This set of proposals consists of two parts - one part being the first and last sentences, the other being the rest of it. The first and last sentences, stating that musicians have a right to be paid for recording work and that this right is worth fighting for, are the premises on which the rest of the proposal is based. If one accepts these premises, there are some things that bear explanation.
1) All details of this proposal structure, minimum dollar amounts, terminology about "band members," "side musicians", etc. were intended not as final ideas, but as a place to begin a dialogue with the goal of reaching a real consensus. The finished proposal will reflect that dialogue, but it will only be as strong as the people who sign it. What kind of statement would you want to sign? What kind of minimums could you actually live with?
2) The intention here is not to undercut existing union scale or to create a new union. The proposal simply states that a particular group of people will take action if certain conditions are not met. This does not mean that this same group of people don't also support union attempts to create or enforce other conditions. Or that they do. The reason for this structure is simple: it provides a way of getting past the impasse created by the fact that many people working downtown are upset about conditions but are reluctant to join the union as it now stands.
3) There are actually two proposals being put up for discussion here, "Proposal..." and "Alternate Proposal". "Alternate Proposal" roughly mirrors the terms set out in Local 802's Limited Pressing Agreement, a contract designed for use in low budget recording situations. "Proposal..." is a bit more minimal in its approach. It was drawn up because, in conversation, several working downtown musician/composers said that even the reduced scale of the Limited Pressing Agreement would make it impossible to make records within their budgets.* Note that it does not even specify a minimum amount per session or per day. It states a minimum per record. The thinking behind this is that A. we donĘt have an enforcement or monitoring mechanism to verify session hours, etc., but we can easily see whose name is on the back of a record and find out if they've been paid, and B. even though there is a lot that this minimal approach will not do, it will at least begin to address a situation in which certain record companies have refused to pay any money up front. Still, if consensus can be reached on higher minimums, great. The key question is not what we think would be nice, or even what would be fair, but what minimums we are willing to take action to defend.
4) The language about "side musicians" juxtaposing them to "band members" (as opposed to the normal AFM categories of "side musicians" and "leaders") is an attempt to reflect an actual situation in which the "leader" is almost always also "the artist". The reality of downtown indie budgets is that they rarely even cover production costs. The practice of demanding more money for the "leader" who then as the "artist" must take it out of his own pocket to pay the studio costs is irrelevant.
5) These same considerations apply to members of real bands, who as co-owners of future material and career benefits of the record almost always put the entire budget into production. The wording of section 2 of "Proposal" is intended however to distinguish between real band members who actually co-own and co-operate their band as opposed to side musicians who are being ripped off by band leaders using the promise or illusion of band membership, a situation familiar to many of us.
6) The thinking behind placing the responsibility on the record companies, rather than on the band leaders or on the musicians themselves is that conflict should be avoided among the people who actually make the music together.
Again: YOUR COMMENTS, CRITIQUES, IDEAS, and ALTERNATE PROPOSALS are welcome. (See info for on line discussion and NAC phone # for meeting info or transcripts of the on-line discussion.)
*Note: while the language of the Limited Pressing Agreement is drawn up at the national AFM level, the actual dollar amounts of scale can be determined at the local level (i.e., 802), which means we have a decent chance of influencing it, if we so chose.
Noise Action Coalition (NAC)
ph: 212 592 3677 (call this # for info re: events and meeting times)
These are some ideas which have been getting kicked around by some of us interested in coming up with a plan of action and tired of being trapped between the rock of applying AFM scales and work rules to downtown indie situations and the hard place of being ripped off. What do you think? Ideas, critiques, alternate suggestions welcome.
