On Hiring a composer...

When I have the opportunity to speak with filmmakers about hiring a composer, I often try to give those filmmakers a perspective of our composer position they may have not thought of before. In turn, I also find it important to look at the hiring of our department head position from their filmmaker perspective. There is absolutely value in us composers understanding how we are evaluated. Because these “other” issues are also VERY important to answer when finding / hiring a composer. Is a filmmaker asking a composer for a demo going to help them find the “right” composer to work with? Maybe. Maybe not.

---

Things a composer’s music demo does NOT tell a potential director/showrunner/producer about the composer.

1. How professional they are to work with.

2. Whether the composer is kind and nice to work with.

3. The composer’s temperament. How do they handle stress?

4. Whether the composer is not only nice and professional when interfacing with other departments but whether the composer is fair and professional to their own teams and staff.

5. The composer’s ability to take constructive criticism of their music.

6. The composer’s ability to revise a cue based on feedback and notes.

7. The composer’s ability to decipher what it is your music notes mean when you don’t know how to speak the language of music.

8. The composer’s ability to understand the language of filmmaking.

9. The composer’s ability to effectively collaborate with other creatives, many of whom are dominate personalities.

10. The composer’s ability to delegate tasks in what is essentially a post production facility.

11. The composer’s ability to be discrete and work on an NDA.

12. The composer’s ability to manage and solve problems on budget.

13. The composer’s ability to manage and solve problems on time.

14. How “fun” the composer is to “hang” with in the room while working together.

15. Trust that the composer has the diverse skillset to tackle anything the project needs, even if that is different than what you thought you needed at the outset of hiring the composer or different than what the composer may be commercially known for.

16. Trust that the composer can actually compose TO the picture edit, and roll with picture changes. Scoring to picture is a lot different skillset than writing songs for music’s sake or for an album.

17. Confidence the composer knows how to handle the technical aspects of delivering a score in stems via a ProTools session, or whatever method the sound mixers will want and require.

18. Confidence the composer can “get to” and assemble amazing musicians and artists to perform on the score, and thus increasing the production value of the score.

19. Confidence the composer understands the language of filmmaking, storytelling structures and character arcs.

20. Confidence the composer will put the film’s best interests ahead of their own best interests in their decision making when producing the score.

21. Trust the composer (you are probably paying a lot of money for) is actually the one creating the score and that they aren’t taking credit for other’s silent work.

22. Trust the composer is not over-extended on their commitments and projects.

23. Confidence the composer is a “partner to the end” and won’t quietly disappear when a new project comes along for them.

24. Trust the composer does not have any personal “skeleton’s in the closet” or “moral indiscretions” in their personal lives that is going to put their association with the film in any jeopardy in the future when it is released and too late to change their music contribution.

Hiring a composer is scary, stressful, confusing, emotional, political, calculated, not what anyone wants to deal with when going into the very stressful time of Post-Production. Let’s face it, it is flat out hard. And hiring the RIGHT composer for your project is even harder. And none of these issues, all of which are perhaps even more important in the long run of film production than the actual music in a collaborative environment can’t be learned or gleamed from a composer’s curated music demo or reel or website. I would argue that if a filmmaker and composer can get along, respect each other, truly listen to each other and truly collaborate to solve problems, they will successfully find the right score to their film even if it was not originally heard on someone’s “shot in the dark” demo pitch.

Business Seminar course is back this Fall! - Reserve your spot now!

IT'S BACK!

My Demystifying The Composer Business online seminar class is returning this fall with two sessions. One weekday session Tuesday October 22, 2024 (Day 1) & Tuesday October 29, 2024 (Day 2)....and one weekend session Sunday November 10, 2024 (Day 1) and Sunday November 17, 2024 (Day 2).

Go to the seminar page linked in the navigation bar above to reserve your spot now in your choice of dates and to learn about all the valuable things you will get for your investment in this 2-day, 12 hr, LIVE taught course with me.

