I'm formulating a lot of my responses based on my own friendship (of sorts) with a person I know is actively working as a game composer currently and they've tended to be fairly open (just shy of disclosing things like final numbers/etc.) about how they get contracted for work, among other things. That's also why I mention that not every composer clearly has the same luxury as the next. I've seen responses from other composers (people I have little to no relationship with) mention that they've worked on a game solely as a "we pay you when the game's done" type of agreement and have mentioned that they never worked out anything in regard to selling their work outside of what's included in the game itself, leaving them with no means of additional income beyond that initial payout agreement.

Based on what's been related to me, it's definitely true (though I can't give any specific examples) that some people working as composers have gone the "I'll do it for exposure" route (whether free or for a sum that's far less than what their time and effort is worth) but it's not the norm and is something that typically shouldn't be the driving force if the person willing to go that path expects to continue working as a composer (beyond the obvious of "recognition alone doesn't pay the bills").

No disagreement with this. My initial argument toward this was more to the fact that a lot of composers, especially those just starting out don't take the time to realistically evaluate all their options and in fringe cases, the developers they work with won't necessarily be quick to tell them "this could work out better for you in x event" either. In general, whether someone's an entirely new composer hoping to see future success or not, they should never be signing over rights to their work for nothing/next to nothing in hopes that the game/etc. it's included in somehow blows up into something big and begins netting them more and more work as a result. They should make it clear that it's their work and make it known to the people they work with that they (at least) deserve the ability to sell it outside of the product it would already be included in (certainly a bonus on that front if the game happens to bomb but word somehow picks up that the music in it wasn't as trash as the rest of it was viewed).

I certainly wouldn't say 'never'. That is exactly what I might be liable to do--and recommend that others do--if I have no reputation, and believed in a product and personally thought it would be successful. Again, it's a choice made on a case-by-case basis.

The thing is, it's not necessarily the musician's "work". It's only his if he owns the attendant rights. What a musician does with his mind and body are not sacred and fundamentally different than what an architect or waiter does with his.

But my point is that if I were developing, say, The Legend of Zelda, I may well want to secure the rights to music so that it is only heard within my game and remains unique in that way. It is my right to ask that of a musician, and it is a musician's right to accede to or deny my request.


It seems that you confused my post with someone else's? I was only referring to my disinclination to listen to the music of the games I replay--outside of those play-throughs--since the music itself is part of what I look forward to when playing the games, and helps define the experience for me.

I wouldn't condone it personally, is perhaps a better choice of what I should have went with. Signing over the rights to something you created in hopes that what your creation is in might prove to be an overnight (generalized) success that would in turn bring you more work is just something that seems far too risky. Likewise, you could also be signing away rights to something that could potentially never end up finished (for any number of reasons) and if you didn't work out an agreement that if such a product is never finished to allow you to use/distribute the music (or art or similar) in some form, you're left with nothing at all.

I think I understood where you were going with that (I'm not going to pretend I have a complete grasp on everything, but I'd like to believe I'm scraping by).

I think you may have misinterpreted me though - in that I didn't mean "if you write/perform that music, you and you alone own the rights", more that any composer should be working out with a developer that they both have the freedom associated with their respective creations: namely, as you put it, a developer being free to continue marketing their game with the music provided in it but at the same time, the developer acknowledging that said music is the property of the composer and the composer can (if they decide to do so) sell it outside of the game. The situation becomes a mutual win/win for any involved parties.

Also, and this is my own fault for conveying it badly, but I'm not extending this argument to a broad sweep of every person's contributions in any field (to go off your example - I don't believe an architect could then lay claim to a building they designed solely because "it was their design" nor do I believe any artist selling a painting could then drop into a buyer's home and reclaim it because "they painted it").

If a Sountrack is part of the package, i like it. But if you have to pay extra for the download version of the soundtrack than i don't pay. I only pay extra if it is a CD, DVD, Blu-ray or Vinyl. A good example is the retail version of Alan Wake. I first bought the Normal version and loved the game and the sountrack. So i bought the game again in the special edition version and was allready listening to the cd. The best song of the game was only a short version on the cd and the pop songs are missing, but still a good cd and it is at least good mastered (very rare these days, most cds are overcompressed these days).

Right. There are any number of specific ways to arrange things--it could be as you said, or that the rights revert after a period of time, etc.

But still, when reputation is likely worth far more than the current monetary value of one's music, it seems a good idea to be flexible rather than rigid, like a young engineer who might work for free for a month if it means the difference between getting into a promising position or not. Even if it doesn't work out, he isn't "left with nothing" any more than anyone is who takes a calculated risk on an investment, by spending his time or money or both. That's what I meant about musicians or artists not being "special". :P