Retitling music
There is a lot of controversy about the practice of retitling music by music libraries that offer non-exclusive deals. Retitling allows the composer to place their music with many companies thus widening the opportunities for getting their music heard and thus sold. Some think this “de-values” ones music while others think it’s unethical or possibly illegal.
I happen to think it’s a good thing. What do you think?
Categories: Blog | 
Tags: composer, controversy, music, music libraries, Retitling | 
53 Comments »
Getting a composer’s music “out there” is a great thing, but would be better to keep original title, and have other sellers set up as co-publishers or sub-publishers who have compatible marketing niches with the primary copyright owners, i.e. the “master” publishers.
This is a win-win like distribution in the physical world, while keeping the original song’s name to help promote and increase it’s fullest potential value (recognition and reputation) over time. The sales percentages (commissions) and revenue sharing amounts could be the same, but would need to be agreed on (in writing) before such new deals are done.
So I believe there are better business models than the old (worn out) re-titling game. Legally it’s not even compatible with the copyright laws, so there’s got to be a better way!
Michael
[Reply]
it actually is compatible with the copyright laws, or none of the companies that do it, would take such measures to make it part of their business model, but like you say, the controversy is still there. you can’t copyright titles and as long as the original music is copyrighted with the library of congress, the copyright owner should be okay. unless you’re looking to be the next Beatle, it shouldn’t matter if your music is being retitled. whoever gets it into the hands that subsequently gets it heard, should get their rightful share, especially for composers that are pumping out music and wanting to make a living out of doing just that. look how many libraries there are listed here. you think composers would make more money by not retitling and going with just one exclusive publisher who isn’t going to push your music as much as the libraries will anyway? these days, you gain recognition by how many credits you have or how many digital downloads you have. you think none of the bigger composers haven’t gone behind their exclusive publisher’s back to rename titles so that they would have more opportunity? even some of them are retitling!!
[Reply]
I’ve had several offers to place my music in various film and TV projects if I agreed to the retitling process. So far, I’ve resisted this approach and I’m waiting for someone to come up with another model for third party compensation for placement that doesn’t affect my original copyright.
This is music that was NOT written for library use initially.
[Reply]
RETITLING isnt the way forward ANYMORE
[Reply]
I suppose many people here have heard about the photographer Annie Leibovitz’s recent financial problems. One thing struck me: she was able to leverage her copyrights into a very tidy advance. Go try that with copyrights that are split left right and centre.
[Reply]
The business of putting the same piece of work into many different outlets under different names is simply deceptive………. one cannot complain about the bad ethics of Publishers PRO’s etc if one stoops to the same low morals.
KISS
[Reply]
DECEPTIVE TO WHOM???
[Reply]
A lot of people have very strong opinions about re-titling and I certainly respect their opinions.
I guess I don’t understand what the alternative is in this marketplace. Do I really want to sign with one music library and hope that they are going to do a good job of placing my music? Do I want to wait a year or so with that one company and then move on to another if they are not cutting it? Not so much. After all as much as I love the music I create it is just a product and it’s also all about shelf space. I want to be in as many stores as possible with my product, albeit quality stores.
I also don’t see how re-titling is deceptive. Is it deceptive that only a few manufacturers in various industries make a variety of different branded TVs, appliances, mattresses, food, drink? It’s done all the time and has been going on for a long time. As for the legality of it and all the “what ifs” that people bring up? Obviously there are many people buying into this business model and new ideas have generally been ahead of the curve of the accepted norm. In 1903, the president of the Michigan Savings Bank advised Henry Ford’s lawyer not to invest in Ford Motor Company, saying, “The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty, a fad.”
Until someone can show me a better way, re-titling makes the most sense for me.
Art
[Reply]
The way I see it, re-titling is SIMPLY a way for licensing companies to claim a share of the back-end royalties, but without claiming to be a true administrator or co-publisher for a composer…It’s almost like an administration or co-publishing deal loophole, in favor of the licensing company.