Hope to see you there!

A New Chapter! Hello ASCAP!

A New Chapter!

Well….it’s been 24 years under the BMI banner as a writer and publisher but it is time to move on for me for a variety of reasons. So as of today…I am now affiliated with ASCAP as both writer and publisher.

I have always said to my UCLA Ext. students that while ASCAP and BMI have different formulas for payouts, it has been “6 in one and half a dozen in the other” as to which is “better.” And my opinion expressed to my students has then been that the PRO you should probably affiliate with should be the one that communicates the best with you, makes you feel heard, is easy to get a hold of, responds to issues appropriately and makes you feel like you are valued as a member. Today, that answer has been made clear to me after 24 years. Things…have changed. And I will thus put my money where my mouth is in that assessment.

FOR COMPOSERS - Part 3: The Elephant In The Room

FOR COMPOSERS - Part 3:  The Elephant In The Room

Continuing my essay on what media composers should be doing to better strengthen our leverage and position in the industry, let me first say if you have not read parts 1 & 2 in my blog below….you should go do that now first. 

OK…NOW….the Elephant in the room.  The thing we composers really need to put most of our efforts toward.

3.  Work-For-Hire law needs to be amended. 

This is without a doubt our biggest area of focus that needs to be an all-hands-on-deck effort.  I see this requiring a big, multi-year, legislative lobbying effort by multiple groups representing composer’s interests.  I will be doing my best to talk with individuals at the SCL, NARAS, BMI, ASCAP and all the other organization who will have me come by. 

There are two types of work-for-hire agreements.   An employee agreement is one type of work-for-hire agreement.  Everyone working at Apple for example…their employee contract is essentially a work-for-hire agreement and everything they create for their employer is owned by Apple. That one we all agree on and makes sense. The second type of work-for-hire agreement is a NON-EMPLOYEE work-for-hire agreement. The problem with this second non-employee work-for-hire is that it takes away the one piece of leverage we inherently have as IP creators (ownership of the copyright the instant it is created and affixed to a medium)…and instead gives authorship and ownership to the one commissioning the work BUT (here is the caveat) it does NOT change that composer’s independent contractor status with the NLRB.  I will say that again…It takes over ownership similar to the relationship of an employee to an employer….but does not actually redefine us AS an employee because the law as it currently stands allows anyone to willingly sign that ownership asset away in a contract by choice.  That is the disconnect for me.   I would like to see it be one scenario or the other. 

My pie-in-the-sky wish is that legislatively in the USA, copyright ownership of CREATIVE works can NOT be signed away in a “non-employee" work-for-hire agreement.  We again use a copyright lobbying approach to strengthen copyright creator’s authorship / ownership rights.  But that is probably a tough pill to swallow all at once and will be a hard argument to succeed in.  Those who commission creatives using WFH agreements use this for a reason.   It gives them everything they want but shirks their employer responsibilities in labor law.   But when you look at labor law and the writing of Work-For-Hire legislation…the language that allows this ownership transfer for a non-employee person commissioned to create the work is written as an EXEMPTION for audiovisual works created for the entertainment industry.  You heard me correctly.  It is an exemption from the WFH intent.   What does that tell me?  It tells me that the powerful entertainment industry lobbied in the past to allow this NON-EMPLOYEE ownership transfer in a WFH agreement in “audiovisual works.”

Look at this example.  This is an actual example given by the copyright office in Chapter 500, section 506.2 of how work-for-hire law treats ownership of a work by a “non-employee.”

“WMFH-FM asked Aaron Washington to create a jingle for the station. The station told Aaron that the jingle should be thirty seconds long and that it should include the sound of a helicopter. Aaron wrote the jingle at home using his own equipment and he did most of his work in the middle of the night. Aaron was paid a flat fee for this assignment. The jingle is not a work made for hire because Aaron was not an employee of WMFH. In the application to register this jingle, Aaron should be named as the author and the work made for hire box should be checked “no.”

