Memoirs of a Geisha - what needs to happen for an official complete release?

[FSC 2]

Hi,

 

I'm following the forum for some time and it's quite interesting how many people like John Williams and his music. One of my favorites movies and scores is Memoirs of a Geisha. I love the music and the movie very much.

On the main page I saw a cuelist with a lot of unreleased music: https://jwfan.com/?p=3172

 

On another thread I read that another score release might not happen because of some union fee issue? (Not really sure how that works.)

Memoirs of a Geisha

2005 OST

Prohibitive union fee

 

So, my simple questions are:
What needs to happen for a complete release of the music from the film? Like a 3CD version or digital release?
Do we need some cash? If that is the case, maybe a crowdfunding initiative will help to keep the project going?
Do we need to convince JW to give his "OK"? Maybe here are people who can help with that, too?

 

I hope that we will see it happen in the near future. After all, in 2025 the movie has it's 20th anniversary so I wonder if it's possible to have a new "completish" music release for this wonderful movie.

[Jay 37,374]

3 minutes ago, FSC said:

On another thread I read that another score release might not happen because of some union fee issue? (Not really sure how that works.)

 

Here is exactly what Mike said about this:

 

For AFM recordings made before July 3, 2005, NO reuse needs to be paid to the musicians at all, provided a) that it’s for a physical format release with a 5000 unit maximum, and b) that the musicians list is published, preferably in the packaging. For recordings made after that date, whatever the musicians were paid to record the score for the film has to be paid to them again, 100%. That’s why it’s called “reuse”. They were paid to play music for sync purposes, but an album is a new use.

 

So, hypothetically, if 120 people were paid $360,000 to record the music for the film (musicians, orchestrators, copyists, at an average of $3K a person), then a label would have to pay that exact same amount to AFM in order to put out an expanded album. That makes it impossible to consider even before you get to licensing, publishing, production and manufacturing.

 

The 2005 date was established in 2015 and applied to recordings going back 10 years prior, but unfortunately it was not a “sliding” date as it really should have been.

 

Mike

 

I have never seen anything anywhere that indicated that the AFM has changed this policy.

[FSC 2]

Who's the AFM?

When were the scoring sessions - I assume after the 3rd of July 2005?

 

So in other words, we need money to make this happen. Someone has to pay the musicians again + licensing, publishing, production and manufacturing?

[Holko 9,532]

I think IF somebody were somehow to put stupid amounts money into that, it'd be smarter to turn it towards somehow convincing the AFM to change the date to a sliding one and enable every other post-July 2005 score to be expanded too.

[Jay 37,374]

19 minutes ago, FSC said:

Who's the AFM?

 

https://www.afm.org/

[Edmilson 7,474]

What needs to happen for a complete Munich? 

 

A miracle. Nothing less than a miracle, an act of God Himself.

 

Actually, it might take the combined efforts of several deities from countless pantheons in order to make that happen. From Buddha to Allah to Greek, Norse and Hinduistic pantheons, alongside Jesus Christ, Goku, Superman and Cthulhu.

 

Only that will be enough to change the heads of the complete morons in charge of the AFM.

[Steve 593]

Does this rule apply to all Williams scores from 2005 onwards, except for Revenge of the sith, which was recorded in London?

[Jay 37,374]

It applies to scores recorded after July 2005 with AFM musicians.

 

ROTS was not recorded with AFM musicians and War of the Worlds was recorded before the cutoff. Munich and Memoirs were not.

 

And yes, all his feature film scores since have been recorded with AFM musicians.

[scoreman36 68]

8 hours ago, Edmilson said:

What needs to happen for a complete Munich? 

 

A miracle. Nothing less than a miracle, an act of God Himself.

 

Actually, it might take the combined efforts of several deities from countless pantheons in order to make that happen. From Buddha to Allah to Greek, Norse and Hinduistic pantheons, alongside Jesus Christ, Goku, Superman and Cthulhu.

 

Only that will be enough to change the heads of the complete morons in charge of the AFM.

“Complete morons” who are actually protecting the livelihoods of American musicians, and making sure the next generation of musicians have an industry to look forward to in the future. 