Basically you’re duplicating a song with your PRO, and giving up a portion of your publishing for that duplicated song, without truly being compensated for it. I mean really…WHY SHOULD A LICENSING COMPANY RECEIVE ANY BACK-END ROYALTIES?!?!?! THEY’RE ALREADY GETTING HALF OF THE LICENSE FEE FOR THEIR EFFORTS. THIS IS A CO-PUBLISHING DEAL, but without any of the potential perks (primarily, negotiation of an ADVANCE, to compensate for a percentage of the publishing!!!).
I don’t see a great benefit for composers to create a mirror-image of their own music, just so that a licensing company can get paid.
A LOT of licensing companies out there are doing this. And I understand the “50% of something is better than 100% of nothing” argument, so please don’t bring this up. Time and time again, it seems like the musician/artist/composer, once again, is the one who truly suffers from deceptive industry practices…And I’m adding re-titling to that loooooong list!
Any comments are encouraged! This is an important topic, so I’m all ears!!!
[Reply]
Art, September 13th, 2009 at 11:29 pm Reply:
I have worked directly with a TV production company that produces a lot of shows for various cable channels. They were constantly being bombarded by music libraries willing to give them hard drives of music for little or nothing upfront, just the back end monies. I also know of some production houses that will only work with a music library for NO upfront money and ONLY if they split the back end with the library. So I think some of the libraries are getting hammered also. I have only placed a few things with an upfront sync fee. If I had much better credits I could demand more but until that time I’m comfortable with this business model.
Just my 2 pennies worth.
[Reply]
Again, I agree Art. the libraries do get hammered too and some of these libraries really are “in-the-know” about music publishing and licensing. they shouldn’t work for free, so when they are getting us deals that don’t pay anything upfront, they should get their equal shares on the backend. the only way to do that is to retitle so that we can still work with others that are trying to do the same thing. it’s actually a very good thing for us and i don’t know why people keep saying that it is deceptive. it’s only deceptive if the writer has no idea that you are renaming the titles.
[Reply]
Re-titling, and least for the past 5-10 years and near future has opened up tons of doors for libraries and composers. When the demand for film/TV (a lot was cable shows) grew like wild, many new libraries jumped into the business. But there was no way many songwriters and composers would sign exclusive deals with them. So, this method allowed them to have music to pitch. And since there was both increased demand and a big supply of music, many libraries became successful.
I don’t think anyone has truly challenged this in the courts regarding copyright law so I’m not sure if it’s true that just because this is done, it is compatible with those laws. But a lot of people– composers, libaries, and PRO’s are happy with it. (I am happy with it!)
Re-titling is primarily used so libraries can collect back end royalties only on their specific uses of music, while not affecting royalties for other uses. A large percentage of libraries take the publisher’s share of PRO royalties (50% of the pie).
I thought I read some comments that libraries shouldn’t have to take any back end money since they get 50% of the up-front license fees. There are a lot of variables there and a library having a business model that keeps them operating and effective is important too. In many cases, with license fees so small these days, if they took no back-end they’d have to close shop. For example, if a library serves mainly cable TV networks like MTV, their only real source of income would be back end. In other markets like advertising jingles, big time films, etc there may be much more in the way of license fees.
With a number of libraries who don’t take back-end, I do scratch my head as to how they will stay in business. (I’m sure there are quite a few with sound biz models).
I don’t see any reason to look down on re-titling libraries. What matters is if they have a sound business and can make placements. As with libraries that pay no license fee up-front, you have to look at where you are in your career and the entire picture. I’ve seen folks who never placed a thing, stand on principle while their CD’s gathered dust bunnies on their shelves.
The bad part of this whole re-titling thing is music supervisors are getting bombarded by way too many libraries, thousands of tracks, and many duplicates. There may come a point where they get frustrated and start shifting to only work with exclusive libraries. They don’t have a lot of time and don’t need any hassles. Knowing a library truly has a song under contract is one less issue for them. I expect some weeding out over the next few years.
I have tracks in a number of re-titling libaries, one of which has made TV placements for me.
[Reply]
Re-titling is a loophole, plain and simple. I’m not knocking the fact that placements can, and will, be made with re-titling. That’s the whole point as far as the licensing company is concerned.