Does that not describe practically everything we media composers do?  Yes! It does…except for one aspect.  We turn right around and WILLINGLY sign away that ownership / authorship and transfer it to the production company in our contract agreements without being an actual employee.  Take comfort in the fact that inherently…what we create is already recognized as NOT a WFH and that WE are the author as far as copyright law is concerned until we sign that authorship and ownership away.   We just need to strengthen the language in the WFH legislation to ensure that we can NOT sign it away as a non-employee in the USA.  As is the case in many other countries around the world.  The USA is actually the outlier here.

Is there a middle ground? 

First… my proposition is IF someone is working on a WFH agreement, then that should be defined to actually change the relationship of the individual to be an employee in all aspects with all employee protections.  There should be no “NON-EMPLOYEE” work-for-hire for creative works.   That would take a lot to hash out and define.   But that is the crux.  This is the one area where the unions out there and the AFL-CIO would/should likely support and help us lobby for such a language change.   Because it further helps create scenarios that define more people as employees.  Said in another way, you can not transfer copyright ownership on a commissioned work using a “non-employee” WFH agreement.  You must make the individual your employee to own the creative work.  Thus in that specific scenario it would indirectly change the NLRB classification of composers from independent contractors to employees because the studios would have to officially hire composers as employees to own the work.  Thus if the studios still wanted to keep using WFH agreements to transfer ownership of creative content…they would have to use that first type of WFH agreement which hires and pays the people as W2 employees.  And who is eligible to unionize again?  ONLY Employees! 

But then that opens up the scenario that Elmer et al were arguing to fix again does it not?  As employees, you do not own or control the works you create.  You are not the author of the work.  The employer is.  I predict this would like create a scenario where the studios would then put themselves on the cue sheets as author and publisher and composers in that scenario would suddenly find themselves losing PRO payments.  Unless the PRO’s got involved to help stop that.  But that is a long term problem to work out.  We would then be back full circle as this issue being a “labor dispute” where composers (who are then employees) could unionize and then negotiate those terms with their production company employers as employees under labor negotiations. 

On the flip side…if the studios did NOT want to deal with a composer union (which frankly I don’t believe they want to) and instead wanted to keep paying us package fees where our little businesses take on the burden of producing and paying for all aspects of the creations of the commissioned work…their only option then would be to license the material from the composer, the package fee you get is the license fee negotiated, and the copyright ownership of the music would stay with the composer creator.  That composer would have more leverage in negotiating in its licensing terms the fee and the usage.  The production companies would likely want exclusive licenses…and we could give them that by choice….but then make them pay for that in the licensing terms no different than any songwriter or record label would negotiate today. 

I would predict that the smaller indie films, games and productions would fall in line with this licensing path because it is easier for them in the long run.  A production company doesn’t need to own that Lady Gaga song to have it in their film, they just need to have a license agreement that gives them the rights they need either in perpetuity or for a long period of time. And Lady Gaga due to her demand and popularity will negotiate a fee that reflects all of that.    Same concept with the score. (NOTE:  I fully acknowledge I am over simplifying that overall process here as I am trying to focus on the big picture ideas for sake of getting my points across.)  The big composers would likely negotiate larger fees because they can demand them as such…and the smaller up-and-coming composers would likely only be able to negotiate smaller fees.  But being the copyright owners by default…they would collect twice as much PRO and could be in a position to negotiate larger fees to cover their expenses more like our song licensing counterparts.

Final Summary:  If we can change work-for-hire law to NOT allow a “non-employee” WFH agreement to transfer copyright ownership and authorship….but only keep that option open to employee WFH agreements the decision of how to proceed goes back to the production companies and then composers will have more power and leverage.   If production companies truly need to own it…then fine.  Hire us as your employee where the employer ownership issue (as part of our regular course of work as their employee) is clear.  If they don’t want to go through the expense and hassle of that, including likely union implications…then just simply license the commissioned music from the composer where the terms of that license fee is an up-front negotiation.  The composer owns the music, owns the publishing, owns the copyright of the works and allows it to be used in the film per the terms negotiated.