[Faleel 5,364]

2 minutes ago, scoreman36 said:

“Complete morons” who are actually protecting the livelihoods of American musicians, and making sure the next generation of musicians have an industry to look forward to in the future. 

Yeah, playing Xtra Large Junk.

 

Complete post 2005 scores are way more important.*

 

 

 

*I am joking.

[Edmilson 7,474]

These idiots are not benefitting anyone with their outdated rule, not the labels and certainly not the musicians. Sure, it's fair for them to demand better deals, but instead of negotiating with the labels and industry, they're sticking to something signed in 2005 like a religious text. It would be much more beneficial to all if they were willing to negotiate.

 

So no, I have no respect for the AFM, and by that I mean the idiots in charge of it. But since Hollywood is run by absolute jackasses, I don't see that changing soon. Fuck them.

[FSC 2]

Thank you all for your input, I appreciate it.

 

I don't wanted that this thread will bash any group or individual.

 

Musicians should get paid as anyone else, but the system should be fair. It still should be possible to get music out. What good does it do to anyone if you record something but no one can listen to the music because it's not possible to release it. Doesn't the composer has any say in that matter?

 

So, the only chance for a release right now is that someone with a lot of money, like Elon Musk oder Bill Gates, will sponsor this because it doesn't hurt their wallets or we start a crowdfunding project but I guess we would need 500k?

[QuartalHarmony 543]

12 hours ago, scoreman36 said:

Complete morons” who are actually protecting the livelihoods of American musicians

Since the rule we’re discussing has, in practice, stopped any expansions of post-2005 scores being released and, therefore, the musicians who played on them have received precisely nothing extra in royalties, I’d say that was a classic case of an organisation shooting itself (or, more precisely, its members) in the foot.

 

For context, my brother is a professional musician, as are a number of friends, so I am very aware of the ways the industry screws them over. Streaming services’ business models are morally reprehensible, IMO. But this AFM ruling, with a fixed date, is insane, either from the fans’ or musicians’ points of view.

 

Mark

[ciarlese 251]

14 hours ago, scoreman36 said:

“Complete morons” who are actually protecting the livelihoods of American musicians, and making sure the next generation of musicians have an industry to look forward to in the future. 

 

And how is this "protection" actually working? What are the tangible benefits the American musicians are actually enjoying since this rule has been put in place?

[Edmilson 7,474]

Imagine how much money the labels and musicians could have been earned with an Avatar expansion - the biggest movie of all time at the box office, with a score by one of the most beloved composers of all time. Or Spider-Man 3, a score for a popular movie which have never been officially released and despite Sony's utter stupidity, it's very popular among fans because of bootlegs. Or Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy. Or even post-2005 John Williams scores, and I'm not even talking about the Lucasfilm ones, because I'm sure the labels would be delighted to expand Munich, Memoirs of a Geisha, Tintin, War Horse, etc.

 

All the morons at AFM need to do is to sit down at the table and negotiate a feasible deal that's good for everyone. But no, not even that they'll do. They say they're "pRoTeCtInG tHe WoRkErS" but they're actually harming everyone, including those they're supposed to protect.

 

Cunts.

[FSC 2]

3 hours ago, QuartalHarmony said:

Since the rule we’re discussing has, in practice, stopped any expansions of post-2005 scores being released and, therefore, the musicians who played on them have received precisely nothing extra in royalties, I’d say that was a classic case of an organisation shooting itself (or, more precisely, its members) in the foot.

 

For context, my brother is a professional musician, as are a number of friends, so I am very aware of the ways the industry screws them over. Streaming services’ business models are morally reprehensible, IMO. But this AFM ruling, with a fixed date, is insane, either from the fans’ or musicians’ points of view.

 

Mark

 

If that rule has indeed stopped the release of all/most of the post-2005 expansions and musicians feel that this rule doesn't benefit them, then it should be possible for some bigger music labels or individuals, like the composers themselves, to approach this organisation in order to change that. The last option would be if musicians and composers go on a strike, I guess then they will quickly change that. Imagine if all filmmusic composers, music editors etc. won't write/edit any new music for movies until this rule has changed... or do they not care about such releases?

[QuartalHarmony 543]

37 minutes ago, FSC said:

The last option would be if musicians and composers go on a strike

Going on strike is how workers protest to their employers. Going on strike as a protest against your union doesn’t really make sense, does it?