I still don’t understand how it makes sense for a licensing company to take a portion (in some cases I’ve seen, ALL) of the publisher’s share, without truly owning the publishing of the SONG to begin with! Someone recognized the fact that the PROs don’t truly track an actual SONG, but the song TITLE…So licensing companies can claim publishing on a TITLE (not the copyrighted SONG), FOREVER?!?!? When did a title of a song become something to negotiate exclusively, in a non-exclusive agreement (???), for the sake of making money??? As someone pointed out earlier, eventually, music supervisors are going to get sick of getting tons of duplicates of the same song.
This blog asks some of the same questions about re-titling that I ask:
http://songwritergotchas.blogspot.com/2006/10/non-exclusive-re-titling-deals-boon-to.html
Who knows if I’ll eventually work with a licensing company that engages in re-titling…I think I probably will, just because it seems to be the norm nowadays. But artists need to truly understand both sides of this concept, because I see years down the road, re-titling is going to cause a MESS for copyright holders!
[Reply]
Hi Floe
The article in that link brings up excellent points. Will there one day be a legal challenge that rules out this practice?
A couple of notes to composers to help avoid problems.
(1) If you sign any non-exclusive deals for a track, you cannot also sign an exclusive deal such as a publishing one for the same track. If you want to accept an exclusive offer you have to terminate (if possible) those other contracts. Signing an exclusive while having other deals out there is putting your signature on a lie. It could cause big legal grief for you and the licensee. However, when you sign a contract you almost always assume all liability for claims. Causing grief for end-users hurts all of us.
(2) Read contract language very carefully– consult with a **qualified entertainment** attorney. I’ve seen some horribly written non-exclusive re-title contracts which looked like someone just hacked up a standard publishing contract. A non-exclusive library contract should not have wording like “assigns copyright”, “assigns all rights” in the way publishing deals do. You are (in a nutshell) only assigning them the right to re-title and collect their share of royalties.
Item 2 is important for a lot of obvious reasons but in the event of a conflict where 2 libraries make a claim on a submission and show their contracts, it can be really ugly. One actually claims to own the copyright!
I am not a lawyer- the big disclaimer here.
Floe, you said:
** I still don’t understand how it makes sense for a licensing company to take a portion (in some cases I’ve seen, ALL) of the publisher’s share, without truly owning the publishing of the SONG to begin with! **
There are 2 ways of looking at what you said. It sounds like you think it’s bad for libraries to take some or all of the publisher’s share. **I may have read that wrong and, if so, sorry.** Libraries need to make money too or they wouldn’t be in business. For their hard work in actually making placements, from my perspective, they are very welcome to 1/2 of the PRO revenue. But on the other hand, very often composers are unwilling to sign a full publishing contract which would make taking the publisher’s share undoubtably legal. So, is there a contradiction here?
I ran a start-up library for a while and made a few placements. As a new kid on the block, I could barely get composers to sign my non-exclusive (and very friendly!) contract, let alone an exclusive one. They were scared to death of signing anything. As composers, if we are concerned about re-titling, how willing would we be to sign exclusive deals?
It’s all food for thought.
[Reply]
Hi ABOUT RE-TITLING,
Thanks for your comments. I truly appreciate your view of this concept, and you’ve made some great points.
Your second point is very important, because as you said, some re-titling contracts may ask for a portion of copyright or “assign all rights”, etc. Being an artist, I’ve even seen some standard record contracts with a co-publishing section, which is a big no-no in my opinion, especially if the record company isn’t actively pursuing placements for the artist.
But back to the subject, I read a previous comment in which someone said that a licensing company should indeed have a portion of the back-end royalties, because the licensing fees are getting more scare, or non-existent in some cases. That may be true, but from a composer’s standpoint, SO WHAT! That is no excuse for a licensing company to receive back-end royalties via re-titling. As it says in most the these agreements, it is agreed the licensing fee is split (in most cases) 50/50. If there is a case where there is no licensing fee, or a very small one, then SO BE IT!!! It doesn’t change the fact that a licensing fee is still split between the composer and the licensing company!!!