Make sense?

All of the above issues discussed in Part 2 and 3 on this blog, if addressed legislatively, increase the leverage of ALL composers asserting our copyright rights.  Media composers, classical composers, songwriters, etc…. None of the issues above need a union to magically happen for us to lobby our legislators.  In fact…in one scenario above…I have laid out a pathway to possibly change union eligibility on SOME productions.

Composers in “Hollywood” traditionally have not been a very entrepreneurial bunch.  Yet in the early 80s we found ourselves thrust into entrepreneurship whether we liked it or not.   The ones who have figured out how to embrace that and build business models that take advantage of this entrepreneur mindset have gone on to be successful.  I suspect they don’t want to change that.  I wouldn’t.   We have to allow them to continue to conduct their businesses as they have done.  These people have come to understand they are not just composers.  But are in a service industry running mini Post-Production facilities servicing clients.  At the same time we should always be finding ways to give fellow composers and songwriters more leverage in protecting what we create and our current Work-for-hire law is a HUGE impediment to that.   Let’s embrace that reality, lobby legislators to strengthen our position in copyright law AND in WFH language, and help give all composers and creative artists more leverage in owning the works they create.

For Composers - Part 2: You and the Long, Scary, Unknown, No Good, Very Foggy Road

FOR COMPOSERS - Part 2:  You and the Long, Scary, Unknown, No Good, Very Foggy Road

So…you probably read my Part 1 of the current state of composers, particularly media composers a couple weeks ago.  If you didn’t, you might want to go read that first in the post below.

This may get into the weeds a bit, but grab an drink and stay with me.  

Composers are businesses.  We are not someone else’s employees.  (Although if you are working under a S-Corp, C-corp or LLC as you should be, you are likely an employee of your own company that you also are the CEO of).  But aside from that, you are a business.  You are tax reported on 1099s.  Not W2s.  You have different tax rates than W2 income rates. 

You have better options to write off expenses than employees do.  Heck, you likely hire staff and pay them as well. Thus…it is my belief that we need to start acting like businesses in all the ways that entails.  Elmer et al did that very thing when they brought their lawsuits in the 70’s & 80’s.  They were defending their rights as copyright content creators.  The SCL v Aaron Spelling productions further made similar arguments.  And above all, they WERE SUCCESSFUL.  (Yes…even though the union was broken up, they were successful in what they set out to show).  What do I take from that?  That when we embrace the power that copyright ownership and control gives us, we can affect positive change for our composer community.  And since companies, corporations and businesses can’t unionize (they are supposed to compete remember?)…the way they change the landscape to make their business environments better is to lobby their legislators.  BIG TIME!

Add to that….this side observation: 

The united states does not physically make much any more.  Not like we used to any way.  We may design the computer by Apple in Cupertino sure….but it is physically made in China…or India.  Etc…Major manufacturing facilities have left the USA to go where labor is cheaper and competition for the customer drives the price of those commodity products we buy down.  We need to resist the quick path to being considered a commodity product.  Music needs to NOT be a commodity.  You as a composer and artist are unique.  We are all unique. 

In a union “job”…a well trained professional can just hop in and replace you at any time on the “workfloor” and the same result, same product would pop out for the employer to sell.  That is NOT applicable to us.  There is only one YOU.  No matter how many professional composers there are out there, if someone else replaced you, the end result would be completely different composed music.  Completely different INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.  This uniqueness is also key to asserting our individual copyright.   Our HUMAN generated copyright.  Copyright protected IP is the one thing we in the USA still massively export to the world.  Our whole entertainment industry product is exported to the world.  And to create it, we hire a whole pyramid of people under us to create what we create. We massively infuse money and capital into small businesses hiring musicians, mix engineers, publicists, lawyers, agents, managers, tour staff, computer products, software products, the list goes on.  We are a HUGE economic engine for the backbone of our country ALL because of our INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.  That is why legislators WILL listen to us when we start making arguments that frame what we do as a KEY AND FUNDAMENTAL small business economic engine.

