 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I'd have thought it was obvious. I think their treatment of soundtrack fans over the release of this soundtrack release is contemptuous (but I'm fine with you not agreeing).
Maybe the problem is that you and I are thinking of different definitions of "contempt" (because there are several). If you mean simply "disregard for something that should be taken into account" then I 100% agree with you! Customers *should* be taken into account, and Disney is prioritizing the preservation of their bottom line over making fans happy. But Disney is hardly unique in this; all big corporations behave this way! It is basically baked into their DNA -- they all have to answer to shareholders and that will always matter more than trying to make a couple thousand more fans happy.
I do *not* think that Disney feels scornful towards fans/customers, or considers them worthless. But it seems maybe you didn't mean that kind of contempt.
They obviously couldn't give a fuck,
They give a fuck about consumers inasfar as they are profitable. If the likely profits from pressing another few thousand copies of this soundtrack album on CD are dwarfed by the expense of paying full re-use fees on all of the considerably expensive L.A. recording sessions for this film, then some exec at Disney has a decision to make: make some more fans happy, or make their bosses/shareholders happy. This is capitalism: profit above all. It makes more sense to hate the game we are all stuck playing, rather than some random player just playing their hand in a way that makes sense.
but their decisions over the past few years haven't been great (hence the $40 billion debt), & if you've given yourself the tough job of defending them. Good luck with that.
I'm defending sanity on this board, not Disney as a corporation. Hard to say which is a tougher job, though. 
Just to be perfectly clear: I'm not a fan of Disney the corporation AT ALL (though I do like what some of their creative employees make). I'm not a fan of ANY corporations. I'm not a fan of any CEOs, least of all Bob Iger who can jump off a cliff for all I care.
But I know it makes more sense to hate the SYSTEM rather than some nameless corporate exec who simply made the most sensible business decision they could, *within* that system. It wasn't malicious on their part. They don't hate fans. And if they could make fans happy without sticking their own neck on the chopping block, probably they would!
And cutting their losses makes no sense at all, they're $40 billion in debt, the cost of releasing the soundtrack (of one of their biggest films of the year) is a drop in the ocean.
...but it's your logic that doesn't make any sense here. If Disney is bleeding and $40 billion in debt, they would be cutting corners wherever they can! Maybe if they were flush with cash, then spending a couple hundred thousand dollars on re-use fees would be your proverbial drop in the ocean to them, and they'd let it slide. But when you are a corporation hemorrhaging money and you're feeling pressure from stockholders to cut costs across the board, then a couple hundred thousand dollars here or there *does* matter because it all adds up!
I'll put it to you this way as maybe it'll make more sense on a smaller scale: if you graduate from college with $100,000 in debt (not uncommon these days), would it make sense for you to treat yourself to a fancy dinner at a posh restaurant for $500? After all, that's a "drop in the ocean" compared to your debt, right? No, it would be irresponsible. And if you're a corporate executive and you make the wrong decision that costs the company $100,000 (even if it's a huge company with tens of thousands of employees, and billions of dollars of total debt)... well, you very likely aren't going to keep your job. Or if you do, you are likely to be in hot water over it.
Yavar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know what that means, Kev. This is a thread for discussion of the physical album and why it was so limited. That is what I am doing. I am not attacking anyone; in fact I began my last post in conciliatory fashion because I think Rameau and I were just thinking of "contemptuous" in different ways.
What does that have to do with the last thread? You think this discussion is what had multiple people hitting the "abuse" button? That thread became a shit show because of someone posting blatantly anti-LGBT statements, to say nothing of the Hitler apologia.
Yavar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it possible we'll see a return to soundtrack albums being re-recorded in London or Europe to avoid those fees?
Unlikely, for a variety of reasons. It used to be that if a movie was very successful, the soundtrack album might sell as well. That is no longer the case. Most music is streamed nowadays, comparatively little is bought. ( "Is Buying Music Still A Thing?" https://www.filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.cfm?threadID=148473&forumID=1&archive=0 )
I doubt studios will go out of their way to re-record orchestral soundtracks, because such recordings are still expensive, even if they were/are sometimes less expensive than re-use fees. It's just not worth it.
I would rather hope that new deals can be made that satisfy all (like it happened for all these limited soundtrack releases).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, and streaming payment is bad for many musicians as well. A lot of things need to be re-assessed, and I wish, think, and hope that these issues will eventually be solved.
The AFM musicians are among the best there are, so yeah, they deserve whatever money they make, and it is in their interest to receive certain payments. On the other hand, if these re-use fees become so expensive they could never recoup their cost, let alone make a profit, no releases will be made and they get no money whatsoever. So some contractual agreements that would consider all these things and allow should be eventually reached.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 10, 2023 - 10:01 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
EdG
(Member)
|
Yes, and streaming payment is bad for many musicians as well. A lot of things need to be re-assessed, and I wish, think, and hope that these issues will eventually be solved.
The AFM musicians are among the best there are, so yeah, they deserve whatever money they make, and it is in their interest to receive certain payments. On the other hand, if these re-use fees become so expensive they could never recoup their cost, let alone make a profit, no releases will be made and they get no money whatsoever. So some contractual agreements that would consider all these things and allow should be eventually reached.
I agree. Looking at the current labor situation suggests we're in for a musician's strike in the future. In the past media corporations were able to persuade the unions that streaming was a minor part of their revenue income and so therefore they should accept shockingly meagre payments. Obviously that was hugely beneficial to the corporations and impoverishing to artists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
