Feedback – Music Library Details


I want to improve the information that is provided with each library listed. Would you please check out this post here and give me your feedback on this concept?

5 Replies to “Feedback – Music Library Details”

  1. That’s what I was thinking Art..You would probably go crazy if you focused on a lot of subjective info, for each and every library on the site. Definitely let the comments answer a lot of the subjective stuff…The info you have as of now is a good overview of a particular library. I think your info, coupled with composer comments, is going to be more than enough for a composer to decide if they feel the library is a good fit for them.

  2. Thanks for a lot of really great points and ideas. A lot of what you say is very true but also subjective. I think the subjective aspects of a library will be sorted out by the comments that people leave and I would hope over time that the rating system will smooth out the other data.

    Of course collecting all the data for each library will require a lot of work so I want to narrow it down to general information.

  3. One more thing…

    I want to re-emphasize how what that the above are **general** guidelines.

    One factor that is missing when we discuss whether or not a library did a good job placing our music is how good is the music? Music that elicits a “Wow! That is fantastic” reaction will always be easier to place, often regardless of the library. As musicians, we all tend to overrate our music to varying degrees. (**I include myself here!**)

    So if you see alot of times where people had music in libaries which didn’t get placed– yes it could be the quality of the library, but very often the music is the bigger factor.


  4. Probably more important that the detailed facts about each library– submission policy, front and back end splits, re-titling, etc is information on the most important factors determining if a library is a fit for your situation.

    Details about those things above have value, not saying they don’t.

    But my experience to date has been they can often be low my list when deciding who to work with.

    Ruling out for now, true midconduct regarding getting paid (it does happen but it really isn’t **all** that common), for 99% of us the goal is to get our music placed.

    Much more important IMHO are things like: (You may not be able to get all these answers & it’s not exhaustive)

    **** Nothing below represents hard and fast rules, just things to consider *******

    Non-exclusive vs. exclusive, of course as well as term and reversion for exclusive. If exclusive, is that for everything or only as far as other libraries? e.g. You might want to do song pitches to artists.

    What is their track record? How specific are the examples? Are they fairly recent or 5 years old? Does the track record truly represent the library or are they taking credit for something an owner or partner did in a different lifetime?

    What market do they serve? Are they one of hundreds sending songs to MTV (which is OK) or do they have a niche such as TV commercials?

    How large is the catalog? How does that compare with the number of placements they make? Making 100,000 placements with a catalog of 96 billion may not be as worthwhile as making 6 placements in a year with a catalog of 1000.

    What is their primary method of marketing? Do they put a bunch of tracks on a website and invite the “world” of music supervisors to come visit or do they market personally through their contacts (or both)? Do they send media such as CDs, DVDs, and hard disks to potential clients? That’s OK, but like the website thing, personal contacts and marketing along with it matter a lot.

    How selective are they? We all get a “feel good” when a library accepts our tracks. But if they accept pretty much everything into their catalog, it may have less value. Personally, I feel better if I submit 10 tracks and only 2 are accepted than if I submit those 10 and get an email a few minutes later that they are all now in the catalog. Less selective can indicate a “slap them on a website” marketing approach, which does work at times but not as much so as personal contact.

    Ease of submission if low on my list. Havng to do the extra work to contact and mail a CD to a solid library might be worth dozens of uploads to other’s on-line systems.

    Not everyone agrees, but what percentages they take or don’t take on licensing or PRO royalties is also lower on my list (assuming it’s not completely crazy which I don’t think I’ve seen yet). 50% of what a really good library generates is much better than 100% of nothing from 10 not so successful ones.

    One of the side effects of the “template” approach to people commenting on libraries is it can make readers focus on what might not be the most important things. It leans to the “feel good” factors like uploading, quick acceptance, and a contract that offers higher percentages.

    It’s also important not to assume that everyone out there is out the screw you when it comes to film/TV libraries. If you start with that premise, it hurts you. There will be some bad apples. Caution is reuqired but not over-suspiciousness. (A band signing with a manager or label is way more precarious)

    It is fine to ask ***a few*** questions about the things I mentioned before signing a deal. Just ask them politely as general information questions and don’t make it a mile long list. If you take a tone that sounds like you are challenging them, that can blow what might have been a good deal.

    Just my opinions.


    PS Is there a “general comment” blog? Or is this the place?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.