instant street cred.

Patel refers to a band requesting a “measly $5,000.” If it's so measly, why not pay it? Patel felt it was “exploitative” of the band to ask for the $5,000. Uh, who's being exploited? So he gave the opportunity to a “hungrier” band, who was willing to give up their song for free in exchange for the exposure. Well, Mr. Patel, did you get paid? What did you do? Did you write the song? Arrange the song? Record the song? Perform the song? No. But you got paid. Oh, that's right. You subjected yourself to the “lengthy, frustrating process” of finding the band. That process you speak of? Yeah, that's called work! Ask any band, successful or not — I'll bet they'll describe their careers as a lengthy, frustrating process.

On a related note, I read that the producers of Grey's Anatomy were going to start charging artists to have their music placed on the show. Are the producers of Grey's Anatomy, Ford or Geico not making enough money that they can't compensate musicians for using their work? Or are there simply just so many musicians willing to be used, giving Patel an endless supply of artists to exploit? The music business is ripe with traps to cheat artists of their share. Is it too much to ask that respected trade magazines like Remix not provide forums for these snakes?

Here's a thought: Next time you see a commercial or an episode of Grey's Anatomy, imagine it without the music. Now, who needs who?
The Chnclr, Chicago

WHUH-WHUH-WHAT?

A disturbing trend has been developing among some independent musicians who want to license their music to film and television projects. Evidence of this new attitude can be found in the Band Aid “Small Screen” article, which states in part: “If a band can get $10,000 to $30,000 for a campaign using its music, great, but there is enough (promotional) value in doing it for free to make it a no-brainer.”

Doing it for free? I wish this were a joke, but it isn't. Unfortunately, this “doing it for free” kind of reasoning indicates what might lead to the end of professional film and TV composing at professional rates of pay, and instead will take us into an era of underpaid (or unpaid) amateur and hobby composers. If this “free giveaway” attitude takes hold, film and TV composing as a livelihood will no longer exist.

Because there are more and more aspiring composers and independent musicians who are trying to break into music licensing for film and TV, the slices of the money pie are getting much smaller. Many musicians new to this field already give away their music. However, what those indie musicians might not realize is that they are lowering the business-model standards for virtually all film and TV indie musicians, including themselves. Ultimately, they may find they'll never be able to command a fair price for their talents and skills.

Musicians need to understand that production agencies are in business to make money, not to do musicians any favors nor promote musicians' careers. To put it another way, when production companies pay musicians, they're losing money that otherwise would be going into their own pockets. So from the production company's point of view, paying musicians anything more than the absolute bare minimum is undesirable.

Since no organization I'm aware of can guarantee a minimum fee for indie composers, I would urge musicians contemplating making a livelihood from composing music for film and TV to plan their next step very carefully. If so many indie musicians are consistently willing to accept little or no payment for their work, then other indie musicians may unwillingly be exploited as well.

There is a lot at stake here, and the rules for this new paradigm are being made right now. Unless indie composers aren't bothered by being taken advantage of and losing out in the future, they must insist on getting fair payment for their work now.
Anonymous
Via e-mail

WHAT ARE YOU SMOKIN'?

For an issue devoted to moving forward, Ean Golden's closing article in the January 2008 issue is holding us back. It's a brutal rant about “Microwave DJs” (“Half-Baked,” p. 98) and how digital technologies are ushering in the demise of a certain fraternity described as the conventional vinyl-based DJ. What Golden fails to realize is that the theme of digital DJing is not just about introducing all sorts of new (and undesirable) people into the scene, it's about stepping up and taking the game further. The same technologies that enable beginners to get out into clubs with few barriers are the same technologies that are letting other legit DJs work on a mix one afternoon, and then play that mix on a big sound system later on that night, as discussed extensively in the archives of this very magazine.

What made a DJ good a few years ago is going to change, and although I understand why some people are uneasy about that, there's no point in living in a world of denial anymore. It's a rerun that the producers already watched with GarageBand. People were afraid of the newbie hit-maker invasion, and after a few years, we all realized that good artists use technology to make music better, while the hacks will continue to use technology to keep making the worst music ever.
Elliott Fienberg
Toronto, Canada

Thanks for your well-crafted letter, Elliott. This No Respect column was not written as an anti-digital rant but rather as a reminder to new DJs that just because digital DJ software affords certain shortcuts does not mean you should take them. I encourage you to check out my monthly column, Digital DJ, where you will find we are really very pro-digital and fully embrace taking the game as far as possible. — Ean Golden

I DRANK THE KOOL-AID

What you wrote about “Microwave DJs” was awesome. Finally, some people entering my world of quality DJism. Good for you! Keep up the good words about vinyl and real DJs.
Greg Peter Patrikios
Via e-mail

OH SH^*T

Ugh. The drugs got the best of us again. It turns out that Sia's last name is not Fuller, as printed in the March 2008 issue of Remix (p. 26); it's Furler. Man, we have got to lay off the meth. We are deeply sorry for the error (and sorry we sold the dog for more meth). — The Editors

For sending in this month's winning letter, The Chnclr wins his own Delphi SKYFi3 satellite radio (MSRP: $199.99). If you send in the most inspired correspondence next month — or simply the letter we like best — you'll win the Stanton T.90 USB turntable (MSRP: $399). All you have to do is send a letter to remixeditorial@remixmag.com. Please include your full mailing address.

Acceptable Use Policy blog comments powered by Disqus

Want to use this article? Click here for options!