YookaMusic
| 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.yookamusic.com | |
|---|---|---|
| Accepting Submissions: | Yes | |
| Submit Via Uploads: | Yes | |
| Submit Via Mail: | No | |
| Submissions Reviewed: | Yes | |
| Types Accepted: |
|
|
| Charge For Submissions: | No | |
| Up Front Money: | ||
| Royalty Free: (non-broadcast use) |
No | |
| Exclusivity: (Exclusive, Non, Semi) (Semi = Free to place on own but not with another library) |
Non-Exclusive | |
| Re-Title: | No | |
| Set Own Price: | No | |
| Contract Length: | None | |
| Payment Schedule: | Quarterly | |
| License Fee Split: (writer/library) |
50/50 | |
| PRO Split Based on 100%: (writer/library writer/library/publisher or writer) |
100/0 | |
| Requires Licensee To File Cue Sheet: | Yes | |
| Notes: | ||
Categories: Music Libraries T to Z | 
Tags: composer, music, songwriter | 
233 Comments »
Loading ...
8 tracks – 1 sale – ~6months
[Reply]
SC, July 20th, 2010 at 7:37 am Reply:
One sale in 5-6 months would be fine with me, even a year wouldn’t bother me. I have 5 tracks with them so far but its only been about 2 months.
[Reply]
Anonymous, July 20th, 2010 at 7:49 am Reply:
40 tracks, 5 months, no sales
[Reply]
anon, July 20th, 2010 at 1:58 pm Reply:
5 months is a ridiculously small amount of time in this business. Things are measured in years, not months. Sometimes it can be 3-5 years (or never) with any library.
You need to have a lot of tracks spread around a lot of libraries and keep feeding the pipeline.
[Reply]
Matt, July 20th, 2010 at 2:12 pm Reply:
Some libraries require a lot of patience, especially when it’s royalties based income or license fees. 3-5 years might be a little excessive, but a time frame of at least 2 years is not unreasonable. That said, I think that you can expect quicker results from royalty free sites or any online library, where upon uploading, your tracks are immediately available for licensing.
[Reply]
SC, July 20th, 2010 at 2:14 pm Reply:
I agree. The first library I signed with took about a year before I had any placements. Sales in 5 months for that type of library is great in my book.
[Reply]
Yooka (no usage) gets almost the same rating as Extreme and higher than De Wolfe and KPM – whose music earns millions and gets used everywhere.
I think this site is excellent. However, the ratings are a joke so can we just dispense with them? What possible use are they apart from them being a way for the disgruntled to get some payback? I rather suspect people are rating certain libraries on whether someone or other responded to their demo rather than on the overall quality of the library.
Please dump the ratings!
[Reply]
anon, July 29th, 2010 at 7:07 am Reply:
>>>> I rather suspect people are rating certain libraries on whether someone or other responded to their demo rather than on the overall quality of the library.
Yes, that’s the majority of the problem. Many posters judge by how responsive libraries are to demos, how easy they are to submit to, how readily they sign tracks, etc. I agree that the ratings should be dumped.
[Reply]
Denis Woods, July 29th, 2010 at 7:36 am Reply:
Bit of an over reaction do you not think ? First of all I dont know what the motive of anyone
giving a rating is and neither do you. Secondly, on this site a lot writers/posters/raters are in the non exclusive side of the business, hence if you look at the main ratings section it reflects this.
If there were a significant number of writers for De Wolfe and KPM who post and rate here, their ratings would go up.There obviously isn’t, or if there is they dont think much of them. Simple maths really. This site can only cater for the people that post on it and it reflects their experiences wether you like it, or agree with it.
Now if the question is does Yooka deserve the rating it has? I dont think it does, but to scrap the whole ratings system because I dont agree with one of them is fairly nonsensical IMHO
Also I think for transparency people should post with their real name, hence I have just done so. I used to use Denis W.
[Reply]
John (the other John), July 29th, 2010 at 8:40 am Reply:
“Also I think for transparency people should post with their real name, hence I have just done so. I used to use Denis W”
Though that would defeat the intent of Art’s website. Posters may not want to share their thoughts about companies they’re associated with.
Art has a unique outlet for a wide variety of opinions that couldn’t exist on other websites. Better not to flush the baby out with the bath water.
[Reply]
Denis Woods, July 29th, 2010 at 8:56 am Reply:
Fair point John, I am just suspicious about “anon” sigs in general posting things like “dump the ratings system” or ranting in general. I think it also has to be remembered that this site is funded and maintained by one person, Art. I dont think enough posters realize this, they seem to think it is funded and operated by some bigger entity. It is his prerogative to do what he wants ultimately. If there is a vote I say dont change anything.
[Reply]
Art, July 29th, 2010 at 9:23 am Reply:
Thanks for the input guys. There is now a poll to vote on keeping the ratings page or dumping it. Check the right hand column under the library listings and cast your vote!
[Reply]
John (the other John), July 29th, 2010 at 9:45 am Reply:
Just an idea…
It may be a good idea if everyone had a user name (real or fictitious) that can’t be changed. At least we’ll know that the same person isn’t double dipping to add more credibility to his/her opinions.
I always use “john (the other John)”, though sometimes the name in the box is missing and gets posted as anonymous.
[Reply]
Art, July 29th, 2010 at 10:03 am Reply:
I could set it up so all commenters would have to register in order to comment. You could still use a fictitious name but it might keep everything a bit credible.
[Reply]
Denis Woods, July 29th, 2010 at 10:13 am Reply:
I think thats a good idea Art.
[Reply]
John (the other John), July 29th, 2010 at 10:21 am Reply:
Sounds good Art.
[Reply]
The issue with ratings is similar to what others have complained about when they see good, solid libraries and services get public negative press they don’t deserve. At least with posts, others generally come back and counter innaccurate statements such as “Library X not worth dealing with” or “Library Y knows nothing about music”.
You really can’t rate music libraries on any one scale anyway. They have different pluses and minuses, target different markets, have different approaches, etc. One might be very difficult to get a track into but have a great track record with the songs they do accept (e.g. Crucial). Another may be a new, non-exclusive website based library whose main goal is to build a catalog and therefore is super-friendly regarding submissions. A library like Pump might get a large number of placements per year but then again their catalog size is probably in the millions. A library might get a few placements a year but only work a small, select catalog of 1000 tracks. There are way too many variables.
In the long run what matters is how your music may or may not get placed, not “feel good” factors.
[Reply]
Jello, July 29th, 2010 at 9:25 am Reply:
Agreed. You can’t rate libraries in the same way that you can rate a tangible object like a Belkin bluetooth adaptor on Amazon. It’s just ridiculous.
If you look at the Yooka comments, there’s very few placements but alot of excitement expressed about trax being accepted. I venture that high ratings will result from your succesful track submission. When starting out this is many a composer’s raison d’etre. Your tracks don’t get responded to by KPM or De Wolfe? Well go and give them a bad rating because they didn’t get back to you. It’s plainly obvious that this is going on here just by reading through a few comments.
Ergo, it’s totally flawed and not represetative of the business (which I make a living in) in the least bit.
[Reply]