Song Street Records
| If you are a composer and/or songwriter, please leave your comments and experiences with this company. We want to hear the good as well as the bad! Please rate, from 1 to 10, by clicking on one of the stars. Below is some general information but we make no guarantee of accuracy. Check with the company for all details. Please contact us for any corrections. | ||
| URL: | http://www.songstreetrecords.com/ | |
|---|---|---|
| Accepting Submissions: | Yes | |
| Submit Via Uploads: | Yes | |
| Submit Via Mail: | Yes | |
| Submissions Reviewed: | Yes | |
| Types Accepted: |
|
|
| Charge For Submissions: | No | |
| Up Front Money: | No | |
| Royalty Free: (non-broadcast use) |
No | |
| Exclusivity: (Exclusive, Non, Semi) (Semi = Free to place on own but not with another library) |
Exclusive | |
| Re-Title: | Yes | |
| Set Own Price: | No | |
| Contract Length: | 3 Years | |
| Payment Schedule: | Quarterly | |
| License Fee Split: (writer/library) |
50/50 | |
| PRO Split Based on 100%: (writer/library writer/library/publisher or writer) |
50/50 | |
| Requires Licensee To File Cue Sheet: | Yes | |
| Notes: | Formerly 615 Song Catalog | |
Categories: Music Libraries S to S | 
Tags: 615 music, 615 song catalog, composers, music libraries, music library, songwriters | 
17 Comments »
Loading ...
I like these guys and have placed 5-6 songs with them, non-exclusively. No placements yet but professional to deal with. I get the feeling they don’t listen to submissions often and do not respond unless interested.
[Reply]
They are really semi-exclusive– they don’t want you signing tracks with them and other libraries which is very understandable and reasonable.
[Reply]
My agreement with them is non-exclusive. They would prefer exclusivity but do not require it or at least did not of me.
[Reply]
anon, March 24th, 2010 at 5:36 pm Reply:
They do say on their site that if the songs you sign with them are in other libraries, that you should disclose that up front. I assume that means after the fact as well.
My understanding is (as you mentioned) it’s not a contractual obligation. For me, when a library makes a point about their preference on something like that, I follow it. The last thing I want to do is piss off a good library.
Best of luck with the tracks you signed!
[Reply]
I agree with you. I did tell them upfront and they were cool about it.
[Reply]
They dont want you to sign with other licensing companies but that does not mean you cant go get the work yourself.There are many other places and people to shop your music to and be a part of there business in this process.I think we all need to see how exclusivity verse non-exclusivity plays out with the pros as well.This really could change the game but yet to be determined as more music floods the marketplace.
Whos to say you could not retitle yourself.You could put different metadata and different info and who is ever going to know.Sounds a bit unscrupulous but then again a way to maximize your music.I have never done this but sometimes feel tempted.
[Reply]
Matt, March 24th, 2010 at 9:24 pm Reply:
Hey DP, my issue with the ’semi-exclusive’ deal is how libraries like this say it’s only ok if you go get the work yourself – but what about your own library? What if you developed your own company, got pretty successful, and competed with them for licenses? I guess they’re betting that most composers won’t want to trouble themselves with starting a library company.
[Reply]
Dp, March 24th, 2010 at 10:23 pm Reply:
Well that is exactly right.Do you want to spend time being a writer or a publisher.
Of course the best of both worlds is to do both and hire who you need to fill the gaps.This is essentially what I did for someone else though I am on my own now.
I was the composer and former employer the business man and musician to but who had a lawyer in his best interest and not mine.He composed also but he was not at all hip but corny sells too.Sure could BS though but that only gets you so far.This business has really changed over the last few years and hiring composers is not necessarily the norm where licensing now is.Maybe we will come full circle but we shall live the mystery.
Remember that most contracts never say you cant be a publisher yourself even the exclusive ones.I have never seen that in the contracts i have read,again how are they going to find out.Sick theLibrary police on you.I highly doubt it.
[Reply]
They’ve just changed their name to Song Street Records, and it sounds like they’ve changed their contract terms as well. They said they are now using an exclusive agreement.
[Reply]
That’s true. I received notice through the mail that they would not be able to keep any tracks that were not exclusive to their library.
[Reply]
Matt, June 13th, 2010 at 8:39 pm Reply:
Interesting… I wonder if we’re going to start seeing this more and more throughout the library business. If more libraries are going to start paying for exclusive tracks, then great! If they start wanting music exclusively for free … not so great.
[Reply]
It sounds like they are being consistent then. Thanks for the update.
[Reply]
Matt, they are not paying upfront. But this is the second deal I have heard about in a week where they are asking for exclusivity without any upfront money. I think the re-title movement may have hit a speedbump. Both deals said they didn’t want to deal with pitching a re-titled track. I’m going to try them out with a few tracks and see how they do. I write a lot, so I don’t feel I’d be losing too much to give them some older tracks.
[Reply]
oontz oontz, June 13th, 2010 at 9:35 pm Reply:
Thats good,
Re-titling hurts the production music industry about as much as file-sharing hurt the pop record industry.
[Reply]
Thanks everyone, got them updated to reflect their new name and deal.
[Reply]