Knowing all of this….what are things we can and should do now to lay the ground work for strengthening a composer’s position and leverage in media composing?

1.  Composers in every organization where we are members (SCL, AMPAS, Television Academy, NARAS, ASMAC, etc…) should be on the forefront of lobbying our legislators about strengthening copyright law to ensure ONLY human created content is eligible for copyright protections.  If the studios can’t copyright own and control it…they will not allow it to be used in their productions.   I am not wishfully thinking that AI music will die because of this.  There will be a place for it.  Under that YouTube video…or on the elevator, in some Pharmaceutical commercial.   But in areas where copyright control and ownership is necessary for media music, if it can’t be copyrighted, the ones who hire us won’t allow it to be used in their copyrighted products.   That helps keep composers employed to create what we create.   Like Andy Dufresne in The Shawshank Redemption finding some success after writing a letter a week for over a year to his legislator for some library money….”Well…now I will have to write two letters a week.”

2.  CA congressional representative Adam Schiff has a new AI law proposed that will require Generative AI companies to disclose any and all copyrighted works they used to train their algorithms. In the near future, I will be proposing to him that we should be adding another disclosure for copyright applicants as well.  

Copyright applications should include a required disclosure of exactly WHAT generative AI tools or products were used in the creation of the registered work.  This will further help the copyright office determine what parts of the registered work are eligible and what parts are not.  

The good news is, as of March 16, 2023, the copyright office issued a guidance on how to register copyright for works with AI content.  There are two categories they now already ask when registering content.  Is there AI generated content in this registration application? And is that AI content Appreciative or De Minimis to the overall content in the application?  These distinctions are legal terms defined as the following:

- To determine if a work has Appreciative AI content you simply ask, “if this content were created by a HUMAN, would it be eligible for copyright?”  In our music world that is a whole song.  Lyrics.  A melody.  The parts we can register.   etc…  If this answer is yes then the Appreciative AI containing work is NOT eligible for copyright.  It is essentially public domain.

- De Minimis AI content is defined as AI used in the creation of the content in such a way that its result would NOT be eligible for copyright if a human created it.   AI used to make a blurry photo sharper for example.  That sharpening action is not a human action eligible for copyright so this AI contribution to the work is De Minimis and does NOT disqualify the work.  In our music world…I can think of an AI mix plugin.   Mixing plugin iZotope Ozone uses an AI algorithm to help create a better audio mix….that is not a “generative AI” use that is individually copyright eligible separate from the music work itself.  So like the photo tool that makes a photo more sharp…that is also OK…and does not affect copyright eligibility either.

Any time we can be vocal about strengthening copyright, we need to be present in that “room.”

Since this has been long enough for a Part 2….I will pause here and just say that the most important plan of action we need to take…related to changes in how Work-For-Hire agreements work in the USA will be coming shortly in Part 3. 

Stay Tuned!

Brian

For Composers…

Over the years I have advocated a lot for my composer community. My SCOREcast podcast with Deane Ogden was a platform to take on a lot of industry insider issues for iver a decade. I also have directly lobbied CA legislators to exempt composers from the CA AB5 law dealing with independent contractors. And I have been teaching in UCLA Extension’s The Business Of Film Music course (which I developed for them) for over a decade talking about composer business issues. I continue to this day in many lobbying efforts. Which leads me to a hot topic in the composer community today. A composer union.

In 2024, a composer union has a large amount of hurdles to overcome. I have spoken on the web in the past about the NLRB decisions setting precedent for us. They led to us NOT being eligible to unionize.