On top of that, if licensing fees are so scarce, then why do companies like Pump Audio SUDDENLY choose to take even a LARGER portion of the licensing fee (now 65% instead of 50%)??? I understand they were bought recently by Getty Images, but still…I would assume licensing fees are still pretty decent nowadays, especially for an independent artist!
Me personally, I am totally ok with signing an exclusive deal with a publishing company (actually have an administration deal at this time). But if it’s a co-pub deal, and I’m giving a portion of the copyright and publishing to someone, there’s definitely going to be some serious negotiation.
And I’m kind of stuck in the middle about licensing companies receiving any back-end royalties. I’m more of the opposing side, due to the re-titling thing. I just don’t like how some companies plaster on their site “You keep all of your writer’s share” or “everything is fairly split 50/50″, as if they are being totally straightforward with composers. OF COURSE I get to keep all of the writer’s share, because it’s SUPPOSED TO BE OFF LIMITS TO BEGIN WITH!!!
And some companies who scream “everything is fairly split 50/50″ look to take ALL of the publisher’s share! Is it me, or does anyone else feel taking ALL of the publisher’s share for a publishing company’s “efforts” is extreme?!?!?! So I think the reason why some composers are afraid to sign anything is because either (a) they don’t understand what they’re signing and refuse to find a lawyer…or (b) they are turned off by some of the misleading wordplay that some licensing companies use.
Keep the comments coming, because this is important! Thanks Art for this site!!!! I’ve learned a LOT in such a short period of time!!!
[Reply]
*my comment above…sorry for the typos…replace “scare” with “scarce”. My brain was doing some heavy churning as I was typing, even after the proofread
[Reply]
Geez…I suck
With this quesiton I MEANT to say: Is it me, or does anyone else feel taking ALL of the publisher’s share for a LICENSING company’s “efforts” is extreme?!?!?!
I guess, to some extent, this is a good question for publishing companies also, but obviously, the discussion is directly related to licensing companies.
Art…I’m assuming a comment cannot be edited/deleted, since the comments are anonymous…?
Sorry, I’ll proofread a couple of more times with all future comments!
[Reply]
Floe
We are all helpless without spell checkers and post editing these days!
You don’t suck, LOL!
I disagree with you about libraries taking the publisher’s share. In most ways they are doing the same job as a standard music publisher in promoting your music. They have the same expenses for offices, phones, CD’s, employees, subscriptions to professional lead sources, internet sites, etc, etc. The 50/50 split with the publisher has been industry practice for many years and seems fair. I don’t see why you would give 50% to a “publisher” but not a library when they successfully market your music.
We can agree to disagree, no sweat.
I mentioned that I ran a very small library for a while and learned a lot about what it’s like on the other side. It’s very hard work and expensive. It wasn’t my F/T job and with so many libraries popping up, I gave it up. Without F/T effort to build the right personal relationships and having to be one of 100 guys sending tracks out for the same opp, I realized it wasn’t worth it.
Even had I never done that, I’d rather pay 50% to the library who does the job for me, then sit with a contract that has me keep all PRO royalties but effectively is just a piece of paper.
[Reply]
Art, September 16th, 2009 at 3:48 pm Reply:
Just added the ability to edit comments for anonymous users. Now to find a spell check plug in!
Art
[Reply]
Thanks Art!!! Keep up the great work!!!
And thanks again ABOUT RE-TITLING! The more we discuss this, the more I understand your point about giving libraries half of the publisher’s share. Giving the amount of work and effort most libraries engage in, it does make sense to offer some kind of compensation for their efforts, on top of their share of the licensing fee. I would think, if anything, splitting the publisher’s share is fair. But as I said in an earlier post, I don’t agree with a library receiving ALL of the publisher’s share…I still think that’s extreme. Your average co-publishing or administration deal would grant a publisher half of the publisher’s share, so I guess granting the same to a library (especially a library that is working HARD for their composers) would be ok.
It seems like there must be a better way to do this, though, without engaging in re-titling. Because as I’ve said before, I just see potential for a lot of headache down the road if you have a lot of re-titling deals, with duplicate titles being sent to music supervisors…even if you do choose to cancel the deals. Libraries would continue to be paid forever for a mirror image of a song that a publisher may eventually own, if you engage in a co-publishing deal, for example. The publisher surely would not be happy with that!!!