We, the undersigned, believe that when musicians make recordings, they are entitled to be paid. Formerly, (and still in some sectors of the music business) minimum amounts of pay were negotiated by the Musicians' Union. During the times when the union has had a believable ability to win and enforce their contracts, this union "scale" has set minimum normal standards even in situations which were not directly under union contract. The current situation of "downtown" musicians on indie labels, in which each individual determines their own minimum rate of pay, has resulted in a downward spiral of standards which has been bad for the musicians in poverty, excluding many musicians who do not have outside means of support, and producing a glut of cheaply produced and poorly supported product that has flooded the market, reducing overall sales and interest.*
We recognize and support the efforts of Local 802 to find a solution to this problem. We also recognize that for complex reasons, they have not succeeded in establishing representation at most of the labels with which we work. As an intermediate step, we propose the following:
1. That beginning now, while many musicians are entitled to more pay by union standards, no side musician should ever be paid less than $100.00 dollars for any work that appears on any recording anywhere. 2. All musicians are side musicians unless as band members A. they have the right to decide within their band, democratically or by consensus, important issues such as hiring and firing, distribution of income, etc., B. they have co ownership of band assets, and C. these conditions are put in writing.
3. It is the responsibility of the record company to make sure that this minimum condition has been met, and that no recording, live or studio, is ever released without the written permission of all the musicians who played on it.
4. We are sure that most companies operating downtown understand the link between a belief in the music itself and a respect for the people who create it, and will agree that establish some minimum standards is ultimately better for all. However, we reserve the right to prevent the theft of our services and to safeguard the standards of our community through any effective means at our disposal.
Therefore we propose to do the following:
1. Insist that on any and all records/CDs on which we play as side musicians and produce as bandleaders the following minimum union standards are met: A. $58 an hour for records with a first pressing of 5000 or less, B: A contract is filed with Local 802. (See 802 Limited Pressing Phonograph Recording contract).
2. Hold these and other companies responsible for seeing that all side musicians are paid these minimums on all the material they put out. (All musicians are side musicians unless as band members A. they have the right to decide within their band, democratically or by consensus, important issues such as hiring and firing, distribution of income, etc., B. they have co ownership of band assets, and C. these conditions are put in writing.)
3. We are sure that most companies operating downtown understand the link between a belief in the music itself and a respect for the people who create it, and will agree that establishing some minimum standards is ultimately better for all. However, we reserve the right to prevent the theft of our services and to safeguard the standards of our community through any effective means at our disposal.
"There is an increasing practice in our community of musicians having their recorded work issued without their knowledge and consent, and of sidemusicians not being paid or being paid only token amounts in bogus "profit sharing" schemes. The Noise Action Coalition wants to prevent these rip-offs from becoming the norm by doing the following:
i. Informing record companies that musicians have a right to be paid for their work, to be informed when they are being recorded, and to give or withhold their consent to having their work used (or when it is being re-used, as when music recorded for a film is issued as a CD or vice versa) . When these rights are violated, we're going to protest.
ii. Informing everyone that it will not be automatically assumed that musicians will work for free or for "points," but that the scales of local 802, AFM (including the recent "low budget phono" agreement [see below]) will be considered the norm for what musicians are to be paid. The NAC is not the union* and has neither the ability nor intention to monitor or enforce union agreements. But if we see record companies that clearly have the ability to pay flagrantly refuse to pay musicians who want to be paid, we're going to protest.
iii. We hold record companies responsible for making sure musicians have been treated fairly on the material they issue.
*although many of us are union members who support union contracts and conditions. "
If something like this proposal III is sent out, maybe the language of para iii, by being a bit more vague, might answer the fears of owners of tiny record labels. It would also address this problem: if we send out proposal I, with its specific minimum amount of $120 per record, what happens if a sidemusician who worked on a record for a medium sized label for three weeks gets paid $121 dollars and feels ripped off? Have we painted ourselves into a corner where we can't help them protest? In fact, Knitting has already begun paying well over the 120 figure. Will this figure begin to function as a new "scale" which will have a downward effect on what people are paid?
Anyway, if we make this vague version the thing we actually send out, the distinctions and definitions we make (about side musicians, coop bands, etc) in proposal I would still be useful for our own understanding.
* Quote from phone conversation w/Bruce Adams of Cargo Records distribution 3/3/95: "We have seen a radical drop in demand on this type of music in the last year we've had to drop 5 labels..." Why? "You put out too much stuff and people just turn their attention elsewhere."
Response, Critiques, and Alternatives to NAC Proposals