Some brief summary of that:

Elmer Bernstein et al v. Universal Pictures argued for more copyright control by composers over the IP of the compositions they create. Because they were in a union at the time (a relic of the days when they were employees with offices on lots and a steady flow of studio pipeline movies coming to them), the Supreme Court said their case was really a union dispute. So their fate was to be an NLRB decision. The NLRB as you know is basically the “Supreme Court” of labor disputes.

Follow that case by The SCL v. Aaron Spelling Productions which went before the NLRB and argued that the way composers worked had changed. We were no longer employees because of how we worked. Our employers do not control the means of production. And controlling the outcome with approval or feedback is not controlling the means. Every composer works differently. Different software. Different creation processes. Some write every note. Some project manage a team. Anyway….composers WON their case. And thus their independence. They convinced the NLRB, the top labor entity that we were not employees. And thus the composer union at the time was broken up. Because only employees can unionize. That is the National Labor Relations Act of 1935.

Ok…that is where we are. So…what are the other hurdles?

1. The truly successful composers today don’t really want a union. Their business model works for them. They don’t want a union entity of mostly non-working composers telling them how to conduct their business. If you were at all at the WGA / Teamster composers meeting in the early 2000’s this was made very clear by some heavyweight composers there. Mike Post for example. They don’t want a fledgling composer with a vote telling them what to charge, how to work, or how to operate their already successful business. So what does that mean? It means in any scenario where composers happen to legislatively change things, the big names are going to make sure whatever union exists again is going to be in their favor in terms of its bylaws. They will likely have minimum credit requirements to even join. And the one’s who will qualify are likely already on studio films where the basic minimum protections a union purports to enforce are not really an issue. Those composers are doing fairly well even to this day. Believe me. And they are NOT going to support changing the status quo. They have found a way to be successful in the current system as an independent contractor.

2. There will also be minimum requirements for benefits IF a union were to ever happen again. A significant number of actors don’t qualify for their health benefits. They simply don’t work enough. A composer union will be no different. The people who need these benefits the most, frankly don’t work enough on union productions to earn the dues money necessary to earn the benefit. Remember, union rules and conditions affect zero percent of the productions that are not a signatory. This is why some want to try to unionize under other existing unions. IATSE for example. Because IATSE would already have productions committed to “IATSE crew” so the hope would be that production commitment would extend to Post-Production composers. But like the Teamster attempt before the AMPTP argued nothing has changed in how composers work and frankly, they are not wrong. So legal precedent matters.

3. Union productions (for the other entertainment unions) are not the norm for composers. They are the exception. There is no law and never will be to force a production to be union. There is only a union signatory contract agreement to do so that is voluntary to sign. Most productions won’t sign it. Some sign an actor one but not a crew one. Etc…So there is nothing to make that “union film” comply with any potential composer union conditions. Similar to how a SAG, ISTSE and TEAMSTER film here can avoid being an AFM film by recording music oversees. So for composers, working on these indie projects doesn’t earn you credit to join either. And certainly doesn’t provide any conditions, minimums or protections.

4. There would have to be a specific case brought up through the NLRB system (since the decision is theirs to redefine composers as qualifying for employee status). That case would need to show a specific example of a composer qualifying as an employee in how they work, but currently not being so per the NLRA. It would take years and cost millions. Who’s ready to fund it? And frankly the way we composers work over the decades since the decision has only leaned IN to us being independent businesses competing with each other rather than production company employees. IP ownership issues aside. So I don’t see that happening quickly.

5. The arguments Elmer and the SCL made to earn composer Independent contractor status for composers are still valid. We should absolutely have more control over the copyright of what we create. We have copyright law on our side UNTIL we sign it away in these work-for-hire agreements. More on WFH later. But remember, employees do NOT own the copyright of what they create by default. The law in that scenario is in favor of the employer being the author and owner. That includes royalty collection. Remember, union members don’t get royalties. They get begotistes residuals. That money is coming from a different pile to replace royalties. This is what Elmer et al was fighting over and won. Do composers really want to be giving that IP ownership potential up? Are you ready to potentially give up your royalties and not be on cue sheets? Because that is where this will go.