In the end, my initial goal is working with those who don’t partake in taking any back-end royalties. Then, as a next step, CAREFULLY consider SOME libraries who re-title. This site is giving us very valuable information to help weed out the weak libraries out there.
Composers should empower themselves and put their foot down when discussing deals with libraries. For example, me personally, I refuse to deal with any library that charge any upfront fee to submit tracks. That’s ridiculous to me!!! This is one example of how composers should empower themselves. Because in the end, this is still OUR music we’re offering to libraries. Composers should understand the value in their music, and not let anyone gain access to their work, just because they’ve received “the green light”.
I wonder how much negotiation some of these libraries are willing to engage in with composers? I guess it wouldn’t hurt to give that a shot. Negotiation should always be involved when contracts are involved, and it seems there should be no exception for libraries that re-title.
Thanks again for the input. Truly appreciate the healthy conversation!!!
[Reply]
Hi Floe
We have to stop meeting like this.
I agree we should never pay money to submit tracks to a library. Reviewing music is their business. That’s why I’m not big on Sonicbids or Broadjam. They listing parties take part of the submission fee and I’ve seen cases where it appears that’s all they were in it for.
Taxi is different there, BTW, because the listing parties do not share in the fees so they have no motivation to run up the listings.
Regarding negotiating contracts, most of the time there is no room for negotiation on the financial side. Most libraries, except maybe very small startups, can’t have diffferent contract terms for different composers and have to manage who has what.
What you ***sometimes*** can negotiate are some minor wording changes or additional words. For example, you might be able to get a contract term can be cut back such as from 5 years to 3 years and/or change the exact wording on how you can terminate with notice… Or that the library will send you copies of cue sheets… Maybe you want an exception that your music won’t be used in porn or snuff films. A good entertainment attorney can tell you what the most important things to ask about are. It’s important not to overdo it– ask about only major things that might concern you. If you want the deal, you don’t want to be a pain to them.
A number of libraries, like Crucial, make it clear that their contract is non-negotiable.
All of us have to find a comfortable balance between protecting ourselves and making no career progress.
Floe, can I ask if you have any library deals or placements in film/TV?
[Reply]
I hear ya ABOUT RE-TITLING!!! It’s almost like it’s destiny!!! lol
Thanks for the insight on what composers can possibly look at negotiating with some libraries out there. I totally agree…You don’t want to overdo it, or else you can be a turn-off to the library. There was a library in particular that sent me a couple of emails, saying he is totally open to questions, comments, or concerns with their agreement. Even on their site, it says “we want composers to be completely comfortable with the agreement”. So at least with them, I think I can negotiate a few things.
Me personally, I have had a couple of placements…not many. I’m a recording artist and producer, and had stopped producing for a few years (being an artist, husband, father, manager, studio engineer, among other things, can take it’s toll…so I had to leave the producing alone for awhile. But I’ve just gotten back into producing, so I have a lot of instrumentals I’m looking to license (in addition to my songs).
[Reply]
I have to say that I agree with everything ABOUT RE-TITLING has said in this thread.
In addition to that, my experience has been that although I have a few tracks with different titles in a few different libraries, it is only one library at any given time that is placing a track. In other words, I have never – on a practical level – seen any of my tracks licensed out by more than one library, re-titling or not. In essence, it’s like having several agents working on your behalf and whoever gets a gig (i.e., gets a track placed) makes some money along with you.
Truth is, I’m getting nervous about this new resistance to re-titling from COMPOSERS!. It’s a good deal and one of the few remaining sources of revenue for film/TV composers. Don’t blow it by making this model go away…times are tough enough as it is.
[Reply]
Just to add, Dansen
Although I also agree that the whole thing may be shaky on a legal basis, I feel like I sometimes read contradictions from composers. Some will complain about re-titling, looking down at re-titling libaries, while at the same time declaring they would never sign an exclusive with a library. I think these POVs are at odds.
(Note: By “re-titling library” I mean one that re-titles solely to differentiate usage with PROs. Lots of libraries change titles for marketing purposes- to indicate the type of sound the track has)
Like you, I like re-titling because it is helping me get music signed and placed. Am I being selfish and ignoring some bigger picture? I don’t know.