[FSC 2]

24 minutes ago, QuartalHarmony said:

Going on strike is how workers protest to their employers. Going on strike as a protest against your union doesn’t really make sense, does it?

 

Unfortunately, I don't know how these structures are connected. If this is a trade union and it does not represent the members in their interests, the members would have to leave the union. There must be a lever that can be used to bring about a change if it's just a matter of adjusting a date.

[QuartalHarmony 543]

From the AFM’s website:

The American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada (AFM) is an AFL-CIO affiliated labor union representing 70,000 professional musicians in the United States and Canada.

 

They’re a union, not an employer. Assuming the membership know or care about the details of the 2015 rule,  they would need to petition the AFM to renegotiate a more sensible (IMO) deal. Going on strike would be pointless.

In practice, I suspect most working musicians are far too busy trying to make ends meet to look into the details and unintended consequences of the deals their Union almost certainly will be telling them are unquestionably good for them, irrespective of how true that might be.

 

Mark

[King Mark 3,631]

Great, thanks for reminding me I'll probably be dead before some Williams expansions are relaased.

[Richard Penna 3,696]

What would be interesting to know is whether there have been lots of projects which fell under these rules which thanks to this agreement resulted in lots of instances of players being paid again.

 

Or... whether it's such a specific rule that essentially only the odd studio expansion and the speciality labels' work falls under it, and 99% of potential projects have failed to materialise because they're asking for too much, but would have been possible using a discount of some sort.

 

If it's the second, the AFM has made an explicit choice to very occasionally (if ever, and certainly unpredictably) be paid 100% of the original fee, instead of being paid a percentage of it with a good regularity and predictability if they worked proactively with the labels. It's really hard to see how anyone with a good business sense can think the second option is the way to do it. I reckon if you took that proposition into Dragons' Den (BBC's investment reality show) they'd tear you apart for your complete lack of reading the market.

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

I cant understand why a person would have to be paid again the same ammount for a work… without working twice. A reuse fee I understand, but not the full price

[ciarlese 251]

Do we know if any reuse fee has ever been paid at all since this rule has been introduced?

[Faleel 5,364]

34 minutes ago, ciarlese said:

Do we know if any reuse fee has ever been paid at all since this rule has been introduced?

Giacchino Star trek deluxe editions, Rogue One?

[crumbs 14,319]

8 hours ago, Richard Penna said:

What would be interesting to know is whether there have been lots of projects which fell under these rules which thanks to this agreement resulted in lots of instances of players being paid again.

 

You can apply to the AFM for a "waiver," which means you don't pay the reuse fee. Intrada applied for one to do an Avatar expansion (recorded in 2009) but the AFM knocked them back.

 

They might be more open-minded about waiving the fee for 2005 scores, if only because Munich and Memoirs were recorded so close to the cut-off date (plus the Williams factor, decades supporting LA musicians by keeping work local).

 

But there's still enough pre-2005 scores to keep the labels busy in the short-term. Hopefully by the time they run out, the AFM have reviewed the date.

[WilliamsStarShip2282 308]

On 30/12/2023 at 9:00 PM, Jay said:

 

Here is exactly what Mike said about this:

 

For AFM recordings made before July 3, 2005, NO reuse needs to be paid to the musicians at all, provided a) that it’s for a physical format release with a 5000 unit maximum, and b) that the musicians list is published, preferably in the packaging. For recordings made after that date, whatever the musicians were paid to record the score for the film has to be paid to them again, 100%. That’s why it’s called “reuse”. They were paid to play music for sync purposes, but an album is a new use.

 

So, hypothetically, if 120 people were paid $360,000 to record the music for the film (musicians, orchestrators, copyists, at an average of $3K a person), then a label would have to pay that exact same amount to AFM in order to put out an expanded album. That makes it impossible to consider even before you get to licensing, publishing, production and manufacturing.

 

The 2005 date was established in 2015 and applied to recordings going back 10 years prior, but unfortunately it was not a “sliding” date as it really should have been.

 

Mike

 

I have never seen anything anywhere that indicated that the AFM has changed this policy.