So….in a nutshell…the composers who need a composer union the most don’t have the support of the big name composers who have the leverage and power to get studios to listen. And the indie work young composers do likely wouldn’t qualify them for the benefits they are seeking anyway. The union has no money except for the dues and percentage take out of union work. The benefits you want come from those dues and paycheck contributions. If you are not on a union film, you are not paying into the system with your pay check.

So what does all this mean for us as composers?

Well…on my next post…I will go into that future foggy unknown road. So…what do we do? The approach I would like to see to strengthen composer’s leverage and position to make things better for EVERYONE. Not just the “studio level” composers already getting paid decently. And more on that Work-For-Hire thing. Because it is a big part of a solution to improving our leverage.

Brian to host & moderate filmmaker panel at Pasadena Int'l Film Fest in April.

Filmmakers, composers, music licensing and audio/sound professionals.....mark your April calendars. I am putting together and will be hosting and moderating a panel discussion at this year's Pasadena International Film Festival called "Audio Is Half Your Film: Panel on Music and Sound in Post-Production.”

Come join us at the Laemmle NoHo 7, on Friday April 5 at 1pm.

5240 Lankershim Blvd.
North Hollywood, CA 91601

For festival tix and passes go to: https://www.pasadenafilmfestival.org

Brian's film music business seminar course in February. Sign up now.

After managing to survive in Hollywood and do this film composer thing for 23+ years, I have learned so much from my experiences. I am an Alumni of the USC Screen Scoring program and for the last 13 years I have also been an instructor in the UCLA Extension Film Scoring program where I also created their “Business Of Film Music” course. A requirement in their certificate curriculum. I have decided to further do my part to help educate fellow composers of all levels on the business side of what we do. So many people come out of these academic programs with classes on writing the notes. But I often like talking about everything but writing the notes. And this new intensive Seminar course is an extension of the things I have learned over two decades of both composing and now also producing films. Click on the “Seminar” link on my website above to learn more details and sign up or you can also go directly to http://filmmusic.business .

Final 2 days for Grammy® FYC Round 1 voting. Deadline Fri Oct 20, 6pm PST

Final 2 days for Grammy® FYC Round 1 voting. Here is a page from my liner notes for the Silent River soundtrack album that goes into some detail on my creation of the music on this special and unique album for me.

The QR code at the top can be scanned with your camera app on your phones and it will take you to the FYC page where you can listen to the tracks like "The Disappearance of P2" for Best Instrumental composition and The P2 Blues for "Best Jazz Performance" as well as the album entered as a whole in the soundtrack for visual media category. The album is also submitted for consideration in the Immersive Audio category but that technical category is only determined by internal nominating committees. Thank you for your consideration!

Silent River SDTK FYC in 5 Grammy® Award categories including Best Immersive Audio Album

Friends and colleagues…the time has come for a Grammy ® FYC post about an album that I am very proud of. While the Silent River: Original Motion Pictures SDTK is FYC in 5 Grammy ® categories this year…the one I am most proud to feature and have you consider is the Immersive Audio (Dolby Atmos) mix category. Not many soundtracks are entered for your consideration in this technical mix category and to my knowledge, no soundtrack album has ever been nominated for this technical mix award. My FYC page and EPK is linked here for you to listen….https://www.brianralston.com/fyc The track title's listed in the picture image above are the featured tracks for the FYC. If you want access to the MP4 Atmos mix files and have the ability on AirPod Pros or home theater AppleTV to listen to them, please contact me and I can make that happen with a download link. Cheers! -Brian