Assuming no legal ruling suddenly shakes up the industry, things will settle in their place based on the laws of supply and demand.
[Reply]
One of the comments from Floe was the horror of giving up all publishing. I haven’t seen it that way. The contract I sign allow them to claim the publishing share of the performance rights for their placement. I can still (as my own publisher) flog the rights to the song, as long as I am clear that it is already in use on a nonexclusive basis. If you have a song with a full publisher, and all they do is a placement, they get the publishing share. There is no significant administrative work being done their either. And if you get a placement under an exclusive publishing deal–the publisher still gets their share of the PRO money, whereas with retitling, you can get it.
Tis a crazy world out there.
[Reply]
I wonder if anyone visiting this site has heard of this before, because it’s something I’ve only heard of recently: a library requesting that a composer use an alias, to have some kind of exclusivity to the name. Occasionally composers will create an alias to promote a commercial release, e.g. E S Posthumus (Pfeifer Brothers). However, that’s a different situation to a music library who simply want to separate themselves from other libraries that have hired the same composer in the past.
In case you’re wondering, it’s a big trailer music company, probably in the top 10.
[Reply]
Hope this is in-line still – do we actually re-register the work with our PRO if it was re-titled by the music library or can we just use the AKA on the original registration of works, with our PRO?
[Reply]
Usually the library registers the new title with your PRO. Unless you have the exact re-titling you won’t get paid.
[Reply]
Thanks John!
[Reply]
Interesting discussion. I’ve had several placements with a Library using the re-title model and live in the UK so it’s even muddier over here. They look to take 100% of my publishing and split the performance royalty 50/50. I would imagine if the track were to create $ 1000 then I’d essentially get 25% as they’d get 50% of the pie as a publisher and then the other 50% would be split with me at 25% so for every $1000 the track made I’d get $250. Or maybe I’m not fully understanding the process…
[Reply]
Ok, so let me get this straight here.
Lets say im in the UK, and have regsitered all my work with PRS. Now lets say thati sign a 50:50 deal with a retitle library (so i gethalf of all the backend) . Now what happens if i DONT register the retitles with PRS in the UK…do i still get paid from USA useage via BMI or ASCAP?
can someone clear this up once and for all please, cause a lot of busy libraries in the states offer this on a regular basis. The onyl probem i can see, is there is no way, other than to ring BMI or ASCAP and check wether if after signing to such a library, your work has actually been registered with the new joint writer publisher split.
[Reply]
@mort shuman – well why dont you just register the new titles ?
You must register the titles with PRS .. they will get ur dosh from their counterparts on other territories , ie the States ..
FWIW – The only time I sign exclusivity away – is when the Library PAYS UP FRONT with an advance or preferably non-recoup able production fees.
If they dont want to pay – then no – they sure as hell can’t own exclusivity on my hard work.
[Reply]
Thank you for your answer Boom. Its interesting, in that it must create a massive amount of overhead for all the PRO´s .
Interestingly though, why should i need to reregister the retitles with PRS in the UK? Surely the factthat my name is on the writing credit should be enough for them to know , as they DO communicate with ASCAP and BMI. For instance, if without a retitle, my music gets used on an american show, then using your logic, i would need to register the same title yet again with BM or ASCAP, just to make sure i do get my backend on that title.
Does that make sense?
[Reply]
NP
As said above – it’s the title that is important – that is what is on the cuesheet.
So just make sure the title is registered .. If I have a track with three different titles .. I will register it 3 times.
In fact some of my publishers go to the lengths of individually registering every single edit .. sometimes there are 15 versions .. so you have Track Title 1, Track Title 2, 3, 4, … etc etc
Best not to leave anything to chance.
It doesn’t really create over head. The cue sheets come in > the names match up ? you are proportioned your share of the royalty pot.
[Reply]
I don’t see why so many people complain about re-titling. Most of you do not make good enough tracks to generate any real money with an exclusive publisher. If your songs were so good, you would be with Sony/ATV, Universal Music, EMI, or Warner/Chappelle.