 

And this is why, besides John, so many recordings are being made outside the US

2 hours ago, crumbs said:

 

You can apply to the AFM for a "waiver," which means you don't pay the reuse fee. Intrada applied for one to do an Avatar expansion (recorded in 2009) but the AFM knocked them back.

 

They might be more open-minded about waiving the fee for 2005 scores, if only because Munich and Memoirs were recorded so close to the cut-off date (plus the Williams factor, decades supporting LA musicians by keeping work local).

 

But there's still enough pre-2005 scores to keep the labels busy in the short-term. Hopefully by the time they run out, the AFM have reviewed the date.

 

I personally think given the financial climate, they will constantly dig in their heels even more with all this stuff. They constantly need something to make it so the majority of these musicians live off gigs. On the other hand, its ridiculous to be paying out such fees. As good as they are, these are gig musicians, and to get an entirely new fee for doing nothing is completely unreasonable. Some of these musicians clearly are just taking advantage, however there are some that are obviously very high level but cannot afford living in LA, and probably just barely keep it together with living expenses.

Although its really a double edged sword, I feel like both the corporate and musician sides keep continuously trying to take advantage of situations and the economy just throws fuel on that fire. But I feel like blanket policies like this ruin it for everyone. They want to take money from giant corporations like Disney and Universal, but actually its much small labels trying to bring out recordings out that are being hurt.

And Geisha, sadly, out of all the albums I feel really could use a re-master.

[Amer 2,119]

3 hours ago, crumbs said:

 

You can apply to the AFM for a "waiver," which means you don't pay the reuse fee. Intrada applied for one to do an Avatar expansion (recorded in 2009) but the AFM knocked them back.

 

They might be more open-minded about waiving the fee for 2005 scores, if only because Munich and Memoirs were recorded so close to the cut-off date (plus the Williams factor, decades supporting LA musicians by keeping work local).

 

But there's still enough pre-2005 scores to keep the labels busy in the short-term. Hopefully by the time they run out, the AFM have reviewed the date.

I was thinking the very same. About 10 to 12 scores can be done within the next 2-3 years Star Wars/Indy Jones excluded.

 

MEMOIRS came very close to winning an Oscar that even Williams looked surprised literally when it didn't win. Oh well.

 

I think Williams is rather fond of this score as he redid a lengthy suite for the concert performances. If he wants to personally see an expanded release he would need to request or wish AFM to make the waiver which Im sure they would support it. It has to be done amicably  - I don't see Williams forcing anyone to do it because it might go against their [AFM] benefits.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[crumbs 14,319]

25 minutes ago, Amer said:

If he wants to personally see an expanded release he would need to request or wish AFM to make the waiver which Im sure they would support it.

 

Agreed, and it's possible Williams' management might instigate that process. They've requested other scores have expansions in the past.

 

Especially if it was a 20th anniversary release. Would be more than a little ridiculous if the AFM didn't think that was sufficiently old enough to grant a waiver.

 

Realistically the sliding date should've only been 10 years, meaning everything except BFG/Post/Fabelmans/SW sequels/DOD would've been accessible by now.

[FSC 2]

Does someone from this forum knows someone from the Williams' management and can ask about the possibility to grant a waiver for an expanded/complete Geisha release for the 20th anniversary of the movie?

 

I guess there is a chance to make a lot of money from such a release.

 

I dream here but next to an expanded version, how does a deluxe version sounds like, which additionally includes a signed booklet / movie poster.

I would gladly buy it, even if it will cost $200-$300. I'm sure a lot of John Williams fans would appreciate such a release.

[ThePenitentMan1 744]

1 hour ago, FSC said:

Does someone from this forum knows someone from the Williams' management and can ask about the possibility to grant a waiver for an expanded/complete Geisha release for the 20th anniversary of the movie?

 

I guess there is a chance to make a lot of money from such a release.

 

I dream here but next to an expanded version, how does a deluxe version sounds like, which additionally includes a signed booklet / movie poster.

I would gladly buy it, even if it will cost $200-$300. I'm sure a lot of John Williams fans would appreciate such a release.

 

At the rate the Specialty Labels are able to complete these releases, considering complications like approvals and stuff, I think the 25th Anniversary might be a more reasonable timeframe.

 

_{And I swear, if someone responds to your post with "Czech Pierre"...}