RED SKIES is currently the hottest show in Israel on Reshat 13

Happy to finally share that these last few months I have been working on the music for the TV show Red Skies supporting the show’s composer Sharon Farber as her music editor, score mixer and music technical assistant. I have known Sharon for years and she has been a dear friend and colleague. We both use all the same software and sample libraries and when this opportunity came along, it just made sense to work together. I am very thankful she invited me into her world on this show. We have developed a workflow that allows us to both be productive on some crazy international delivery schedules. I believe we have delivered almost 4 and a half hours of music for the 8 episode season 1 arc. Post-production on the show, except for our music, is all done in Israel. Red Skies is currently the hottest show in Israel at the moment showing weekly on Reshat 13. Variety reported a few months ago about the Yoav Gross and Ron Lesham (HBO’s Euphoria” produced show.

Based on the best-selling novel by former Israeli Intelligence Officer Daniel Shinar, Red Skies is a riveting series that takes us to the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the eyes of two friends who are forced to choose sides. It stars Maor Schweitzer (Valley of Tears), Amir Khoury (Fauda), Annie Shapiro, Lihi Kornowski (Losing Alice), Alona Sa’ar, and Yaakov Zada Daniel (Fauda).The series brings the period of the Second Intifada (2000-2005) to the screen for the first time, along with Operation Defensive Shield, Israeli’s 2002 military response. This was one of the bloodiest periods in the history of the Middle East. Beyond its breath-taking action and drama, Red Skies is an extraordinary story about friendship, love, and conflicting loyalties. Sa’ar and Ali are childhood friends, emotionally dependent on each other, like brothers. But when Jerusalem is consumed by war, each of their choices bind them as fated rivals, and they soon become the hunter and the hunted. Jenny, Sa’ar’s American girlfriend, who has been torn between them since the age of 16, tries to hold on to them both. Soon, the region will experience the most difficult months of its history, and Jenny must decide between the two.

Look for the show to hit wider international audiences this Fall. A second season of the show has already been ordered.

Moderating at the 2023 Pasadena International Film Festival

Had a great time moderating these last few days at the 2023 Pasadena International Film Festival , this year held at the Laemmle NoHo 7 Theaters in North Hollywood. Congrats to all the filmmakers and colleagues who had films screening there. A very strong selection list this year. Truly. Bravo to all!

Reviews are in....Amazon Prime Video link for About Him & Her

Scan the QR code above to go directly to the About Him & Her video page on Amazon Prime Video.

Viewers are starting to see for themselves how different and great this little film is. A true story from 1989, it is ultimately about connection between two people in an era before social media, the internet, online dating and swiping right if you like someone’s picture. It is a story from a time when you actually had to connect and open yourself up to another human being to truly get to know who they were. And perhaps that is why it is so refreshing to see this story told today when that “true connection” with someone is often what people in society today crave….but fail to achieve in their disconnected and social media driven relationships.

Check it out!

ABOUT HIM + HER on Amazon Prime Video

As announced on Deadline, ABOUT HIM + HER is now available on Amazon Prime Video. I have said this before but it bears repeating. ABOUT HIM + HER is frankly...one of the most special films I have had the honor to be a part of and score. What Íce Mrozek and Independence Hall have created is a unique story (and commentary) about true connection with someone. Something we are sorely lacking in today’s fast paced, divided, social media driven, algorithm influenced society.

Ice has daringly created a slow burn first act of a story that sucks you in and when the second act hits, you are more than hooked and you come away actually having connected with these characters. He flipped the script on “method acting” and made YOU...the audience watching...“method experience” the film itself. Independently made as it was, About Him & Her needs people like you who see it to tell others they have to see it. It is that simple. This is the film our society needs to see today. I promise you that. It will be refreshing to your soul. Watch the trailer below and check out the film on Amazon Prime. Commit and watch it through to the end with someone you care about. And then tell others of your experience in doing so. Believe me, you will want to.