I myself do not try too hard to be “the best”. Why waste a year making three “spectacular” songs when I can make 100 simple songs in a year and get paid more money? I think that some of you just are not cut out for the business side of the music business.
[Reply]
Matt, December 9th, 2009 at 3:32 am Reply:
I’ve made more money off 3 of my best tracks, than off 100’s of my other tracks. When you have a seriously great track, you’re more likely to win significant license revenue. The world of royalty-free seems to reward quantity over quality (for now), while the big bucks world of licenses seeks the best there is.
[Reply]
“I don’t see why so many people complain about re-titling. Most of you do not make good enough tracks to generate any real money with an exclusive publisher” – Yadgyu
And how do you know that?
[Reply]
lol..it looks like one or two individuals here , are here to provide a comedic element, unwittingly or otherwise. Yadgu..dude, if youre doing well, then god bless you.
[Reply]
Gianmarco Leone, December 11th, 2009 at 2:30 pm Reply:
I’ve started coming back here just to see Yadgyu comments
[Reply]
“Why waste a year making three “spectacular” songs when I can make 100 simple songs in a year and get paid more money?” – Yadgyu
Have you always had so much passion for music Yadgyu?
[Reply]
Spectacular music generates spectacular money! – learned from own experience.
[Reply]
@MusicLibraryRpt Because spectacular music generates spectacular money! – learned from own experience. Re: Why waste a year making three …
via Twitoaster
[Reply]
This brings up the question: if the artist has a number of songs, some that are excellent and extremely well crafted over many hours or weeks, and others that are off- the- cuff improvs or more conventional, how should they be outplaced respectively?
The thing is that the excellent songs should probably be outplaced in a way that is given special treatment, and not just tossed in on royalty-free hard drive collections.
So what would the criteria and practices be by which to distinguish libraries or publishers who would give the best treatment and profitable placement to tunes that stand out more and required more investment of time from the artist?
[Reply]
Matt, December 10th, 2009 at 4:44 am Reply:
Well the easy answer is: put the really good tracks in as many high quality license based libraries as possible, i.e those that have high expectations of quality.
Some royalty free sites let you name your own price. Why not sell those great tracks on those sites too, for a higher than average price?
[Reply]
Yadgyu, December 11th, 2009 at 9:30 am Reply:
Quality is relative.
It is not about making the best song; it is about making the best-selling song. What good is a song if it isn’t generating any revenue?
[Reply]
Woody, December 11th, 2009 at 6:11 pm Reply:
Wow – there’s the attitude that killed the record labels… and how ARE those 72 songs about ducks treating you @ 75¢/each, Yadgyu?
[Reply]
Yadgyu, December 11th, 2009 at 11:38 pm Reply:
Not bad actually.
I just got my collection licensed to two libraries. Those songs are being used on a non-exclusive basis. That collection, “Random Ducks”, is exactly what the music library world needs.
There are too many one-off tracks by too many small-time musicians. Collectors want variety and they want quantity. How can someone really expect to make any money off of one song in a 5,000+ song library? My songs will compete against each other, instead of other people’s songs. I will be knocking out the competition and leaving myself with more opportunities for my music to be used.
I am working on a follow-up that I plan to submit on an exclusive basis. I have a few libraries interested. When I finalize things, I will let you guys know. Hopefully we can all celebrate our successes together.
Get On My Level!!!
[Reply]
Thanks – I need to study the listings some more.
[Reply]
“What good is a song if it isn’t generating any revenue?” – Yadgyu
How about just the pleasure of composing and listening…Sounds like your passion is in making money, not music.
That mentality epitomizes what the Music Industry is turning into.
[Reply]
Yadgyu, December 11th, 2009 at 11:41 pm Reply:
Why are you on a site about making money from musical compositions if you are not interested in making money from musical compositions? Sounds a bit kooky to me. But to each his own.
Money isn’t everything, right? Keep telling that to yourself.
[Reply]
Interested in making money – yes. But I have a passion for music. I’d be composing music regardless.
[Reply]
I think Yadgyu has a point. The more ducky musics you have on a library, the more you have the chance of your music being chosen by mistake.
Just kidding
[Reply]